The_Badger

[hv=pc=n&e=s9hkj76dqj8754c97&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1c2s]133|200[/hv] [hv=pc=n&n=st84hjtdk752ca962&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=pp1h2d]133|200[/hv] Comparable hands. Really? (Apologies Jinksy, but to me they don't look comparable in any shape or form.)

Pudsey. The performing dog on Britain's Got Talent. Winner of the Final. (Mission impossible) https://youtu.be/dv_gOBi8Wpk (Flintstones) (James Bond) (Thriller)

This is tricky. There is a 3♦ bid available for North (in the absence of any other agreements, like 3♦ being a splinter or 'Bergenesque' raise agreeing ♠ - unikely) It is known as a Jump Reverse guaranteeing at least 6-4 shape and 18-19 points and forcing to game. Whether anyone uses it in today's game is another matter, or whether a different North would value his hand at a 18-19 count (the K and R evaluation is higher than that), or whether it would applicable after a takeout and responsive double by the opponents, or whether East still bids 3♥, are all open to question. But I believe it would make it easier for N/S to find the ♣ game certainly. But taking away a whole level of bidding when a 2♦ reverse nearly conveys the same message is ludicrous!

Nige1's right. There is enough stuff online now that it's possible to become a competent player by using that, but the problem is sifting it to decide what's what, and what's relevant for you. Bridge has a conventional language all of its own. For example (taken from an actual advanced player's profile) 5533,invmin,nt15-17/20-22alltrnfs,gerb w2's,Wjs,2clstr.neg&suppX,dont,unnt lav.sign,RKC14-03 It's similar to learning a foreign language in a way, I suppose. You can get by with parts of it, but being competent enough to be fluent in it probably needs to be learnt in bite-sized chunks, and plenty of bite-sized chunks too. Though many, many players can have a good enough bridge game without being fluent in it and by getting by with parts of it.

First of all thank you Tramticket for posting this interesting hand, and thanks to Timo (MrAce) for finding out how expert (world class) players think, and thanks to everyone who got involved. This is what the BBO discussion forums are all about: constructive analysis. As I said with a different hand last week, there is merit in both approaches. I'm not going to gloat that the likes of Zia Mahmood, David Gold or Tony Forrester have come down on the side of the 'Passers' because there are many other experts who rightly believe that 1♠ is the right bid. It's a personal choice. There a lots of factors to take into account, and I think that most bases have been covered here now. On some days Pass will be the right bid, on others 1♠. Exchange the ♣ and ♠ suits on the hand, and many (perhaps nearly all) of the Passers would bid 1♠ - that's for certain, me included.

My personal opinion: Playing lots of bridge (as long as you analyse your results - and that is extremely difficult in itself being new to the game) will improve your gut feeling/instinct for the game, but it might only improve your knowledge slightly. How will know if a bidding sequence was right, a lead was correct, a defence was sound, or a declarer play was accurate without expert/tutorial/bridge literature knowledge? The number of times I have seen players self-congratulate themselves on their wonderful bids and plays without actually realising that what they have done is actually incorrect, and they have got lucky due to some error by their opponents, etc. Being a chess player, too, the one thing I learnt very quickly early on was that the games that you lost are more valuable than the games you win. I have been personally tutoring a prizewinning poker player, a friend of mine on here for a couple of years, and while she plays regularly - five times a week or more - and she has good card sense (something I noticed very early on) and is willing to learn new conventions every so often to improve her bidding skills, her overall skill level is still no better than intermediate, in my and her opinion. Good luck with your bridge, and enjoy the game because, for me, that's the most important aspect.

I am glad that you have started a poll on Bridgewinners too. It'll be interesting to see their replies. It's a shame that we can't see in detail who has voted on BBO. At the time of writing it is neck and neck between pass and 1♠.

Just my personal choice, but with 4 small I usually lead 2nd highest, and with 4 to an honour I lead 3rd highest playing 3/5 leads. However, it also depends whether the opponents are in a NT or a suit contract, whether my partner has bid, and whether I have supported him too.

