FelicityR

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-rules-out-northern-20033703 Oh well...what next?

I watched this again today. This is moderate Labour's [Party] film on Brexit: Lexit. You do wonder who is driving the cogs of the Remain campaign? As much as I don't have much affinity or love towards the Conservative Party, there are dark forces trying by any means possible to thwart Boris Johnson's and our country's exit from the EU. If we don't leave, then both my husband and I have promised never to vote for anything political ever again as democracy will be dead. On a different note, we took a bus ride through our nearest city today - I live on the rural outskirts - and looked at all the deprivation, weeds, graffiti, closed down shops, litter, etc. and the sheer grottiness of the place. It's as if nobody cared about what was happening in this country. You can blame various politicians or different parties, but we do need a strong figurehead to lead this country. Given the choice between Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn, I could never vote for the latter. As for voting for Boris Johnson, that's unlikely to happen either, even if we finally leave the EU. Difficult times indeed...

BBO New Version. Home Page. Right screen tab "People" shows friends online. For friends offline go to bottom of page move "Show Offline" button.

A good rule of thumb when opponents open any pre-empt is to give partner an 8 HCP hand. With more than 8 he/she will raise: without it he/she will not. An overcall of 2NT may become unstuck, but that's what I would say most of the time with this hand, maybe even vulnerable. Vulnerable games need to be bid. You might get more MPs or IMPs points by passing and partner balancing with a double in 4th. "Damned if you do, and damned if you don't" as my husband would say.. As pescetom rightly indicates, it's at the lower end of a 2NT overcall.

http://vote-watch.co.uk/eu-cash-momentum-foot-soldiers-the-truth-behind-the-anti-boris-boos/ http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2018/01/17/we-need-to-talk-about-momentum-and-anti-semitism/ https://www.dissentmagazine.org/blog/the-new-authoritarian-marxism-2-an-anti-democratic-theory-of-socialism Over on this side of the Atlantic we have extreme left-wing activists attempting to oust moderate centre-left and socialist candidates from their constituency seats. Momentum have been found guilty of electoral fraud, too. There are issues regarding illegal use of postal votes, and issues regarding anti-semitism as well. In essence, they are anti-democratic, thus authoritarian in nature. And yes, I agree, authoritarian regimes are mainly right wing in nature, but there are plenty of socialist governments in the world who practise their own form of authoritarianism.

That's an interesting read. There's probably many more reasons why democracy is declining beyond Professor Rosenberg's analysis. Here in the UK we have a 'democratic vote' to leave the European Union, though now people who want remain in the EU now cite 'democratic rights' to stop us leaving. So when people cannot respect and abide by a democratic decision they now have the power to try to overturn that decision. What's the point of democracy when that happens? Obviously this Leave/Remain impasse has polarised opinion further, so it's no wonder both hard line left and right wing factions have emerged from the chaos. It's strange how Professor Rosenberg concentrates on the rise of right wing authoritarianism, when there is an equally obnoxious brand of left wing authoritarianism out there too practising their own brand of bias. And never the twain shall meet...

Here's the whole hand. We ended up with the score of 3NT-7 [a first!] after I bid 3♠ and partner converted to 3NT (which I was unsure whether to leave in) and the opponents made the inspired lead of the ♠Q. Yes, it is a bit of a freak hand around the edges. Partner could have opened 1NT (12-14) but said afterwards that he felt it was worth more with the three 10's, two good suits, and the easy 1♥ - 2♦ rebid available, and I agreed with him. The opponents made 5♦ doubled by South after East tried to cash a third ♣ (why, oh why?) instead of switching to a ♠. That was -16 IMPs. Needless to say we didn't win that afternoon... [hv=pc=n&s=sk3hadkq98653c542&w=sat984h98743d2c96&n=s75hkqjt6dajt4ckt&e=sqj62h52d7caqj873]399|300[/hv]

I try to look on distributional hands like this as "bid backwards". What would you open with the East hand vulnerable? 4♠ seems the obvious choice. Partner's already indicated an opening hand, maybe a little bit more than extras here with the 3♣ bid, but has that bid helped your hand? Not really, except if he/she has an exceptional fit and key cards. On that basis I'll just bid 4♠ and congratulate those where 6♠ can be bid and made through scientific bidding. I believe the Americanism "Landing on a Dime" applies here. Just bid what the hand feels is the right bid.

