phikappaph

Robots are robots and the point is to improve what you can using that format. I find robots are great to improve several things about my play: First, counting cards as the play goes on. Knowing card count was always a weakness for me and now it is almost automatic. Second, review and appreciate conventions that the robots use that I do as well: Overcalls to a 1NT opening, slam conventions (for me, trying to predict what the robot will bid if it has a void!) and the continuing dilemma of SYAC vs. 2 over 1. - I am becoming more of a 2 over 1 player because of the robots. Defense is hit or miss but my defense is much better because I know the count. One has to learn conventions these days to play bridge at any rewarding level. My suggestion is using SAYC as the card is specific and the conventions are easily understood. I would also observe hands by players using the convention you decide to use. Try to predict bids before they are made. Try and predict opening leads before they are made. As for casual format playing. They play is not great all the time, agreed. But, start off there to feel comfortable playing and if you keep at it, you will find you are one of the better players, then look for a better table. My play with friends has greatly improved since I have played with the robot format. Good luck.

I agree with the 5D bid as the preempt has pretty much removed finding out how many keycards the partnership has. Without specific understanding about what 4S or doubling means, 5D to me is the safer bid. If I were going to risk the hand on a left field bid, I would bid 6D. That probably is making a claim about spades which is false. If partner has 2 losing spades, bummer. So, 5D is my vote.

Many thanks to all. Very useful to consider the 2nt vs. 3m (p/c)options. Had not given it effective thought. Upon reflection, with only 3 cards in doubt with the "Michaels" hand, my first inclination is to play the 2nt option to simply ask the minor suit be bid by the hand with the 5 card suits. Being able to tell partner that I have exactly 3 cards in his/her suit probably does more to avoid terrible contracts than any other bid, except, of course, pass-- something I should do more often. I will digest this all and then come back to ask for help with the other opiate BBO Robots are hooked on: New Minor Forcing.

If the auction goes: 1♣-P-1♥-1♠-2♠ It depends on your agreements. For me, it shows some 15+ point hand with 4 card heart support. It is much more economical to bid 2S (which shouldn't be natural), allowing for more scientific bidding. However, I have seen it used for many other things, so be sure you and your partner are on the same wavelength. If 2 spades shows 4 hearts and 15 points, does 3 hearts say something different or you simply telling the same story for a lower bid?

We are trying to use more conventions as a group where I play bridge and a 2 sets of questions came up. First: Michaels and Unusual NoTrump. Opponent opens 1 club and I have 5 spades and 5 diamonds. Is there a bid announcing my distributional hand? 2 clubs is Michaels announcing both majors. 2Nt is Unusual announcing the lesser two suits, namely hearts and diamonds. With regard to Michaels, when the BBO Robot bids 2NT over my Michaels cue bid, the alert is telling me to bid my minor. Yet when I read about Michaels, which is far more complex than I realized, I do not see this as a set bid. It works well but is the 2NT bid simply an extension of the 1nt bid over an opening saying partner is not crazy about my suit or is BBO robot adding something? Next: Support raises. Perhaps BBO robots have their own clan but I get confused and can not figure out if the following raises are part of SAYC, 2/1, etc. or a little of each I open 1 diamond, pass, partner bids 1 heart, rho bids 1 spade. I get several options from the robots. Raise to 2 spades Raise to 2 hearts Jump to 3 hearts, doubling 1 spade, jumping to 4 hearts. I have usually viewed jumping to game as a close out bid but I notice that I miss a lot of slams with BBO robots. Am I missing something? But the other bids are now confusing and I am uncertain if they mean something else if for example,the sequence of bidding is different. Specifically, what is the point count and trump holding for each of the raises and where does the support double fit into the bidding? I think the support double is telling partner I only have 3 hearts along with the opening bid. I think raising to 2 hearts is telling partner I have 4 hearts along with my opening points. I am not sure what my bidding 2 spades would mean regarding hearts, if anything. I have used the jump to 3 hearts as at least 4 card heart support and a good opening hand but unsure if partner was bidding on fumes. I've gone over several SAYC materials and still am confused. I also posted here but am not at all sure whether this is a "novice" or advanced issue. Bridge was a lot easier when my dad taught me how to open with "quick tricks" and we were pros if we could ask for aces!

Rainy day here. One of my all time favorites by It's A Beautiful Day http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhcvKZ2iwCo

More of a question than an answer to follow. I have played a lot of robot 4 handed bridge and notice that the program often uses a raise in the opponents' bid suit to show at least 4 trump support and solid points. I assume the raise in the club suit rather than a raise in partner's suit is to show the amount of trump support and the points, something a simple raise in spades would leave to some guessing by partner. But my question is regarding your bid of 2 NT, and I am assuming East has five clubs, are you telling East you have a stopper or partial stopper in clubs? Are you asking partner to bid if he does not have a stopper in clubs? Are you assuming East has only four clubs and you can weather those suit losers? I ask this because of the many, many games I have played and lost in NT due to a single or partial only stopper in the opponents' suit. And I never seem to get it right. Thanks.