My take on this is play whatever you feel comfortable with, but as ♠ is the anchor (top) suit and two opponents have already passed, is there any point using the 2♦ or 2♥ bids as Flannery/Fantunes-styled bids with a four card ♠ suit in 4th? If you have a ♠ fit you have the top trump suit, and can't that be shown by normal methods? I'm more in favour of 4th position 'weak twos' as intermediate weak twos 11-14(15) with a good six card suit and showing (at your discretion) maybe 3 out of 4 top honours, etc., and maybe bidding a tight game opposite a passed partner.

Basically, to sum up Tramticket. Some will ignore the double and bid naturally even after a 3rd in hand opening bid at equal vulnerability - their choice - and some of us will exercise some caution, and maybe demand a fifth ♠ to bid here, especially with a naff suit. There is no right way or wrong way of bidding this: it's all down to agreements. (Including the transfer responses detailed by miamijd.) In your original post you didn't say whether you are playing 4M or 5M, so I think we have to assume 5M given this is the most popular opening these days. (Even in England nowadays, methinks.) Bidding 1♠ does have its advantages: it can stop the opponents finding their fit; partner will know that you have a bid (6+HCPs); it's easy to find a 5-2♥ 2 level fit if partner bids on - and even if ♥s split badly, you hopefully have two entries in ♣ that will help your partner to pick up the suit. What no commentator has said up to now is that South as the doubler is in the most dangerous position. He is vulnerable with a passed partner, so even though he might not have 4♠s (as highlighted by MrAce), he's going to have some strength to compensate surely. There's even a slight (let's be honest remote) chance that North will leave the double in and your partner is left to play in 1♥X, so actually bidding and potentially increasing the level of the contract may not to your advantage. So, in conclusion, I'd personally rather put the pressure on the doubler's partner (and the doubler) by passing initially.

Yes, Turkish players have a real passion for our game (and that's good), and +1 for acknowledging that. Furthermore: Well done wank! This vote means you reach the 1000 reputation mark on BBO in fewer than 2700 posts. Now that is world class :)

Couldn't agree more, Kaitlyn. The number of players (some with high number ratings, too) on BBO that don't know the essentials, but think they are bridge supremoes with a plethora of conventions on their profiles still amazes me. I learnt my bridge solely from books and magazines, playing against players better than me, and learning from my mistakes. And I am still learning...

A ♠ or a ♥ never entered my mind, let alone the singleton ♠10. Not even worth a Bridgewinners poll; more apposite for Bridgesinners, perhaps?

Very interesting, Timo. But cheats are cheats the world over. Some are totally incorrigible. Exhibit pathological behaviour. Sadly I have a friend - perhaps the word 'acquaintance' would be more apt these days - who cannot stop defrauding people. Pure greed. And instead of finally holding their hands up and admitting their guilt will do everything in their power to justify their obscene behaviour. I am not advocating finding people guilty until proved innocent, but what exactly could the Turkish Bridge Federation do other than monitor this individual by installing video cameras? They have a duty of care to all the other honest players in their Federation. I do believe that people should be given human rights, but I also believe that those people that have committed human wrongs shouldn't be afforded the same rights as the people who behave lawfully, and thankfully we are in the vast majority. It would be a travesty that this case be dismissed on a technicality that using CCTV in this case is deemed illegal. Every day I am monitored on CCTV in the city that I live, and I have no problem with that as I go about my business in a lawful manner.

Thanks for that comprehensive reply, mike (miamijd) +1

Not knowing the answer myself I had a look at GIB's convention card, and maybe the easier route is using a Texas transfer of 4♦ followed by RKCB on this hand. But whether GIB will allow you to play in 6♥....mmmm....

The ♦Q looks the natural lead, but as steve2005 rightly says declarer will duck and that may be the end of the defence. In an effort to defeat the contract, I'm more inclined to lead the ♦3. Declarer will be forced to win, and then hope partner has a side entry and another ♦ to defeat the contract. If declarer has K10xx in ♦ then that's just bad luck. Edited (as per Phil's note below): second choice is ♦A, third is ♦Q Postscript: Is it one of those hands where your 2NT bid just makes it easier for declarer to determine the distribution, eliminate the major suits and throw you in ♦s to lead away from the ♣s?