3NT has been adequately stopped on less than Q874 in many other contracts. It's usually easier to make 9 tricks in the no-trumps than 11 tricks in the minors.

Given that bridge is a social game about communication (bidding, signals, etc.) it doesn't surprise me that it is slowly dying a death socially. There are always younger players coming into the game, but so many young people these days seemed to be wrapped-up with social media, their phones, video games, etc. and as a result society as a whole is becoming more 'single-person orientated'. I know of a number of families (including my own family: son and daughter) where sharing a kitchen table for food with their children happens very rarely, so sharing a kitchen table for a game of cards just isn't on the menu, excuse the pun. And even when they share food at the kitchen table, our grandchildren have some electronic game nearly, sometimes playing it between courses! Or rushing off immediately after the meal to play their X-box game. I also doubt if bridge is taught much in schools these days. Maybe both chess and bridge should be compulsory and on the school curriculum (says me very much tongue in cheek). And bridge might make some sort of revival if it was.

I'm bidding 3♣ [not a typo] here as a FNJ (Fit Non Jump). I want partner to know I have a good raise in ♦s, not some pre-emptive hand plus indicate an alternative lead. I can raise in ♦s later. Partner doesn't need much for 5♦ to be viable. He/she could have bid 3♦ on the first round with a six card suit and a weak hand, so I will take the 2♦ overcall as better than just interference.

A fit is a fit is a fit is a fit...and supressing it is just anti-bridge. There's a billion reasons why your partner is wrong and that is down to a gentleman called Sam Stayman and his namesake convention that has probably - can some other bridge player confirm this - been used more times than any other convention. Just look at this situation as a 'backwards version of Stayman' As other commentators have rightly said, evaluating and raising a fit with hands in the 15-17 range could prove slightly problematic but after a 1m - 1M auction assuming you play 5 card majors (given that your profile says that you are from the USA), responder will either have a 5-6+ HCP hand with a four card major, or a 5 card major in a slightly lesser hand. The 4-4 fit will usually play for a trick or two more than a NT contract, and supressing the fit and using some checkback after rebidding 1NT just gives information to the opposition. I would be more worried as a responder where my 4 card major has been raised to the two level by opener, not quite knowing if he/she a 3 card fit or a 4 card one, and using some form of checkback here might be useful if responder has game values, but looking for a NT contract when you definitely have a 4-4 fit is taking things too far. Only once in a blue moon will no-trumps play better than 4 of a major.

Very bad news all round. I despair of all of the politicians in the UK. They really don't seem to understand the gut feeling of the electorate, or for that matter what the word democracy actually means. After last night's heated and ill-mannered debate, and vote in the House of Commons - what must the rest of the world think of our politicians watching that: so much for civilisation - my husband, who at his age, can't take things seriously any more had the perfect anecdote this morning. "Forget about Guy Fawkes, who failed," he said, "just watch this instead, Fluff (my pet name)" Yes, that YouTube clip did make me laugh and cheered me up no end this morning :)

Given that most bridge books crossover information from other books, etc. one that I would recommend, although it is now nearly 30 years old and is a sometimes difficult read is "Partnership Bidding at Bridge" by Britain's foremost player Andrew Robson with Oliver Segal. It deals exclusively with the contested (competitive) auction. Although not playing them myself both the European systems, the Polish Club and the Fantunes, have proved to be effective in top level bridge, however, with all this bidding 'stuff' (for want of a better word) various regulatory bodies such as The English Bridge Union and the American Contract Bridge League have rules and regulations what can and can't be used in various competitions.

Playing a small IMP match (4 teams) at the club yesterday with my regular partner, I had the following [hv=pc=n&s=sk3hadkq98653c542&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=p1h2c2dp3dp]133|200[/hv] We were playing 5M Acol with a weak 12-14 NT. Quite expecting partner to rebid ♥s he surprised me by supporting ♦s. What bid do you think is best for us here and, as always, thank you for your replies. (I won't tell you what I bid as it had disastrous results, but at least my partner and I learnt a valuable lesson from the board.)

