Chamaco

Se il conto a scendere del p a fiori è giusto, il dichiarante ha probabilmente AQxxx-QT-???-A?? (se il conto pari a fiori del p è doubleton, il dichiarante ha una 5-2-1-5 e il contratto è imbattibile) Se il p è partito con xx-Kxx-Kxxx-Q8xx, e il 10 di fiori è in mano al dichiarante, (mano dichiarante: AQxxx-QT-AQx-ATx) stare bassi puo' essere un errore fatale, perchè il p sarà messo in mano: se prende con la Q, non puo' muovere fiori (affranca il 9 di fiori per uno scarto di una perdente di quadri) e non puo' muovere quadri sotto K. Quindi entro di J di picche e muovo quadri.

Hi all :) I have a wish for the BBO Client, if possible: the ability to be able to boot a kibitzer. Yes, yes, I know it i possible to restrict kibs to ask permission, but I usually do not do it. Yet, after a while, I ran nto a couple of persons who joined as kibs and started to become obnoxious. It was too late to boot them because they were already there ! Yet, I do not want to be obliged to set the table with kibs restrictions because of a couple of rude persons. I'd much prefer to keep the table open to anyone, but still be able to ocasionally boot the few impolite persons. Anyone who knows me knows as well that I am rarely hostile, and should know that the fact that I came to ask this means there were some serious reasons Is it possible ? Thanks :)

Oh I know your point damn well :) But I always try to define well a defense vs a natural preempt before tackling the most sophisticated weapons. After all, the first thing to develop is the judgment and familiarity in front of a bidding situation. Once that is well defined, I agree it is necessary to work also on more complicated defences. First things first :)

Yeah I used the wrong wording. B) I should have used "takeout", but intended it as GF, even if light-ish (good 7 is ok). BTW we play 1NT = (12)13-15, so our min balanced hand is 16-18.

Yes I agree about that, we'll play some thin games but it does make bidding easier. Ok, thanks a lot !! This suggestion looks quite practical to me, I'll propose it to my teamates :-)

Hi all and happy new year :-) This question is yet another question on how to handle a Precision 1 club jump- overcalled. The sequence is 1C-(2H/S)- ? There are a few constraints. e.g.: (I color in red the bids whose meaning can be changed; as for the other, it is impossible to change them without shocking teammates for too many frequent system changes) 1. 1C opening excludes 16-18 2 suiters (opened with other gadgets) 2. Responder's 2 level bid is a Negative Freebid, NONFORCING (say about 5-7 hcp) 3. Responder's immediate 3-lvel bid is GF and GUARANTEES A GOOD SUIT (say a decent 6 bagger with at least 2 honors or a solid 5 bagger) 4. Double is either a classical negative double (min strength, 7 hcp) OR any normal GF hand whose suit quality does not allow a 3-level bid 5. 2NT = to define (I accept suggestions here: minors 2 suiter or GF balanced natural?) 6. cuebid (3H/S) = suggested meaning ? 7. 4m = Leaping Michaels hand type (suggested hcp range ?) ================================ Just a Christmas wish: please please please do not start a thread on how better youtr methods are vs this one B) . Except the points I colored in red, I cannot change it again, so please let's continue the discussion from this starting point ================================ THE QUESTION Opener's rebid over responder's double 1C-(2M)- DOUBLE-(pass) ? How should opener behave with a balanced or semi balanced hand ? With a minimum or max ? I had thought that it might be plausible to use the same methods that we use over weak 2 openings, and this would include the use of 2NT lebensohl, but I am not sure how this fits here... What should a 2NT Leb mean here ? A minimum 1C opening ? Or what ? Thanks a lot and happy new year !

The kind of hands where the usual quizbooks are lacking are often low-level partscore contracts, at the 1 or 2 level. The reason is simple: there are so many outstanding cards that, more often than not, there is a large number of alternative lines to consider. I'd like to see more problems about low level partscores with many broken suits, where both of the following are fulfilled: 1- it is not clear which suit to attack 2- declarer does NOT have all tricks needed but one (where the play revloves around the single need to find an extra tricks), but where he starts with, say, only 4 sure tricks when he has to make 7 tricks.

