SimonFa

IMPS W v W ♠AQ932 ♥A ♦AKJT84 ♣4 (1H) P (p) ? Obviously partner hasn't got many points, so is it worth chasing game at this vulnerability? If so how do we start? If you bid 2D, LHO and CHO pass, RHO bids 2H, now what? Would you bid differently if vulnerable and if so why? FWIWwas playing GIBerish in a 3 table GIB practice session when this came up but I'm more interested in general approach. As always, thanks in advance, Simon

I can't answer as an expert but I can tell you what the expert we are using as our guide to playing 2/1 says about this situation. Partner and I are using Marty Bergen's 2/1 booklet and I paraphrase: 1. Once in a 2/1 situation you should ignore showing points as distribution is more important eg a reverse of Hs and Ss does not show extra strength but gets your Spade suit in and could be bid on a minimum 2. If you have a 6-4 hand bid it as 646 every time So in this situation bidding 2H is my reading of his recommendations.

ben, Great stuff, thank you. O/T but you tell us E/W playing UDCA. I understood that good players usually give present count on declarer lead but in this case both play clubs low high showing even - was this deliberate to show that good players often think about making declarer's life harder or just an oversight? If both players give honest count it makes the play a bit easier. Or have I lost the plot, which is quite likely. Thanks, Simon

Thanks Mike and Nigel, Just the sort of response I wanted. I have no intention of making a habit of that sort of bid as I appreciate that what works once isn't necessarily right (looking at results in GIB tourneys convinces me of that point) but your feedback is really helpful in trying to work out the margins. As it happens I am trying to convince one partner that a 2 level over-call at that vulnerability should be a 6 card suit as ops have started exchanging information. Regards, Simon

Not really. Bridge is a partnership game in most part and, as one member has in his sig block, searching for your mistakes is the only way to improve (I paraphrase). Therefore you need to know who made the mistake(s). ATB is a shorthand way of getting there. OK, there are some cases where poster wants a stroke, but they are few and far betwenn from what I have seen. Fair point, which is why its a good idea to "lurk" and read the A/E forums, that way you know how to rate the answers you get when you do ask a question. Really? I think its wonderful that these guys (I use the American gender neutral form of the word) are willing to spend their time sharing their knowledge and expertise, for free! I don't know how much a bridge teacher charges but I would be quite happy to drop an occasional donation it to a tip jar. I agree, Wyman made a very good point, that doesn't mean its the be all and end all of the discussion, which is why I put in my two-penne'th. It would be very boring if all you got was one post and nobody could raise differing opinions. The problem comes back to definition again. As I said earlier, I've been playing 18 months and some of the people here have been playing for 40 or more years, does that make me a rookie or beginner? I don't know, which is why I suggested simple questions and advanced questions forums. I'm in a minority of one, so what? I'm entitled to my opinion. Maybe you have a point, but the absence shouldn't stop you asking any questions no matter how basic. I ask all sorts of questions here and I am sure some of them are in the rookie department but without fail I get very detailed answers well explained answers and if someone says ... 2and that's why Gazilli/Namyats/J2N was developed" ..I'll go off read up on those systems if I'm interested. Granted, someone just saying "Namyats" isn't being helpful, but I haven't seen that happen. The problem is that no matter how simple the question and explanation at some point you have to get in to more detail. Regards, Simon

I haven't had a chance to think this through but I think a complete change of tack is needed. Rather than base the forums on players' self rated ability they should be rated by type of question along the lines of the Laws Forum ie simple bidding questions, simple play questions, advanced bidding etc. Rushing out to play and will post more thoughts later. Regards, Simon PS anyone got a link to super muppet Stayman and should it be discussed here ;)

