eyhung

The full LC Standard card is available on the Bridge Winners website through the convention card editor as a template. Larry Cohen himself has personally edited it and it will not be changing, so you can use it as a model for a BBO convention card template. Full disclosure: I am an administrator and editor for Bridge Winners.

Hi, I'm an administrator for Bridge Winners. I'm surprised to hear that the contact links are broken, we get feedback on a daily basis from many other users. If those don't work for you, you can email us directly at support@bridgewinners.com. We're launching first-time code to cover the Vanderbilt and there were some problems in the code that caused the performance to be very slow. Some of these performance issues should be gone now.

I'd suggest changes that, instead of being based on how easy they are to deal with, are more based on frequency of use (and thus are easier to defend against based on frequency). And then it might actively influence a larger pool of players than the scientists. My top choices would be: 1) Allow Woolsey over NT as GCC. Fairly common in high-level bridge nowadays, and even in clubs in my area. 2) Allow Polish Twos as GCC. I don't play them myself but they look useful, are straightforward to defend against (treat them like weak 2s), and again, a significant # of (mostly European) pairs play them. 3) 1m - 2H as an invitational balanced hand or a strong jump shift as GCC. Usually the opponents don't want to bid after this start, and it's pretty useful as a constructive tool. 4) 3NT Reverse Namyats (showing a good 4M opener) as MidChart. Right now it appears it's SuperChart which seems fairly ludicrous to me. This convention is not common but moving from Super to Mid would be a good start. Distant 5th) Allow Multi-2D as GCC. We gotta start learning sometime -- the rest of the world feels like they can deal with it.

Well, I guess I now know the worst hand I'll ever hold in my life. I was dealt : 753 53 6543 6542 in a Swiss match this year. I took a photo of the hand and it's on my cell phone. Pip count is 58. Seems really difficult to get less than 50.

Other two suits, and for simplicity I don't play that minors vs. majors matters. In my experience, partner's always the joker, so penalty is a poor treatment. Being 5-5 in the other two suits does come up (albeit rarely) and it's priceless when it does. I love this treatment so much that my partners often refer to this as "Eugene's favorite double".

I am a long-time partner of Joel Hoersch and I have his Joelcoby notes. If there is enough interest in it, I would be willing to publish an article on it on BridgeWinners.

Hallelujah to keeping track of completion rate. I assume that the Flash software will alert you if you are about to take an action that will cause your completion rate to get "dinged". Will Windows users also get dinged? What is the criteria for determining a "new member"? Date of first login, # of logins, or both?

The two situations are not analogous. The decision on whether to bid/pass is much easier when partner has already asked us to bid (via takeout double) than when he has passed (over 1NT). Competing at the 1-level in a suit partner is known to have support for vs. competing at the 2-level in a suit partner could be void in is like night and day. Not to mention that 1NT is a much more precise opening bid than 1D in standard systems, so responder is well-placed to judge correctly.

Perhaps chasetb didn't mean to conflate the "rude scientific New Yorker" with Larry, who is fairly well-known as a class act both at and away from the table.

East also autopasses in balancing if he has 0-9 HCP.

Did another 1000 and changed the passout parameter to have East (balancing) pass it out when holding 0-2 hearts (I tend to pass it out with shortness in the other major.) Slam = 754 No slam = 246 Unlucky slam = 58 [partner has 3 cards in a major but slam cannot make] No 5-level = 67 May be passed out = 44 ---------------------- So the answer on this sample was : 67 make 10 or fewer, 179 make 11 (and at least 58 are unlucky), 754 make 12 or more.

I've always treated these types of hands as 1S/6H and have been reasonably successful doing so, but I admit my sample size is not large. I have never been passed at the 1-level, but the argument that slam may not be making is a reasonable one. Let's see what a sim says. In 1000 hands (no constraints on the unseen hands) 608 make slam in spades 544 make slam in hearts 270 have no slam in either major 2 may be passed out (defined as North has 0-5 HCP and 0-1 controls, and neither East/West have a 2-level overcall (although that definition is not robust)). I don't think the risk of a passout is very high, especially given that we are unfavorable. Looking at the hands with no slams in either major, some are slams you want to be in single-dummy, but fail due to a foul break, while others are just bad.

Interesting you posted this hand today. It is similar to a hand I was reading in a bridge column yesterday where Lauria decided to drop his LHO's doubleton queen after RHO, known to have four, went out of his way to not discard one, causing Lauria to believe that RHO did NOT have the queen. Link: http://aces.bridgeblogging.com/?p=2188

I should add that the best time to bypass is when you have mediocre spades and a heart fit (Qxxx Kxx Ax KJxx is a clear 2♣ response for me), and the worst time to do so is when you have good spades and no fit for hearts. I'm not saying that I'm always bypassing, just that I'm willing to bypass and get my values off my chest, and try to sort out finding a 4-4 spade fit later.

