broze

Following on from Gordon's hand, here is another problem from the Young Chelsea's last night at it's current premises. [hv=pc=n&w=skq872ha83daq32c2&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=1sp2n(4%21S%2C%20Limit+)3c3d(Nat%2C%20GF)5cd(Pass%20would%20be%20forcing)p]133|200[/hv] Play problems to follow.

Pretty inconsiderate to post this in plain sight. Spoilt the problem. If you must 'show off' please use the spoiler tags.

Well, that hand is 8 PTs right? And that is what the bid was explained as so why would there be an adjustment?

I would definitely pass initially. Would double at any other vul and would also probably do it at MPs as CSG says to avoid needing to balance later, not nearly as important at IMPs. I would also consider double totally clear with the Majors flipped: [hv=pc=n&e=saq65h72dk95cq763&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=1h]133|200[/hv]

Another (more interesting?) question is whether the perfect bidding system would be consistent. That is to say holding the same cards under the exact same conditions would you always make the same bid? Certainly in the cardplay randomisation of spot cards is important for perfect defence. I wonder if an optimal bidding strategy would involve the randomisation of calls.

Club support, longer diamonds.

I, with many others, play 2NT as a 4 card spade limit raise.

The problem is after 1C-1D-1S isn't 2S now game forcing? I suppose you might not mind that too much with this unexpectedly would distribution.

I'm getting a really weird bug. The web client randomly types strange symbols into the chat bar. At first I thought it was a problem with my keyboard but it only ever happens on BBO. Mostly it posts strings of these: ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌ But also these: ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ , whatever the hell those are. And these: ®®®®®®® It doesn't really bother me - I just delete them - but thought it was odd.

Well yes, but if you actually read the scheme above, 1S-2H-2NT is artificial showing 6+S.

I also play something similar to this. How do you show 18-19 balanced as opener? I think we would bid 1♠-2♥-2♠-2NT-3NT but this puts the strong hand on the table. Perhaps this is the main disadvantage of using 2NT to show 6 spades. EDIT: Actually how about switching it up and using 1S-2H-3NT as 18-19 and 1S-2H-2S-2NT-3NT as 12-14?

Several very good players I know in England play the style that 1N-2C-2whatever-3m is non-forcing to play. Ergo 1NT-minor transfer-accept-3M is nat game forcing. This is a great hand for this treatment. Playing standard I would always bid 2C with this, esp at IMPs vul with a game bonus to protect.

So bidding 2♠ and then 3♣ shows the inv hand? Sounds like a good treatment. I remember a hand that Israel played in the 2011 BB vs. USA1 where the auction went something like P-(1S)-X-(P)-2S-(P)-3H-AP where the doubler had the GOSH hand and they missed a cold game. The cue-bidder was a passed hand so it wasn't too clear what was going on but shows that there's not much consensus about it even at the top level..

I always bid 2♣ over 1♦ if it's close - an excellent way to give the opps a chance to end up in the wrong strain. Here we see an added bonus in that the bid solves another problem later in the auction.

[hv=pc=n&s=sj7653h987642dcj5&w=sqhakjtdj9876cq97&n=skt9842hdat32ckt2&e=sahq53dkq54ca8643]399|300[/hv] Just remembered to post the full hand. The winning action at the second term is 4NT. Opps are cold for 5♠. Me and p ended up in a pretty horrid slam but going off was a bucket load of IMPs when the other tables were in 4♠x+1 N.

Too good for a limited splinter imo. I would bid 2NT Jacoby and then show the shortness.

:D I think it just makes sense. When you in effect move your honour leads down a notch it follows that you will see gains at the top (AK) and losses at the bottom (JT9). AK leads are much much higher in frequency ergo this style of leads looks like a winner. Ok, that is oversimplifying it A LOT but still sound reasoning. Leading from Hx holdings is ambiguous but I've noticed that I very rarely do this anyway.

More from JL and BBF on Rusinow here and here. I play Rusinow against suits and imo the main advantages come from the signals you get on the lead of an Ace; room for p-ship agreement here too. Also as JL mentions in one of his post if your style is to bang down aces a fair amount then it complements that nicely.

duplicate

1. Pass. Double by LHO will usually be an art game try so difficult to penalise but still too risky for me. 2. Clear pass. Pard can't bid 1♠. 3. 2♠. Part will not overcompete here with us having passed previously.

Prefer the overbid of 2♥ to everything else - you have a great hand for partner. Don't mind 3♦ (it's not really an overbid) because p is still there and he can bid hearts. 2♥ would be a must at MPs though where you worry about p passing 3♦ with a weak hand with 5-4 in the Majors.

Link broken too. :( If you use the BBF hyperlink feature it seems to work.

Intriguing. Care to elaborate? It's always interesting to hear how people go about the fundamentals of the game.

That hand obv doesn't bid 4♦... :blink:

This would mean 2NT (20-21) - 4NT is Ace asking. Simple effective rules are always difficult to create.