The_Badger

hi smerriman, GIB might play it as FSF however, I believe, the majority of players would play it at the one level as natural, a suit. Hmmm... I wonder if the GIB 2/1 system has been programmed to favour 4 card majors over longer minors when responding?

hi Cyberyeti, Apologies. I entirely agree with what you say. I did think about that hours after posting, but on this hand the entries to use a ♣K or ♥K are the cards that matter. As you rightly say, a 6♦ bid to establish the ♦Q is problematical, but it has more weight knowing possibly that you have an entry to discard a loser on one of dummy's kings. I feel the original Wei Precision system would have wrapped up the bidding on this hand in a blink of an eye, having specialist control asking bids made by opener establishing key cards below the 6 level.

oh Cyberyeti! Let's be positive please :) It would be mildly embarrassing if partner had ♦Qx, a stiff trump, and either the ♣K or the♥K and we missed a grand slam! There's 18 HCPs shared between the other three hands, and when no-one else has made a bid I tend to say, well they've got about 6 HCPs or so each. I work on that general assumption. I personally like the sequence 2♣ - 2♦ - 3♠ (setting suit) - 4♠ - 5♦ - 5♠ - 6♦ If partner has enough nous he should surely realise that you have a solid suit, all the 1st round controls, as you haven't engaged RKCB, and that this second suit is the key to the final contract. Anyone who doesn't want to be in at least a 6♠ contract with this rockcrusher is a bit timid in my personal opinion. Let partner make the final decision. I realise 7NT may be on, but i'll settle for 7♠: it's better than 6♠+1

Here's a bit of 'light relief' (among the 14 pages of replies on here) for us statistically-minded bods courtesy of Columbia University. And yes, I know, it's quite bizarre what university students study these days... http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/unpublished/notrump_falk_gelman_icml.pdf

Here's a bit of 'light relief' (among the 106 pages of replies on here) for us statistically-minded bods courtesy of Columbia University. And yes, I know, it's quite bizarre what university students study these days... http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/unpublished/notrump_falk_gelman_icml.pdf

hi SelfGovern, I personally don't like Michaels with uneven strength/length with the suits. I tend to stick to 5/5 or 6/5 with the 6 card suit being weak. Also, don't like Michaels with this hand too, especially non-vulnerable, as Michaels is more a competitive bid, I feel, than showing this nice 6-1-5-1 shape (A 17.75 count on K&R). Sort of agree with 4♠ as a tactical bid, but personally prefer a 1♠ overcall. As mike777 rightly says: I doubt the bidding will end here.

hi weejonnie, These things happen! Personally I'd be happy with +150 given that East/West have a cold 4♠ contract on. Bridge directors have better things to do than to be called to a table where the opponents have landed in a crap contract through forgetfulness :)

hi phoenix214, My interpretation: TRUST PARTNER! He's already shown strength with XX, and X of the opponents 2♠ bid re-affirms that (with a good trump holding). Take the penalty.

hi bridgepali, I agree entirely with Vampyr's reply. Without sounding patronising, I believe you are trying to work out for yourself what makes this game tick. That's not a bad thing, but people have been trying to understand this game for over 80 years, and there have been numerous books - many by renowned experts - written about it too. With just 33 logins in 11 months, maybe the way forward is to buy a few modern bridge books and play a bit more bridge on here yourself. That's the easiest way to learn the game, by experiencing it and reading about it.

hi Liversidge, In total agreement with Stephen Tu (and thanks also to a reply from MrAce on a previous post detailing modern udca leads). However, there's a big difference between leading against a 1NT [2NT also] contract or 3NT with this holding. And also what must come into consideration is how the opponents have bid. And other potential entries in your hand. And whether playing at matchpoints or IMPs? I'm not keen on leading high from only a 4 card suit against no-trumps. I'm not advocating leading the 7 from that holding, what I am advocating is maybe not leading at all! It all depends on a number of factors as listed above. There's a big difference between leading an ace or king against a suit contract, or an ace or king against a no-trump contract. The high card will at least keep you on lead while you plan you next move but it may also give the declarer valuable information to plan avoidance plays and throw-ins. Especially at no trumps.