Sounds familiar. More or less what happened to me. Yes, I went through this in Chess. Became Master and got good results, but sooner or later you get to a point where you are neither a pro nor a real amateur, and you have to reconcile with other goals. But I think in bridge it is nicer, you can find motivation in the pleasure of the partnership play, after all bridge is like dancing, gotta be in tune with pard (I used to have in profile "Bridge is like dance, technique is important but what really matters is not to step on partner's feet!") and when this succeeds, no matter the level you play, it's like magic no ? B)

1) 1D opener 1D is light but is ok. I hate 2D or 3D, the hand is too strong for a preempt, given the void. I might live with 5D if anything but never 2/3D. If not 1D, I will pass. 2) 1S is a good overcall, steals space to opps, suggests a good lead, etc etc. It might backfire sure, but more often than not, it is opener' side that suffers from this removal of the 1-level, and having to describe at the 2 level 3) 2H should be 1R forcing; I like to play that the bidding cannot stop below 2NT or 3 of opener or responder's suit. This of course requires from responder either good power (10+ hcp), or, if lighter, a good rebiddable own suit OR belated support for opener's suit. However, I think in standard, the 2/1 in competition is simply 1RF but does not promise a rebid. However, this is valid for the most common 5 card major variations, I ignore ACOL's standard.

Is partner compelled to reopen? Jxx, xx, KJx, AQJxx. Pass, with a hand that has two constructive bids, takes a rather large risk that the undertricks will be added in 50 point increments, does it not? And if he does have a hand to reopen, won't that hand have at least 3 spades - and if not 3 spades then a powerful minor suit hand that risks mising slam? Pass seems an awfully deep position to me. Winston If partner is compelled to open on that junk in first seat unfav vul. then YES, compelled to reopen. "How little you know about the age you live in if you think that honey is sweeter than cash in hand." Ovid There's been a thread (about 1.5 months ago) right about this topic, e.g. should a min opener be obliged to reopen at the three-level with shortness in opps preempt suit, or should it guarantee a non-minimum opener. It seems the opinions varied a lot among BBO posters, so it really seems a matter of partnership style.

Why? What on earth were you thinking - he's rejected my claim the first seven times but maybe it's worth trying again? You've got to change tack. The contract was laydown. I tried playing the cards too, but opps were taking 20 secs each and every card, just to follow suit (I had all the tricks left on top). The minutes left were less than 2. They were not refusing a claim (which is ok if there is any ecision for ddeclarer to make), they were not even responding to my questions. I also called the TD but he was a playing TD. No punishment for them. And now, please spare me the lesson "That's why it's better not to play in tourneys with playing TD", this is not the point of the thread, such persons shd be punished even under these conditions.

Many good hands do not have an easy rebid if opps preempt (that's why people preempt). Yet, despite the awkward rebid after a (possible) preempt, people will always open good hands. ;)

Yes but there are obvious cheating behaviours like: - repeatedly refusing or ignoring obvious claims; once i tried claiming 22 times, but the clock expired, so rather than having a top I had the board adjusted to ave+ - deliberately playing slowly (slowly = about 30-45 seconds) at EVERY SINGLE trick. This also occurred to me. We are not talking of a "one-trick" big thinking, which is part of the nature of the game. We talk about deliberate slow play, repeated, in order to let the clock expire. Most often these situations are obvious but the TD cannot follow them all. An automatic time-tracking facility would greatly simplify the TDs task.

I won't gamble a pass here, too much pressure on pard. There still remains to decide whether 3S or 3NT is better. In my opinion, this hand suggests that 3NT should be a sure make. If I am going to stop in game,i prefer 3NT to 3S. However, if there are chances for slam, it is more likely to be in spades. So, IMO, 3NT is the best game contract at IMPS in terms of safety etc etc, but gives up slam hopes. Still, I am a 3NT bidder.

Yes, the idea is not so much that the plays are difficult, but rather typical. Basically you get to build an internal database of "goal positions" to aim to when you tackle a hand that has some specific features. The idea is that one should be at a point of not even have to think of them, if he has to execute at the table an ending based on these positions. ==== I got this concept of studying typical endgames from playing and teaching chess (2 of my kids became national junior champions): studying and memorizing several simpe positions, until it becomes a second nature to have them right is the way to learn solving more complex problems. This is even more so in bridge, IMO, where the available time for thinking is less than in chess.

Hi all and merry xmas and happy new year ! This thread (and a few companions) are about "unusual" opening leads, e.g. leads that beginners textbook suggest to avoid. Yet, sometimes we see experts making them. If experts make them, there must be a reason, so they cannot be *always* bad, but there must be specific details that help suggest when they might work. So, I'd like to know from the experts which are the "symptoms", the details that help to diagnose when a lead that is usually "bad" could be considered. Please avoid posting "diagnostic details" such as "table feel", "intuition" or "state of the match" :) What I'd really like to know is if there are diagnostic details to recognize by deductive thinking from the bidding and our own holding ;) If you have any example about some such decisions, all the better ! :D Thanks Mauro =========================== The second issue is: Under which circumstances might it be ok to lead a suit where dummy has advertised length and strength ?