You do well to sum up my point which is simply that the U.S. federal govt has never been more efficient at undertaking such tasks. It has been a disaster in every respect. Comparing a country like the Netherlands which is entirely different in culture and economic structure to support the idea that the U.S. could make use of a similar system is unrealistic. The inefficiencies you refer to, which I assume are demonstrated by the costs of U.S. health care, are a problem and a serious one. However, those problems arose when 3rd party payors began to be the norm here. I am amazed that people do not understand the current costs of Medicare and Medicaid, both federal programs, and both completely out of control. The problem is that federal programs are essentially immune from anything but bloated growth and inefficiency that dwarfs any other structure. Costs overruns at the Department of Defense, a multibillion expense for the Presidency, etc. Reform can fix the private sector abuses. Nothing will fix the federal problems existing and those which will dwarf what we are now seeing.

The reality is that in spite of what was said by the Administration early on about the Health care provisions, contrary to what was said in public, the Act was defended in the Supreme Court as a tax, something denied by the supporters. Second, medical expenses in the U.S. skyrocketed when third party payers began to enter the scene, something that started a generation ago. Up to 1/3 of federal payments for health services is estimated to be fraud. Everyone has seen the ads for motorized wheelchairs, "free" ( i.e., paid for by Social Security). What is happening is the biggest money grab in the history of the Country is about to start. Anyone who thinks it's a Democrat or Republican issue underestimates greed. Florida recently had a huge scandal as hundreds of medical patients were found to simply be names known to the crooks who received fictitious services and routine bills submitted for payment to the feds. Millions of dollars were brought in and the only way it was discovered is when one of the "named" people received a letter from the government mentioning a test she never had. She took the time to call and say it wasn't her. Federal programs are totally out of control. -- Think about the "free" phones program for needy families that was supposed to supply communication for that group that could not afford home phones, -- now costs over 2 billion a year. Food stamps cost $80 billion, Medicaid cost $549 billion, and so on. Government programs in countries the size of California may work. But the U.S. simply can not have a national program whose biggest expenses are something other than the benefit of the program itself. My favorite example: The Department of Energy was brought into existence by President Carter in 1977 for the stated purpose of reducing dependence on foreign energy. $200 billion dollars later an agency with almost 20,000 people was able to help the U.S. go from 20% reliance on imported oil to over 50% by 2006, a figure that has come down thanks solely to private industry creation of new technology, something the energy department opposes! Long rant, but the point is why does anyone think the federal government will not totally screw this up the way they screwed up every other federally funded program they have initiated? The costs will bury this program, or us, or both, in five years.

Funny you should start with that. A little off color which is needed for the story but an absolutely hilarious email was sent to me about passwords and something I have an issue with every time I have to reset a password: ----------------------------------------------- Resetting The Password "Sorry, your password has been in use for 30 days and has expired - you must register a new one." roses "Sorry, too few characters." pretty roses "Sorry, you must use at least one numerical character." 1 pretty rose "Sorry, you cannot use blank spaces." 1prettyrose "Sorry, you must use at least 10 different characters." 1*****prettyrose "Sorry, you must use at least one upper case character." 1*****prettyrose "Sorry, you cannot use more than one upper case character consecutively." 1*****PrettyRose "Sorry, you must use no fewer than 20 total characters." 1*****PrettyRoseShovedUpYourAssIfYouDon'tGiveMeAccessRight*****Now. "Sorry, you cannot use punctuation." 1*****PrettyRoseShovedUpYourAssIfYouDontGiveMeAccessRight*****Now "Sorry, that password is already in use."

Good point. Initially, it's easy to lose track of the actual cards played while keeping count. But it is getting easier. I also find that my count is often wrong at the end of the hand, that is I should know the suits of the last 2-3 tricks. But, As I keep going, I am getting better at developing winners. I also find that knowing the total count makes it a lot easier to decide which suit to develop as play progresses. I now able to effectively track discards, something that is making a big difference.

Have been trying very hard to think about the totality of hands, i.e., the "4531" hand, etc. Very new to me. I did start doing something that has proved to be an enormous help, perhaps something every advanced player but me does as a set routine. After the opening lead, I count the outstanding unseen cards by suit and now keep track. So, when dummy comes down, I get a suit count that initially adds up to 26 such as "5939". I then reduce the number by two for each trick so if diamonds are led and followed, 5939 becomes 5919. A round of clubs becomes 5917, etc. I use the 4 hand robot option with BBO and do not even care about the hands, just keeping track of the count slow enough to be accurate but fast enough to make play bearable when actually playing. I am getting to the point that the bidding can tell me minimum card holdings and one player showing out is starting to give me better distribution visualization. The link showing the pause, plan and execute gave me the thought. It is making a difference already. My goal is read the board and keep up with an expert that I will kibitz, something that I am not close to yet. However, my game has really improved already. Once again, thanks

I appreciate the comments and hopefully they will assist others. I had not considered prioritizing tricks, HCP's, etc., mentioned above, rather I was intent on learning a rote skill. I have found that kibitzing games whether I have all four hands shown or just one tends to hurt my efforts. The pace of the expert is just too fast. I learn a lot about bidding but can only marvel at the understanding declarers often have on setting up end plays and effectively using squeezes to offer a choice of losing options to defenders.