Well done Fluffy and Frances Hinden! But on a more sober note, all these accusations are just tarnishing the bridge world further. I am glad that Boye Brogeland highlighted the cheating partnerships in the game, but the bridge world needs to draw a line under the recent Bermuda Bowl. I think bridge players who play on the international circuit know now that any indiscretion will be taken seriously by the laws and ethics committee, and a lifetime ban from the game should be obligatory if they are found guilty. I also think if it involves an international team event, that team should also have a five year ban too from playing internationally. Yes, that might seem harsh but it is the only way probably to get the message across that cheats aren't welcome in our game. If you play as a team with cheats, even if your partnership is clean, you are by association cheating too. Period.

hi bravejason, I think I know exactly what you are thinking: it's one of those inbetweeny hands that if you bid low game will be missed, and if you bid high and encourage partner, game cannot be made. As mikestar13 says it all depends on the strength of your partner's overcalls, and obviously the vulnerability too - as that might marginally change the strength of an overcall. Personally I'm more inclined to err on the side of caution. It may be 12HCPs, but it's not a great twelve with your longest suit being the weakest, and your strongest suit under the opening bidder. Given that overcalls are made on less points than opening bids, 1NT looks enough. I feel.

hi m1cha, It's all up to partnership agreement what labels you wish to put on these bids, however, I'm more interested in how you are interpreting the Law of Total Tricks. This all depends on the vulnerability, the shape and content of your hands and the quick tricks, honour cards and intermediates available. I personally n-1 a trick if vulnerable against non-vulnerable, and a 9 card trump fit is usually good for 9 or 10 tricks I feel, especially if you and your partner's hands are distributional. The Law of Total Tricks is just a guide, and is not set in stone. Beyond the 4 level it loses its effectiveness. And there are plenty of hands where the Law goes haywire. As Richard Pavilcek says: The Law of Total Trash http://www.rpbridge.net/8k65.htm

hi movingon, It can be interpreted two different ways, depending on agreement. Pre-emptive would be most players' option; though it also could be a hand with a ♦ fit, a side ♠ suit, a sort of 'mixed raise' and a low ODR (Offence/Defence Ratio) These specialised bids were explored by Andrew Robson and Oliver Segal some 20 years ago in the book: Partnership Bidding in Bridge: The Contested Auction. However, whether this sequence would apply is open to question. (I'm more inclined to opt for the pre-empt option.) The idea behind the 'mixed raise' is to provide an alternative opening lead option, and provide information in one bid whether partner should sacrifice or not.

hi nullve, OH MY GOD! Nothing else to say. Quite unbelievable.

hi m1cha, I am sometimes surprised - and I'm not talking about your experimental bid with GIB - how inaccurately splinters are used. A partnership should have set guidelines when to use the bid, but I find many deviate when they have a fit for partner and a singleton/void. [Personally, I'm not keen on using splinters with voids.] And as you have found out yourself, splinters give the opponents the opportunity to double, and also, assess an opening lead better. All in all, a useful tool, but a tool, like all tools, that has to be used correctly for it to be effective :)

hi jexa_ I'm no 2/1 expert myself, but 2/1 does have a lot of advantages of other systems, however there are certain card shapes and fits that it doesn't handle well - and that applies to any system - however these are in the minority. The ubiquitous 1NT response is partly to blame. The hand you have given I really cannot comment on further as in my view, like yourself, it is one where a 5-3 ♥ fit could be missed, preferring a rather nondescript 2NT contract as its possible final resting place if both hands are minimum.

