RunemPard

Thanks for the match. We did not manage to keep it to 2 IMPs a board as you hoped, but I enjoyed playing a lot. Much appreciated! :)

Ok, I will let my partner know the time and make sure all is good. Just to make sure...It will be 1400 EDT, or 2000 for Sweden? GMT+1? Edit: sorry could not reply...was kibbing match :)

My thoughts are to use a constructive bid at the 2 level that removes a level of bidding from the opponents. I am still debating trying the preemptive option as well. rbforster made a good point as well, by adding 5/4, 4/5, 5/5 to the mix, the odds go up to 3.5% not including the 18-19 balanced. I am just playing around w/ this idea currently, might see how it works on the table.

I managed to find this, but have had no luck regarding stronger variants... http://www.chrisryall.net/bridge/two/hearts.htm

If I make the 2C bid absolutely forcing and include 18-19 balanced (no 5cM) into the bid, the odds of opening raise by about 1.15%. Going from 1.79% to nearly 3%. There will need to be an adjustment to the 2N responses to include this.

I am looking for an opening to use for 2♣ and am thinking about using this or a weaker preemptive variant. The bid shows an intermediate 44xx hand. The probability of such a hand in the 12-15 HCP range is 1.32%, which is not very high. If the range is adjusted to 11-15 HCP, we increase our opening chance to 1.79% (Edit: If 18-19 balanced hands are included, the opening rate goes up to near 3% using 11-15 HCP.) OTOH, a range of 6-10 HCP is 2.22%. What are your thoughts about a bid like this? A) Overall effectiveness B) HCP range to use C) Do you know the name of a similar convention? D) Better alternatives to use at 2C? I will post my reply scheme below also for those interested. I thank you for reading. Edit: Adjusted 2H/2S/3H/3S 2♣ - 4/4 ♥/♠ 11(12-15) OR 18-19 NT 2♦: negative ♥ OR invite to 4♠/3NT 2♥: negative ♠ OR 2NT sign-off 2♠: invite to 4♥ (denies ♠) 2N: feature ask 3♣: sign-off (6+♣) 3♦: sign-off (6+♦) 3♥: weaker invite (♥+♠) 3♠: stronger invite (♥+♠) 3N: sign-off 4♣: splinter 4♦: splinter 4♥: sign-off 4♠: sign-off 2♣-2N-?? 3♣: MIN 11(12-13) 4/5♣ (4414/4405) 3♦: MIN 11(12-13) 4/5♦ (4441/4450) 3♥: MIN 11(12-13) (balanced) 3♠: MAX (14-15) (balanced) OR (18-19) (balanced) (3NT asks) 3N: MAX (14-15) 4♣ (4414) 4♣: MAX (14-15) 4♦ (4441) 4♦: MAX (14-15) 5♣ (4405) 4♥: MAX (14-15) 5♦ (4450) I am sure these can be improved a lot.

AyunuS and I are willing to play together in next week's match.

That is too bad...if you need a 4th another time I am willing! :)

I live in Sweden so time may be an issue...I do not know how to rate myself as a player honestly...I am turning 23 in the beginning of June and have been playing cards (began w/ Spades) since I was 12. I can back myself up when it comes to play, but having played competitive bridge for roughly a year, I can by no means consider myself experienced. I have no steady partner to play w/ in a JEC match, however, I am willing to play. Conventions are my weakness. Not from being unable to understand them, but a lack of knowledge about many. I learn them very fast though. Glad to give it a try if needed. :)

I just feel that in regards to overall skill over a long set of hands that MP shows this better than IMPs. But that is just my opinion and I respect your's as well. One problem with MP however is often in regards to slam level bidding. If one pair tries the risky 6NT auction given 1/3 odds of making and manages to make it, the other pairs who bid the statistically better 6S contract get a punch in the face. Of course, some pairs may realize that the 6NT contract is able to be made easily on the information given, but this is not always the case.

True as well, but risk/chance evaluation in regards to possible reward is a part of every game. Maybe many of the other pairs were able to keep track of points, suit lengths, etc. to give them a better idea of if the finesse is a good risk.