My understanding of super-accepts after Stayman are that they are evaluated on The Law Of Total Tricks as well as High Point Counts. Here with an extra (fifth) trump to compensate for what you see as a poor 15 count, if you can't super-accept on this hand... And as sfi said, partner could have a poor 7 count where game is always there. One other way of looking at this (as we play weak NT Acol) is that I would have opened 1♠ on this hand, and with a poor 7 count and 5♠s partner would have bid 4♠ as a straightforward responder's pre-emptive bid. Actually there is a case for not just super-accepting on this hand, but super-super-accepting and bidding 4♠ now that you have found a 10 card trump fit. The opponents are unlikely to double, and obviously taking into consideration the vulnerability, even if partner turns up with nowt in his/her hand, the opponents probably have 110/130 their way.

Yesterday at MPs I had the sort of hand I dread. Not enough to open (in my opinion) but when the bidding came round to me I was in "a bit of a fix". It would be interesting to find out how other players cope with this situation, especially at expert level, though I have posted this hand in the Intermediate and Advanced Discussion as that's my own bridge level of expertise. We were play 4 Major/4 minor Acol with a 12-14 No Trump, though I have also made the poll to reflect if a partnership is playing 5 Major/3 minor 2/1 or the SAYC system with a 15-17 No Trump too. And, as always, thank you for your replies. [hv=pc=n&s=sat4h8643dkq7cq95&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=pp1c1h]133|200[/hv] (For your information, my partner does not open light with a minor suit in 3rd position, though obviously other partnerships may elect to do so. And that can cause its own problems...)

Yes. The very reason why I rarely play online. People's manners...or lack of them.

I hazard a guess here that it is some form of "Winkle Squeeze". Though someone more experienced than me will probably correct me on that :)

Maybe if you bid 3♠ instead of 2♠ setting the trump suit and showing a solid suit this intervention might have not happened. 3♠ by the opponents here, given that you have already announced your big 2♣ hand sounds more of an exclusion bid (void) designed to disrupt your bidding as much as possible. As, I assume, there were no formal agreements and the bid was undiscussed it could have been either a two-suited Michael's type hand (hearts and a minor) or a three suited hand with a singleton or void in ♠s. I'll let an experienced director on the forums discuss the implications of such an action. Obviously, what happened after the 3♠ bid, and whether you were damaged by it, is just as important too.

Without knowing that partner is going to rebid 2♠, or the opponents might raise ♦s, I'm inclined to X as it gives you the opportunity to find a ♣ fit, too After 1♠ - [2♦] - X - 2♠ it isn't easy. Would 3♥ be forcing here? I'm not expert enough to comment here. I suppose it all comes down to agreements.

Nothing wrong with "youthful enthusiasm" if it gets you the right result :) Is there a sensible bid you can make on the first round of bidding? I assume 2♣ again shows majors, and 3♣ would be pre-emptive. You're the wrong shape for a double, and how would you proceed if partner bid a major in response? You wouldn't know his/her point range. Then what? Given that you are 6421 shape with 10 cards in the minors, I think you are completely safe passing on the first round as there is a high probability that either the opponents or your partner will mention a major.

2♥ with 5332 just looks gruesome (for want of a better word) at this vulnerability. Partner has enough to raise to 3♥ (thinking his ♣K is a good card) but as sfi rightly said should have done so after immediately after 2♠.

I might be old school here, and yes, nearly all players would now open 1♠ on the South hand, but with 5/5 in the black suits and a moderate hand I would be opening 1♣ here. And if that happens, partner would be happier leaving 3NT in. The quite decent ♣ suit gets 'lost in the mix' on the bidding given.

That's the reason why I posted this board: I was quite surprised that both pairings reached 4♠ by different routes. I could imagine one pairing stretching to 3♠ if the opponents got competitive, but 4♠ seems a complete longshot, in my opinion. It's as though both partnerships had forgotten their partner (North) had passed in first position, or that South is in third position and might have opened 1♠ with the lightest of hands. And I agree that this could happen to players of any age, not just juniors. When I was watching Vugraph one table played the board some minutes before the other. I watched one auction reach 4♠, and thought that's not going to happen at the other table this will be a swing board, but it did. And then I questioned my own ability evaluating the hand via losers and the Losing Trick Count, thinking along the lines that with slightly different cards this contract makes in 7 out of 10 cases, let's say, so bidding game is favourable. And thanks for your contributions.