Cthulhu D

Doesn't it make sense that all bids are one of A) Not forcing B) Forcing for <time x> C) Forcing until <level y> It doesn't make sense to describe a bid as 'forcing' unless the default meaning is 'for one round'

This frustrates me as well, it's pretty hard to actually achieve this.

It's really hard to come up with a way of saying two strong teams but one is probably stronger and maybe we can post a win without sounding like a jerk. Really though this double header is a great shot at actually posting a win.

Probably need to add in a bonus for honour sequences.

That would make sense and supports the view that work tends to slightly overrate Qs +Js. To take the Axx Axx Axx Axxx equivalence above, now the equal hand is KQJT KQT QJT QJT and that's possibly equivlent. 3NT is cold opposite xxxx Axx Axx xxx or xxxx Jxx Kxx Kxx which is about the least partner could have to drive to game

Yeah there is a host of defintion - I was just getting at the question 'is it required to pre-alert brown sticker bids' and the part in common between the alert regulations and the system regulations is the may require a defence phrase.

VBA says that the ABF regulations apply. The relevant rules are in the alert and system regs A) Alert Regs: ABF alert regulations require that you draw attention to any unusual features of your system, such as unusual 2 level openings. The regs define 'unusal' as 'may require the opponents to prepare a defence' B) ABF System regs: ABF system regulations require a brown sticker to be affixed, and that these openings should be noted on your card. The regs define brown sticker as 'may require the opponents to prepare a defence' Unfortunately the regs never explictly link A & B which is dumb, but I seriously doubt attempting to claim that it's not required to alert it on the basis will fly.

Yes, it is ridiculous that the opponents are not punished for incorrectly filling out their convention card - they are in the same teams competition as you, and they should definitely know better. GordonTD's is the only solution that makes any sense imho.

Does anyone actually disagree with this? Also, shouldn't the penalties in all these case be average+ (or whatever) if you are damaged and 'play what you are supposed to be playing' from the director?

The robot knows he is in a work of genre fiction and acts like it. It is extremely funny.

Matchpoint best line is to lead low from the north hand and put in the 8 if RHO doesn't go up with the QJ9. Actually suitplay recommends cashing the king first, then assuming everyone follows playing anything on the second round!

Many pairs use more than 3, with 2D through 2NT inclusive being brown sticker, so it's additional headache and more restrictive.

If you want to know what line has the best probability in a particular suit, the application to use is 'suitplay' It is available here: http://home.planet.nl/~narcis45/SuitPlay/ In this specific case, two lines of play have equal probabilities of success: Start with the 3 or 2 towards the queen, winning unless the king appears, or cash the ace on the first round. However, at both IMPs and Matchpoints the first line of play is superior as the second line has a greater chance of going two off.

The problem is with a 3 card limit raise you might want to play in another strain, but after 1M-2NT or 1M-3M it's very hard to find the other option.

You can go further and use the cheapest bid to any opening as an invitational plus relay. E.g. 1C-1D, 1D-1H, 1H-1S. This means everything else is not forcing(!). I suspect auctions like 1D-2C-All pass are huge winners when they come up, but the weakness is to pre-emption as ArtK78 says. The solution to limiting the damage from pre-emption is to play limited openings (doesn't help to much in GF auctions though pass being forcing gives you more bids, but sure helps the rest of the time. IMHO the natural end state of this is MOSCITO or something like Dwurka with transfer openings as they ensure that the describing hand goes down on the table.

Only because they don't play it at the club. America's bridge homogeneity costs here

I know this is a joke, but to tackle it seriously, I would bet money that over 192 boards a team of 4 bob hamman's now vs 4x Bob hamman's brain in a marathon runners body the second team would win. However it's obvious that in Bridge the luck and skill factors outweigh the fitness factors considerably. But if you're just looking at yourself and your own skill, and the specific problem is you're losing concentration in long matches, and we know that fitness improves concentration and alertness I think hitting the gym is hardly unreasonable. Also, I don't think the two activities substitute for each other (if you're hitting the gym are you playing less bridge? Doesn't seem likely), so you may as well do both. I personally know it makes a massive difference to both how fast and how accurately I can do complex analysis when tired vs fresh and I get tired faster when less fit. But hey, I'm not the first one to suggest losing weight makes you better at bridge: Didn't Paul Solway and Bob Hamman go to a weight loss clinic in the run up to a Bermuda bowl to improve their performance? You'd probably have better access to their view on how that worked out than I do.

It's been proven that fitness increases your mental acuity, alertness and memory, particularly in endurance situations. Given that these are skills critical for bridge, I think it is unquestionable that fitness will help. Losing 10 kg and improving your aerobic fitness is always going to improve your performance significantly.

Patch makes things a fiar bit easier frustrated barbarian bros.

A) Being able to play 1NT is a long term winner? I guess? B) Put it in 2C. The other difficult hand types are: Responders with a 6 bagger and 9/10-12 points.(assuming you open all 11s). Opener having a 14 count Responder's balanced 12 counts or whatever I think this means: A) playing Bergen raises is difficult, I switched to invitational jump shifts. B) switch to a 14-16 NT range. It means opener and responder can be much more comfortable about 1M-1NT-Pass. I also like Kaplan Inversion because I think after a 1H start responder is much better positioned to work out if he needs to pull 1NT, which means you need opener to bid it with the 11-13 balanced range. C) Put it in 2C with the 3 card limit raise. I play this with the following major suit raise structure: 1M-2M - 3 card 6-9 or 4 card 5-7 ish. 1M-2C - 10-12 3 card limit 1M-3M - 8-10 4 card support 1M-2NT - 11+ 4 card support, unlimited, F1. This is really tied up to the rest of your system.

Deleted

Surely if you're willing to raise to the 3 level 3H is a better bid? IMHO it's close and I'd just make a competitive three card raise

What is people's general feelings on 1NT for takeout? I've been playing it as 8-14ish for quite a while in conjunction with X=15+ semi balanced (big unbalanced hands have other systematic calls) and I have no strong feelings on it either way. Sometimes you bury their major fit and sometimes it's hard to get to 1NT when it's right, but it has never delivered noticeable swings in or out. I'd like to free up 2C for natural but it's hard to squeeze in.

I'd bid 1H but Pass is hardly unreasonable. Depends how sound partner expects you to be/what partner is planning to force to game with. 3rd in a weak pre-empt in hearts is obviously marked.

A long minor I thought, but yeah okay thats what I thought was standard. Now I just don't understand the quoted post.