While I have many weaknesses in my game, what frustrates me the most is my inability to "Picture" distribution. If one opponent shows out, I use that knowledge to manage that suit, but I don't take advantage of the concept of using that data to get a complete picture of distribution as a whole. As such, end plays and squeezes are far more challenging. Can anyone suggest a web site or technique for practicing on how better to grasp the unseen hands as the play develops? I've learned much here on bidding, systems, conventions and leads. But I've not come across practicing the dynamics or tricks for determining distribution. I did just learn from the interesting article here on the Law of Total tricks how the total number of trumps can help determine distribution in the oppositions hands. Any help would be appreciated. Please, no suggestions about taking a memory course. My wife reminds me all the time.

Upon reflection, given the fact that we would have taken 3♠, 2♥, 2♦and at least 1♣-- 2 as I recall, down 4 or 5 doubled would have been just as good as game. partner bidding or passing would have worked. I should have doubled and not bid 4♦ if for no other reason, the contract works whether he bid or passed. I guess another moral for me is to know your partner. B-)

If I adopted the Leaping Michaels rationale, I think I am back to announcing at least 4 hearts. I tend to agree with the notion that a double says the same thing. I have heard no suggestions regarding supporting partner's clubs. But if partner has 13 HCP and I have 17, we should have game somewhere. I wonder about the following: 1♣ 3♠ 4♦ 4♠ 4NT Read a nice thread on reverses here which talked about the lesser of two evils. The question here for me is whether I am better of saying I have 6 diamonds or saying I have 4 hearts?

You raised my fears! Bidding 4♦ with only five was an issue. I did it with the strength of the suit but wishing I had 6. Had partner bid 4 spades, I doubt I would have found 4nt as a natural bid and will ask him how he would have treated that bid. I would have taken the 4♠bid as a cue bid supporting my diamonds and I would have gone to 5♦. Part of my problem arose of out partner's 1 club opening. A lot of issues are raised by the overuse of 1♣openings. In the end, while convenient it may be, it tells me nothing except my partner does not have a five card major. And no, our group would not open 1♣with 55 in the black suits regardless of the persuasive article I just read. So, I am back to wondering absent a prior conversation and agreement how most partners view with the 14 point hand shown 1♣ 3♠ Double With 14 points and two tricks in trumps, an outside ace, even though it's a sin to double someone into game in contract bidding, I might well have passed. I would have raised the 4 diamond bid to game. Finally, I did find the following about 4nt which I now will use: 2. When partner opens four of a minor, 4NT is natural, suggesting this may be the last making game contract. This is a surprisingly useful bid. Similarly, when partner overcalls four of a minor, 4NT is natural. However, over four of a major, 4NT should be Blackwood, since you are far less likely to want to correct the contract in this case as you are already in game. link

Thanks for the insight from everyone. I think the moral is that my partner should have bid. I also think that the bane of the average/above average bridge player is understanding partner's bid of "double". I have been reading "Mary Sez" and have been trying to improve on the when and wheres of doubling. I did not realize,for example that my doubling would have indicated 4 hearts, though I should have thought it through especially when trump had not been established. The one bidding sequence I did not see was my bidding 4 spades and partner bidding a natural 4NT. 4NT is one of those bids that regardless of circumstances always seems to be viewed as asking for aces. I guess I am second guessing myself too much as 5 diamonds makes obviously, but looking at the hands, NT should have at least been an option. Lots of good advice here on how I can improve my skills. I appreciate the responses.

My partner opened 1♣and RHO preempted to 3 ♠ . My hand: ♠ Qx ♥Ax ♦AKJT9 ♣Kxxx As I recall, my partner had ♠AKx ♥Kxx ♦xxx ♣Axxx I bid 4♦and partner passed. We made 6 when the ♦finesse worked as I shed a club on the 3rd round of spades. I felt had I doubled, it would have been for penalty. I was averse to bidding 5♦with less than 6 and a queen of spades that probably was useless. I was worried about bidding 4 clubs as partner uses the "short club" routinely. In retrospect,in counting partner's points, I should have assumed he had the King or Ace of spades, or 3 to the Jack. Should I have bid 3nt without a spade stopper? Should I have doubled hoping partner would bid? Is there a way to get to 5♦ or is 3nt the answer?