The_Badger

hi MrAce, Quite open to admit I don't know the subtle intricacies of 2/1 bidding, but prefer 3♣ to X. I would have thought a new suit at this level would be forcing. As 5-5 ♣+♠ hands should technically be opened 1♣ - although quite a few players do not - by bidding this way 1♠ followed by 3♣, I believe that would show 6♠s + 4♣+ with the HCP count you have. Partner doesn't need much: a singleton ♠, ♦A and ♣Jxxxxx for 6♣ to be on.

hi manudude03, My card play isn't what it used to be - I'll probably need 15 minutes or so to find the right play :( - but the bidding is what I want justified! North's opening is 1♣ 16+ which I assume is Precision, South has one of those impossible negative 4441 hands. 4♥ in a Moysian is not where you want to be! So 1♥ in the bidding is 6-8 and 4♥+ Talk about the principle of fast arrival in a difficult contract. Crash, bang, wallop. Not exactly precise!

hi eagles123, I'd like to pass with this shape and hope that partner balances, but that may be impossible if the opponents get their act together. (And coming in at a higher level is fraught with difficulties.) If I had a ♥ stop I'd be bidding 1NT with 15-17, so 15 would be the minimum I'd countenance a X. If you are flat(tish) I believe you should be an honour trick above the normal level (a good 11HCPs 4144) to X. Vulnerable, or at adverse vulnerability, or matchpoints wouldn't change my decision much: it's dangerous coming in with these sort of hands after an opening bid, so a tad more strength to compensate for lack of shape is required, I feel.

Thanks for your replies, olegru and Diana, Just hope BBO sort this matter out promptly for you, olegru.

hi olegru, Cheaters need to go. Period. I am not, and I'm sure there will be others too, who will be unfamiliar with ACBL speedballs. What are they doing to raise your suspicions? Or is that best left unsaid as things stand?

hi nullve, Just as a bit of fun I put ♠1032 ♥9 ♦1098765432 into Kaplan & Rubens hand evaluator and it came out at 7.30.

There's a happy medium between The Profile With No Name (and no systems or conventions either!) and The Encyclopaedia of Bridge Conventions Profile. But BBO can't insist on names (and they may be false anyway). Nor can they compromise an experienced player's use of conventional tools. So I accept BBO for what it is: a place to play bridge and make friends :)

hi helene t, Love the psyche idea, but I'm sure the late great John Collings if he was asked for a Bols Bridge Tip would say something along the lines of "Psyche your opponents, but never your partner!" [ I do recognise that your post may be tongue-in-cheek :) ] I think the danger here is that partner is strong and by bidding immediately you will encourage him. If he is strong he's probably got enough to come back in, even vulnerable. West has seen his partner pass and is balancing, not competing as yet. If he's got a good hand, he's likely to Dbl then bid his suit. As for 1NT forcing, that could show a variety of hands except this one, I feel. A 1♠ - 2♠ raise is usually constructive nowadays, and this hand doesn't fit the bill. So I'm passing (reluctantly) now and hope to bid later.

hi Kaitlyn S, I like innovation, but "moth-eaten" (your words) 6 card suits pre-empts are not advisable red/white in 1st. Forget about what else you have in your hand, because pre-empts should promise virtually nothing outside, I feel. I'll deal with the 1♥ - 1♠ - 1NT - 4♠ auction if it arises, in the meantime I will find the best opening bid with a hand that is easy to rebid if the opponents don't interfere. That is a gauge of an opening bid with a light(ish) hand: have you got a suitable rebid? 3♥s is miles worse (in my opinion) than 2♥, and 2♥ is pretty bad. Nothing personal as everyone's entitled to their view. But many big hitters have also endorsed 1♥. I am merely a small time card shark in comparison :)

[Deleted - duplicated]

Do you want to bid again, surelyours? Partner could have a very poor hand and you run the risk of a big penalty when the opponents cannot make game. Pass the 2♥ bid is the best option, I feel

hi shyams, Rule of 20 - this is 21 - says open this hand 1♥, the sixth ♥ making it a definite one level opening even at red, I feel. Not keen on ♦Qx outside the main suits, but the 6-5-2-0 (or 6-5-1-1) shape has great playing strength except if you have a massive misfit. I agree with MrAce and kenberg that a 2♥ opening doesn't even enter the equation as you could miss game as partner doesn't need much to help you make one. As for pass and competing later, well the opponents could be 4♠ before you can bid again, so pass is not on my radar either.

hi surelyours, ♣ + ♦ = minor suit, minor meaning 'lower' ♥ + ♠ = major suit, major meaning 'higher' On the diagram, Rdbl could be ♠xx ♥xxx ♦xx ♣Q98xxx or, ♠x ♥xx ♦JTxxxxx ♣x 'minor' also means 'small child' in English. Hope this helps

hi Fluffy, No comment. At least you are brave enough to post a hand to show that true experts sometimes get hands horribly wrong. I'll be kind :) It was a misclick, and the opponents wouldn't allow an undo :(