I guess you'll have to be pretty harsh on me, Siegmund, because I was convinced to start bypassing 4 spades to show a game-force only a couple years ago and I think it's greatly improved my bidding. Auctions after 2/1 gf are one of the strongest parts of the system, just like auctions after a 1NT opening in sayc, and I think the tradeoff is well worth it. You lose some definition on the 4-5 hands but you gain much more by being able to convey your general balanced strength immediately.

I agree with Stephen. I think what JLOGIC and rogerclee is saying is more valuable for players aspiring to be expert or world-class, which is the stage of the learning process they are currently in. But having recently taught beginners, and intermediates, I think reading a lot of good books is far more efficient than just playing. A book can focus one's thoughts on a particular area (e.g., Law of Total Tricks/competitive bidding; preempting; safety plays; trump control; inferences) and drill that area so that the student can learn the appropriate principle and then figure out how to apply it when it comes up at the table. A beginner who just plays may take years to identify the concept of bidding more with more total trumps (see the LOLs at the club for an example). Obviously some play is essential, but I think a beginner who has read the right books is likely to become better faster, than a beginner who tries to learn just from playing.

No problem, I obviously was more culpable in not getting my spots/plays right when I posted the hand.

Fascinating discussion here on signalling, I'm glad I posted the hand. FWIW I do believe suit preference is not standard below the top-level, but if I were playing with a top partner I expect it to be standard. Just for completeness, on the actual hand partner had QJx of diamonds and Qxx of clubs (declarer had J9x of clubs), so a diamond or the club king (to induce a misguess) would have been fine.

I apologize in advance. gnasher has hit upon a good inference that was sadly missing at the table because I had misremembered the spots and the sequence of plays. Declarer had played spade ace at trick 2 and then spade to jack, and partner had petered to show 3, so in real life it was a practical certainty that declarer had AKxx -- I completely blanked on the spade situation because I was focusing my thought on the minors, not the known spades. My bad. I think gnasher's argument for a spade return on the problem presented above is quite good given a good declarer and partner.

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sj73ht764da52ca65&e=sq64hj9dk764ckt83]266|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] South opens 1NT (11-13 balanced) and it gets passed out. Lead: ♥2 (4th best, upside down count and attitude, no Smith) Heart two, four, nine, KING Spade two, nine, jack, QUEEN. Heart JACK, three, eight, six What would you shift to now, and why?

The bridge forums are a great resource, but they need to be better indexed before they meet the standards of "literature". Right now it is difficult for the average user (not the search mavens like gwnn) to quickly look up a specific discussion area.

Thanks, Ben -- yes, I ran into it on a bidding practice table and I thought it would make a nice hand for the par contest, with lots of potential traps yet biddable.

Really? Do most posters agree with this? From an American perspective, I disagree. It's "standard" in America for the non-competitive jump raise to be limit, with 2NT reserved for game-forcing raises. It's certainly playable for the non-competitive jump raise to be preemptive, but I would never assume this playing with an American partner. The ACBL underscores this distinction by requiring an alert for weak 1M (P) 3M, but not an alert for weak 1M (any call besides pass) 3M. I remember playing against a prominent young European player at an American NABC whose partner bid 1M - 3M as pre-emptive. When 3M was not alerted as weak, and we passed out the hand, my partner and I successfully appealed the passout since they violated ACBL alert procedure. (We had hands that were unsuitable for bidding over a limit raise but reasonable for bidding over a pre-emptive one.) The European was annoyed, and started humming under his breath "only in America". So bluecalm may be right in Europe, but he's not right in America.

I'd rather market to the younger generation than to the older generation. Longer retention. Even now we're still reaping the benefits of marketing to youth in the 1940s. Put in tie-ins to popular media franchises like Lord of the Rings -- Orcs for Clubs with Saruman as the Ace, or Elves for Hearts, and then have the cards fight when they win, and you may get some more people to give it a try. Purists may howl, but if we don't try to capture more players, in 25 years there may not be enough people left playing.

Oh come now, I don't think 3♠ is deserving of the label "insulting to everyone at the table". The KJTxxxx hand and out is five playing tricks with spades trump, and the hand above feels like six playing tricks if you have a fit. Yes, partner's judgement is impaired, but at 1st favorable, I don't think partner should be trusting me too much. When favorable, being a trustworthy partner is much lower priority for me than creating tough auctions for opponents. As long as both partners agree about the priority (i.e., be a tough opponent favorable, be a good partner vulnerable) that's what matters. I'd personally open it 1♠, but I would have no problem with a partner who decided to open 3♠. Let's save the description of "insulting" for calls that truly deserve it, shall we?