I used to have a fairly clear idea on 2C opening bids but the debate in other forums has left me with a wider margin of grey areas. This hand is from a practice session with GIB and falls slap bang in the middle of my grey area if not GIB's. No real suit, a bit too strong for 2NT even if we are happy with the shape. Imps, W v W, partner deals and passes, ops silent throughout: A AQ64 A763 AKQ8 If you open 2C partner bids 2D. If you then bid 2NT it comes as no surprise that partner transfers to Spades. Nobody opened 2NT but I assume you would get the same transfer. In either case 3NT over the transfer is a super accept and partner will put you back in to 4S. I've no idea what other responses you would get to a different opening bid. Quo vadis? Regards, Simon PS In the real world I play 2D as 4+HCP and 2H as 3- HCP responses to 2C which would have been helpful in this hand. Over 2D I would probably just go to 3NT as partner is a passed hand and let him worry about pushing for the slam.

I haven't been playing at this club long and only play there 1-2 times per month. We came second last week but this week the bridge gods were exacting their revenge and we were having a miserable time, on the odd occasional we got to buy a contract all breaks were wrong and finesses failed. I had also dozed off and missed setting a game and as my one chance as declarer miscounted trumps to go off in a doubled contract I should have made, possibly with an over trick. After about 18/24 boards it was obvious we weren't doing very well and had nothing to lose. I had already tagged LHO as a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect whose real skill level was little above novice and a little bit of a bully to go along with it. RHO was the quiet type who never argued with partner but is probably a better player. So when this hand came up I thought I would give one of Kit Woolsey's nuisance bids described in Matchplay a go. MPs, R v W xx AQx KJTxx xxx I gave the background on ops because under normal circumstances I wouldn't dream about bidding on this hand but in these conditions why not :) Ops playing 5-card majors. (1H) 2D (2S) P (3H) P* (4H) All pass *With a huge sigh of relief I knew my bid had worked when I saw dummy and couldn't suppress a slight smile, which I hoped nobody saw: Axxxx x xx AJxxx I hadn't had the guts to double but it didn't matter as the other tables got to play quietly in 2H. I'm sure my bid is more flawed than I acknowledge, wrong vulnerability and about a Queen, at least, light so please feel free to rip it apart. Regards, Simon EDIT Corrected my hand

My original post really was to understand the meaning in a language sense as much as a bridge one, but it turns out that I really did have the wrong end of the stick and your points explain how I have stumbled in to the odd squeeze that has succeeded. I will now be looking out for these opportunities whilst keeping in mind Dave's advice.

As it happened partner had AKxxxx for a very nice 12 IMPS.

I have 2 monitors on my PC and keep a Google translate window open in one of them. Most of the time its the typical bickering you get between partners and sometimes it looks like a pair is practicing and discussing what bids mean/meant. If its the MBC I don't really care, let them practice if have found a semi competent player I am happy to continue.

That's good to know. I haven't read any analysis on this subject just the odd comment and that's what I figured out when faced with the problem.

As I've only been for playing for 18 months or so I find this and the other forums here invaluable and that icludes A/E though I never venture comments. At first I was like you and seemed to spend more time researching the jargon and conventions than actually reading anything useful - I remember spending about 30 mins trying to find out what ATB meant! It was worth the effort though and I feel my game has come on so much faster than it world have done without it. But then again I am very keen to learn and do read books and other bridge sites as well. Much as I like playing, 2-3 times a week in real world plus I probably play one GIB tourney a day, I reckon an hour on here has probably been worth 2-3 at the table, although that is swinging the other way now. The only time more valuable is sitting down with partner and discussing methods. Whilst there may have been a few entertaining spats between the A/E players all, without exception, have been nothing but courteous and helpful to a fault, no matter how stupid or lowly the question, indeed Mike's answer above is typical. Where else could you get friendly advice from someone has just been part of the winning Camrose trophy team and another who was runner up in the Bermuda Bowl? Regards, Simon

There must be lots of stories to tell as one of the first things we learn is that if you are stuck for ideas run off your long suit and see what happens. At this point we learn about the accidental squeeze when we go to throw away our useless 2 away at the end and are surprised to learn that it is a master and we make our contract. I suspect even goodish players sometimes do that when they've had a loss of concentration and they will provide even more entertaining stories, if only they would admit to them ;) I'll bet Justin has a few to tell as he worked his way through the ranks to stardom. Its at this point I realised the need to keep count of important suits and now I relise that on some deals I really need to keep a track of the honours and pips which, having just read Ben's posts, is a fundamental requirement for a squeeze.