Betting sites can be pretty useless at predicting political events. Take Brexit - Britain's exit from the European Union - for example. Up to last day before voting you still could get 5-2 as a bet on Brexit: it was an odds-on certainty that Britain was going to vote to stay in the European Union. How wrong they were! And, Labour Party leader, Jeremy Corbyn, was a 100-1 shot to win the leadership when he was first nominated out of 4 candidates, as many thought he was far too left-wing to succeed as the Labour party put him up as their token left-wing candidate. And guess what: he won it by a mile! And sadly, my best friend (and this is a true story) who is an ex-bookmaker was going to place £1000 at 100-1 but decided not to, and he still had an opportunity at 50-1 too. And why was he interested in this bet? Well, he has this theory that in political elections it is activists that amass support, people who want to change things for (in their opinion) the better. As I much as I personally dislike Donald Trump, he's making a helluva lot more press over here in Britain than Hillary Clinton. And when a candidate's got impetus who knows how the public's going to vote...

In the 1970s both chess and bridge programmes were on television on the BBC: there were just 4 channels then. Now we have 400+ channels and are there any bridge or chess programmes? I don't know as I no longer have a TV: too much tripe on it! And I agree, sfi, lessons at a bridge club are a terrible way for most people to learn so it's up to the schools, colleges and universities to get younger people interested initially. You can't rely on 'bridge families' to pass on their knowledge to their offspring. I didn't come from a chess or bridge family but learnt at school: chess at primary school before age 11, bridge at secondary school (11-16). So it can be done.

With that one comment, billw55, I believe you have truly hit the nail on the head, I feel. And as both you and Hrothgar note: there is possibly an ageist issue too insomuch that bridge is perceived as a seniors game, and as I said on another post recently, 'bridge is not trendy enough for many young people'. Well, in my view, the national bridge federations needs to address this seriously because in the end there will be few who will know how to play the game. I remember the days (in the late 1970s) when my local bridge clubs used to have 25 or so tables on a weekday evening. I was a teenager at the time. They are lucky if they can rustle up 10 tables now, 12 at max. these days. Give it another generation and, I feel, many bridge clubs will have to close. I think bridge needs that Fischer vs. Spassky moment to re-energise it - this is when I took an interest in chess. If the bridge world can't see with all their intelligence what is actually happening with their beloved game - or maybe they don't care as they will be dead by the time it happens - then I really fear for the future of the game.

hi MrAce, The easiest bid to make is 4♥ as it takes any decision-making out of the equation. 3♥ to me is a bit neither here or there. Will partner realise you have 4 card ♥ support with that bid? I actually like 2♠. It will give partner an extra bid to describe his hand. My opponents are vulnerable and haven't got involved further, and I can't see them entering the auction now. They have no way to tell (other than your partner not opening the bidding) that you and your partner are minimum at best. However, even bidding 2♠ I really can't see how you don't end up in 4♥ eventually, so eagles123 is probably right: just bid it.

hi patroclo, Whilst recognising there's a vast difference between chess and bridge programs, if as Stefan_O says these competitors are mostly one-man-show projects why hasn't someone, like a university computer science department been given a grant to develop a bridge program to the next level? There's plenty of money in the bridge and computer world. It is nearly 20 years (1997) since Deep Blue defeated world champion Garry Kasparov at chess. So have people taken the view that bridge doesn't really matter as the number of players are declining year upon year and it's not a profitable enterprise? It's really odd that both Jack and GIB (both previous winners of the World Bridge Computer Championship) aren't involved this year. Bizarre, in fact.

hi ahydra, Even though you hold the other three suits between you, North has opened at the one level as opposed to pre-empted, and then bid 4♥ without any help from partner. Anything can happen with wild(ish) distribution. I'd quietly take a plus score if one exists. No double, no trouble applies both ways.

hi mike777 I would expect most accomplished Precision Club players would find 6♣ on this hand, as long as they haven't hijacked the opening 2♣ bid for something else. When default bids are introduced into a system that take away natural bids this sort of thing is bound to occur. And I agree with a few others on here - not knowing the system myself - but 3NT looks like a bad, unimaginative or lazy bid, but there again the system may have run out of space to relay further. Time to fine tune the system, methinks.