Hi all and merry xmas and happy new year ! This thread (and a few companions) are about "unusual" opening leads, e.g. leads that beginners textbook suggest to avoid. Yet, sometimes we see experts making them. If experts make them, there must be a reason, so they cannot be *always* bad, but there must be specific details that help suggest when they might work. So, I'd like to know from the experts which are the "symptoms", the details that help to diagnose when a lead that is usually "bad" could be considered. Please avoid posting "diagnostic details" such as "table feel", "intuition" or "state of the match" :) What I'd really like to know is if there are diagnostic details to recognize by deductive thinking from the bidding and our own holding ;) If you have any example about some such decisions, all the better ! :D Thanks Mauro =========================== The first issue is: Under which circumstances might it be ok to underlead an Ace vs a suit contract ?

I'd consider even a 6D bid.

I have a title to suggest: "BBO expert" Club :rolleyes:

K10xx - KJxxx - J9x - 9 Pard apologized later for such a light bid, but it's ok, that's not really the point of the post. We have now agreed that an invite opposite this NT range might have such a low hcp content only in case of extra shape (55, 64, etc etc). However, it is interesting to note that even with such low hcp content, 4S is on a 3-3 break (Qx on my right fell on the AK of hearts). IMO, opener's hand is 100% suit oriented, and 3NT rates to play badly (or at any rate, worse than a suit contract) on average, and a simple exercise of trying to construct a possible hand for responder (or, accordingly, a computer simulation)should be enough to verify it. However, I was curious to see how others would evaluate it. Especially, I was wondering whether a 4-3 moysian or a 5-2 heart fit would be more appealing, (if we decide not to play in NT). BTW, I do agree with the fellows who suggested that the 3D bid should be forcing, showing doubt, but at the table I was not sure it would be understood, so I went for 4S.

I bid 2H as well. BTW, with my pard we respond to pard's 2C overcall as if hehad opened a Precision 2C (e.g. 2M inv Nonforcing, 2D Staymanic relay). Any opinion on this ?

In one of my partnerships we have agreed that it is *possible* (not mandatory) to refuse to open a really bad 5cM, and treat it as a 4 card suit. This implies that in those rare cases, a 1D opening is acceptable (even if the minor is a 4 bagger). So, playing in such partnership, I'd gladly open 1D, knowing that this would not break the pship agreements. ============ In a pickup pship, I'd sadly reconcile to having to bid 1S, despite the bad suit and the terrible non-desciptive 2S rebid over responder's 2H. Honors concentration matters, if we are going to adopt the in-and-out principles.

I told we can wait next years for technical matters... but 3♠ I think it's forcing. May be it's not forcing for everyone, but given the sequence I think it's better if played this way. Responder is a passed hand, and it seems strange to me that a 1NT opener, already limited, can make a forcing raise opposite a passed hand... :)

MP, All vuln. Third seat, you hold AQJ Ax ATxx Txxx You play 13-15 NT (16-18 would be opened 1C and rebid 1NT). This 15 count might perhaps be uipgraded to a 16 count, but nonetheless, after 2 passes, you decide to open 1NT and the bidding proceeds uncontested 1NT-2D(xfer) 2H-2S ( natural, invitational, say about 1o good hcp/bad 11 or equivalent playing strength). What now ? You can not rely on any fancy relay, you can just pick the contract. Another important info: you do not play Smolen for 54 hands in the majors: these are just shown via xfers and a natural rebid. I know, the methods might not be optimal (and perhaps Keri or anything else might be better) , but this poll is not about the method, just about evaluating this hand given the few available and inadequate tools :-)

Però onestà mentale mi fa riconoscere che NEL CASO SPECIFICO la dichiarazione di 2♦ facilita enormemente il compito di chiamare 6 o 7♦. Caro Cham... mi sa che dobbiamo farci un corso dichiarativo: adesso mi informo se LA GIOCATRICE in Sud prevede di dare lezioni... Ovviamente, dovesse darne, non te lo dico... :P Eheheh, questo tipo di corso penso lo tenga anche un mio avversario di ieri sera : ha chiamato 7NT senza un asso, e purtroppo chi attaccava non ce l'aveva in mano, e quindi le ha fatte :-) Ha usato la stessa logica dell'apertore in questa mano, e credo che effettivamente dei corsi di parapsicologia servano a tutti :-)) E' il nome di un piatto (non chiedermi quale). man mano che si postano (o "posteggiano") piu' messaggi, si sale di "categoria" nel numero dei post, e questi rankings sono associati ad un piatto culinario. Tu sei "sole veronique", io sono "Hofmark Engel Bock" e sinceramente la cosa mi spaventa un po'.... :D