There are previous BBO forum threads covering this topic. Hope these help. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/42808-spiral-scan-dcb-problem-hands/ http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/49461-spiral-scan/ http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/59583-spiral-scan-with-void-or-singleton/ http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/12544-skip-scan-or-spiral-scan/

George A. Romero. The director who essentially created the zombie flick. He bravely bypassed Hollywood 'Hero' stereotypes at the time and cast a black actor, Duane Jones, as the lead in his seminal zombie film Night of the Living Dead (1968)

In my opinion, this is an awkward hand to contemplate all vulnerable, and with partner bidding 3rd in hand. I'm inclined to pass and see where the auction is heading. If partner is strong he'll bid again I'll hope; if weak I don't fancy a contract by our side with the doubler over my partner's opening bid. My responses after the double are Pass < 6HCPs; Redbl 10+HCPs; 1NT 6-9 HCPs ; 1♠(forcing) but I want to have that 5th card; and 2 level bids as non forcing. While I could bid 1NT on this hand, especially with its 2 controls, I'm not too keen with two suits open, and I am just as happy to defend on this hand.

Some interesting replies so far. Let me regroup. To wank and MrAce I would say I see so many intermediate and above players using Bergen responses as standard (why?) - I'm not a fan myself. I prefer MrAce's 3m treatment as constructive. (And thanks to mike777 too for clarifying the 1NT responses.) As for bidding the hand given ♠x ♥J10x ♦xx ♣AK109xxx (apologies I missed a ♦ from the original post) in Acol, Sayc and standard Precision, for many it would be straightforward 2♣ response (even if the system is tweaked slightly), no messing about bidding nebulous 1NT responses, whereas with 2/1 you have to compromise. (I actually like bidding suits!) I acknowledge what MrAce says that in times gone by when you did bid the natural 1NT (6-9) or 2NT (10-12) it may have wrongsided the contract too, and the strong hand became dummy, but at least the 1NT/2NT bidder would have had (usually) some sort of stops in the unbid suits. The 2/1 forcing 1NT response does cover a real spread of possible hand types, and because it is so nebulous, how does it fair in a competitive auction? What I am trying to establish from this post is whether the forcing 1NT response punches it weight as a bid, or whether it has limitations due to the multitude of hands it can cover?

It doesn't happen often on frequency, but given that a 1NT bid is forcing after 1♥/1♠ bid in 2/1, what's the best way to bid good pre-emptive hands (for example ♠x ♥J10x ♦x ♣AK109xxx to a 1♠ opener) as responder given that most other bids are covered by Bergen or splinter responses? Does the ubiquitous 'dustbin' bid of 1NT cover this area, or do some players 'tweak' the system and avoid a 1NT response? And how do players generally feel about the forcing 1NT response covering such a multitude of hands and handshapes, even extreme distributions? And thirdly, and lastly, given that the 1NT is probably statistically the most likely response to 1♥/1♠, and 3NT is most popular contract, has the 1NT response - from a personal view - wrongsided many 3NT contracts and how do players feel generally about the strong hand being dummy and being exposed?

Given that GIB is consistent, even with its 'foibles' - 'foible' what a polite, humanitarian way of gently criticising AI :) - does still make it a level playing field though. May the best man or woman win!

Technically, even though many players don't favour it playing 5M and 2/1 - I acknowledge that, with 5-5 black 1♣ is the correct opening, so with 6-5 I'm always opening 1♣. Playing Precision it's always a 1♣ opener for me too. Kaplan and Rubens hand evaluator puts it as a tad over 20 even with the two singleton Ks.

The hand is a tad over a 20 count on the Kaplan & Rubens hand evaluator. As a Precision player myself for many years, I would always open 1♣. There's no knowing even at this vulnerability that the opponents are going to compete. (Partner could be 6-6-1-0 in the majors and you're looking at a massive misfit.) However, opening 2♣ followed by a 'reverse' in ♦ suits this hand well too. And to what level initially are the opponents going to compete? I just can't see them bidding beyond 4♠/4♥ (but they might mind you) if we haven't bid game ourselves, so a 4NT bid can always be used as a reserve bid showing the minors after a 1♣ opening. I think the choice of opening bid all depends on the structures you have in your Precision system to cope with interference, and what bids you have available to show controls in your system. I haven't voted as I think both approaches deserve merit. On one day a 1♣ will be right, and on another a 2♣ opener will be the winning bid.