I always look at a player's profile before posting, and I came to the same conclusion that you are related! You're obviously doing something right in your private life to be still together for 40+ years - well done :) As for your bridge life, you need a see a Bridge Guidance Counsellor. There are problems :(

hi bridgepali, Beyond the general statistics of your post, how many bridge hands have you analysed, and at what level, and how do you exactly establish the actual point count between the two hands when playing so as to double? (Not that high card points are any indication of whether you can beat a contract.) It's good to analyse bridge hands and try to work things out, but there's so many variables involved you need to go back to the drawing board, I feel.

hi Kaitlyn, There's one thing I believe in at the bridge table, especially if you are a better player: nurture your partner :) It's actually quite satisfying to be able to improve someone's play by being kind to them. Any half-decent player knows when they have made mistakes, and even if they don't recognise their mistakes, berating them just worsens any partnership. Yes, errors and mistakes have to be addressed, but there's a way of gently advising players without calling them "An idiot or similar". Everyone wants to be better at this game, and people have a capacity to learn from the game. Nobody's perfect!

Totally agree with you Zelandakh, So what you are suggesting - and I trust that I have read this right - that Stayman should be a key bid if you hold 4M234, or even perhaps 4M333, as responder as there now so many different variables of 1NT opening available, that trying to establish the major suit fit is preferential to blasting to 3NT. I was curious when Fantoni and Nunes introduced their version of the weak NT (11-14, could be 4-4-4-1) in Fantunes, thinking this looks wrong in principle (with a singleton) but somehow it works in practice. And the more hands that can be included in the umbrella of a semi-pre-emptive 1NT (12-14) opening, the more chance you have of stopping the opponents bidding. It'll be interesting to see further comments.

Given that a 1NT opener bid can incorporate so many hand types now, from 6 card minors to others with singleton honours, how confident do you feel using Stayman as responder with 4333 and 4432 hand types? I recognise that a 4-4 major suit fit will generate an extra 1.5 tricks thereabouts generally, so that's why its important, but on the flip side it imparts information to the opponents during the course of bidding, and may allow lead-directing Xs. There's also the psychological aspect of bidding 1NT-3NT direct, giving the opponents no direct information whatsoever, and possibly making them change their mind over a lead, trying to find partner's (major) suit, given that Stayman was not used. I was always brought up that it was bad to use Stayman with 4333 hands and to bid 3NT direct whatever, but there are many 4432 (one minor + one major 4 card suit) where bidding 3NT direct looks right too. Has anyone evaluated Stayman given the changes to the 1NT opening bid, and does the point range of 1NT (12-14 or 15-17) have any impact on how players bid?

hi Nige1, It's players playing Acol, but not Acol as we (both) know it! I will give West benefit of the doubt though as 2♦ isn't a great bid [ 2 over 1 bids in Acol denote 8+ HCPs the last time I played it - when the old king died, methinks :) ] after 1♥ especially with that stringy suit, and with 4 card major suit bids there's more chance of finding partner with 4♠s alongside his 4 card (+) ♥ suit. West hasn't got enough to make a responder's reverse, and the chance of finding a 4-4 ♠ fit will be lost. It's a moot point as Acol is all about length as opposed to strength, but perhaps West with his not-so-good hand, didn't want to encourage his partner too much, preferring to respond at the one level as opposed to the two level, fearing a misfit. Nothing wrong in taking a view, I feel, and the directors did likewise it seems.

hi Shugart23, As a former Precision player myself, it all depends on what other bids you have in your system: weak twos, multi, etc. And it also depends on whether the ♥ or ♠ are 5 or 6 card suits, too. My college partner was guilty of tinkering with Precision, and I had to go along with him: he was older (and bigger than me)! Many good 5 card major card suits in an unbalanced hand (8-11 HCPs) were opened with 2♦ multi, and weak twos were half-decent 6 card suits (5-9 HCPs).

[Deleted]

hi Liversidge, Amongst all the other conventions suggested, maybe you can also add into your bidding artillery the Weissberger convention, named after the late Maurice Weissberger, a formidable player that I use to play regularly against at my local club. Link below. http://www.bridgeguys.com/ACOL/weissberger_convention.html

Ah...I see someone else has read Terence Reese and Jeremy Flint's novel :) lol!

Thanks for that Stefan_O So there is a logical explanation after all. Barmar said: Outside of BBO, I think most computer-dealt hands use programs that incorporate the BigDeal dealing program, which is generally considered the gold standard, so they're probably about as good as is reasonably possible. We also had its author perform a statistical analysis of BBO deals, and he couldn't find any glaring anomalies, although our dealing algorithm is much simpler than BigDeal. So to check this myself, I analysed 100 random deals on BBO. Using the same player. The probability of holding either a 6 card or a 7 card suit in your hand works out about 20%. And guess what, even though certain blocks of deals were more distributional, veering towards and over 30%, over the 100 deals the probability came out at, guess what, about 20% :) Yes, it is a small sample for analysis but I now realise that computer-generated deals are statistically sound. Thanks for all your comments and observations.