IMPs, W v R 1M (X) XX I think it falls in to GBK that the redouble specifically denies support and about 10+ HCP but is it acceptable to redouble with something like 0445 and about 11 points? It came up in the MBC and I just wondered if the redouble should promise any holding in the major at all. Thanks in advance, Simon

Thanks to everyone else for the explanations and book recommendations, too many to answer individually but they are appreciated. I'll be trawling through them in more detail and ordering a couple of books later today as this appears to be one of those subjects which can give an edge at the club level if you can spot the opportunity. I found this from David Bird on Google books just after I made the OP and chapter 3, "Rectifying the Count" is really good on the subject. Regards, Simon

As always with your stuff I look forward to getting stuck in to it this morning. From what I've seen of you other stuff you should get in to the bridge author business as you have a style that makes complicated stuff easy to follow, well for me at least. Regards, Simon

That really helps, perhaps you should write the Bridge World Glossary below :) Regards, Simon PS Congratulations on Camrose result. I was away and missed it all but had a look at the vugraph archive and you all did really well.

Never though of that, nice tip to add to the thought processes. Thanks, Simon

If lefty had 19 HCP maybe the other tables opened 2NT or 2C? Playing a lot of GIB tournaments recently I have noticed that a lot of humans open those on much less. Simon

I've been playing for about 18 months and play at 3 clubs with a number of partners and am quite pleased to see my grade is a a shade over 50%. Interesting, after about 100 GIB MP tourney's my average is also a shade over 50%.

In articles that involve squeezes we often see the phrase "rectify the count" but it is never explained what that means. I've had a good look around and can't find a definitive description. The closest I came to is something that says losing a trick early to a hand that is known to be long ie after a weak two so that you can work out the count prior to a squeeze. I understand the phrase "the count", trying to work out what each op holds so that we can end play or play for a drop, its the "rectify" bit that perplexes me: 1. To set right; correct. 2. To correct by calculation or adjustment What are we correcting? Most of the time it just seems that we are trying to find out some information but we certainly aren't correcting anything. While I'm on the subject, could anyone recommend a good book on squeezes and rectifying the count? As always, thanks in advance, Simon

http://tinyurl.com/73cks57 Its not too difficult to figure out even with Easts return. Regards, Simon

Wow, lots of heat and not much light :rolleyes: I don't want to get in to the over call debate but I have a question for those who want to allow for partner borrowing our K and bidding on around 10 pts, well an observation that I would like to put forward for comment. East couldn't even muster a 1NT bid over the 1H opening so has at most 5 crap pts or more likely given some tendencies 4 pts and no Ace at that. We have 8 pts, which leaves 28 pts up for grabs. If partner only has 10 pts wouldn't West have made some sort of move with 18 pts, possibly bidding 3C to make our life hard? Even if West's 2C shows a few more points, say 15, that still leaves partner with 13 pts so we have the balance of power and AK in one of partners suits. Also, partner knows we've passed and doesn't know we have 5 spades. If partner is weak and ops have the points isn't there a benefit in bidding 3C on that basis alone? Yes, partner might take us for a stronger hand but as a B/I I have been punished enough at teams for underbidding and prefer to get withering looks from partner and team mates for being aggressive rather than conservative and missing a cold game. I also like 3S because it makes life hard for East if he does want to get in to the bidding. Regards, Simon

4S can go off if not played correctly. 4H is cold and 5H can make on slack defence. Simon