I like the idea of using a simple Elo system...but...there needs to be a formula that can convert both MP and IMP into a rating #... This also brings into debate team matches and how they would affect this. Now we must also consider skill level of other players. I get a headache just thinking about it, but I would enjoy having a rating system. I am going to use a game that is very popular and often has rated on sites. (Spades)... You play a full game to a set score until a winner has been determined. Based on the skill of others, ratings are calculated after and adjusted. I feel that if Elo based ratings were to be done, maybe the best route is to do something new? You agree to play for example 8 hands of MP or IMP scoring and are taken to a table w/ a partner or a random partner. Two suitable opponents are found based on the rating range you wish to play. After 8 hands, whoever has shown the best results wins the round and rating points are adjusted. Of course, this can be adjusted based on how much you have won by or simply by winning overall... I prefer keeping how much you won by as a factor in the equation. It allows for a more accurate result based on overall performance. :) Example...8 board match...almost like 4-man play but using many results. The results are a 20 IMP victory for team A over team B. Both teams are of an equal rating. A formula taking into account victory, skill levels, and win margin is done and a new rating is given. Assuming a rating level starts at 1500...two 2000 rating players play against two players at the 1400 level. Based on the calculations, a victory of x must be obtained to gain rating, else a victory for the 2000 players results in no change. IMO, MP is the best way to judge overall skill. To me, IMP tends to reward players who make games rather than those who play contracts to their fullest. A field where... 4S+2 x1 4S+1 x5 4S== x1 (opponents result) 3S+2 x2 Will reward your opponents for playing the contract worse than anybody else. Where in MP they are looking at gaining 4/16 MPs.

The reason I chose to put this in the Novice/Beginner forum is because you can always go for the dangerous ♥ finesse towards East who holds the 2 spades, however, this should be a last resort. There is often other ways out, and you should go for them when you can. Although West played extremely strange, I feel this is a decent example of avoiding the risky route for a safer alternative.

Cannot figure out the hand viewer, sorry... I will try to make it as understandable as possible.

I agree and I will work on putting one up later tonight. This may also be more of an upper Intermediate level hand, but I felt it was a good hand to include here as well. The heart finesse is there, but you are playing into the hand holding the remaining 2 spades doing so.

I also kept the ♦s in hand to avoid any possible re-entry problems. I had a pretty good picture of the hand after seeing a ♦ void and knowing that the spades split 5/2. From that point I decided the best option was to just play the clubs out directly. I am curious as to why you would want to directly remove your diamond entry from the hand holding 5 clubs.

Could not be bothered w/ finding the post about how to make the hand diagram, but thank you. I felt I did fine w/ making it understandable other than showing the location of E/W according to the rest. That really is not too hard to figure out though.

:P You have a few options..(I did not notice they had done that actually...lol)

RIP all of the fish who have been needlessly fried and served w/ a side of french fries. It is a shame that you had to suffer such a fate, rather than the honor of becoming a perfectly prepared sushi dish. :P

You are sitting N/S and you open 1NT from N. Partner invites w/ 11 HCP, which should be bid straight to 3NT, w/ no 4 card major, rather than inviting. You bid to 3NT and the opening lead is the ♠4 from E. SOUTH (Dummy) ♠: T85 ♥: Q6 ♦: QT8 ♣: AK752 NORTH (Declarer) ♠: A96 ♥: AJ32 ♦: AK96 ♣: J9 UNDERLINED BLUE TEXT = lead BOLD RED TEXT = wins trick -E---S---W---N ♠4--♠5--♠K--♠6 ♠J--♠8--♠3--♠9 ♠Q--♠T--♦2--♠A ♣4--♦8--♦3--♦K You end up w/ play from N seeing a diamond void from E. Plan the hand after this point. (East plays before South...West plays before North.) -------------SOUTH -------------♠: - -------------♥: Q6 -------------♦: QT -------------♣: AK752 EAST------------------------WEST (Known to have-----(Had 2 spades and 2 of 5 spades------is known to have 4 remaining and a----diamonds left) ♦ void.. Threw off a ♣ on ♦ play) -------------NORTH (Has the lead) -------------♠: - -------------♥: AJ32 -------------♦: A96 -------------♣: J9 Link to full hand if you wish to see...

Here is another one that I chose to open 1NT w/ tonight sitting NV... Q10 QJ10 AK10 Q10762 Not because I feel this hand is worthy of being called a strong NT opening, but because of the information and defensive effect it has. Our card does show 15-17, and in the system details area given to us we have written that we may upgrade or downgrade a hand at times if we feel it is a worthy call.

Been doing some thinking about having 18-19 NT / 18-19 H/S as a 2C opening. The main issue is finding 4/4 fits that cannot go to game. My thoughts are to use 2D as a positive waiting bid while 2H/2S are P/C. I am not very fond of this, but I can see it working fine. How useful using this as 2C is the question though.

And thank you very much for that link Cthulhu D. That is exactly what I have been looking for to know how to use a natural/strong 1C properly. I am also debating using a weak NT in the future to give the 1C opening better value. Although, 1C*-1D* holding a balanced 12-14 opposite a 0-3 garbage hand does not petrify me.

Thanks for the posts..May I ask if you have a program to calculate odds or are very good at probability math? I have been looking online to determine odds of hand type/strength coming up, but no luck. My probability math is not so strong other than a coin flip is 50/50, 2 is 25/75...lol

Don't tell me west was dumb enough to throw off 2 clubs and a spade on diamonds?