The_Badger

hi Rowland, big LOL! what you did was a bit Wackojacky! :) ( Ok, fellow commentators I admit I sourced the hand involved from hand records, and it made me smile :) ) Not sure how you play your multi, (weak twos + one strong hand?) but I'll give you a +1 for innovation, as statistically the stronger hand turns up once in a blue moon compared to the nearly ubiquitous scruffy weak twos. Do I think you are 'bonkers', mate? Not in the least, as when you have a potential misfit the best way is to STOP bidding as soon as possible. It probably confused the opponents more than your partner. As a 'distributional' 3NT is on for North/South if well played, maybe a return of -0.33 IMPs was a bit of an unfair result. Good luck with your bridge :)

hi Shyams, There are two principles here vying for each other: always rebid a good suit, and, always bid the second suit in your hand. Its easier with ♠KQJT62 ♥T972 ♦A ♣ J3 to rebid 2♠ as the ♥ suit is weak. But there again, you could miss out on a ♥ fit. But I'm less worried that game will be missed. With ♠KQJT62 ♥QT97 ♦A ♣J3, I am always rebidding 2♥. True, we can miss game with the wide-ranging 1NT response, but you have to show that second suit I feel. Although the hand is structurally strong, and could well generate 7-8 tricks on its own in a ♠ contract, it is a tad short of quick tricks to rebid 3♠. Kaplan and Rubens put it at 15.50. The trouble is that responder doesn't need much for game to be made, so you could be left in 2♥ or a 2♠ preference bid. The forcing 1NT response is the cornerstone of the 2/1 system, and perhaps has been adopted from the original Precision system that also uses 5 card majors. However, on a personal note, I do find it is 'clumsy' on quite a few shapely hands such as these because the Precision point ranges and bids are much tighter than 2/1.

hi Frank, (fhacker) http://www.nytimes.com/1992/08/18/nyregion/bridge-497892.html I found the article, but I'm sure my bridge colleague, Alan Truscott - I corresponded with him a few times about the Bermuda Bowl in 1965 - would be horrified to know that the bridge diagrams to accompany his articles do not seem to be archived at all. I wonder if anyone noticed while Alan was still alive? I expect that any newspaper reprints would be from this archive material, so that doesn't help either. I've spent a few hours as I was previously into information forensics trying to solve this dilemma. No luck whatsoever. I'm going to spend a few more hours on this as I don't want to be beaten. But, at this stage, I have drawn a blank :(

G'day Hirowla (Ian) :) I believe the legendary Benito Garozzo said that 5-4-2-2 hands are the ones to be slightly cautious with and/or evaluate, but that West hand (primarily of the AKs in the long suits) comes out at a whopping 17.95 on the Kaplan + Rubens evaluator. If partner is negative doubling at the two level vulnerable against non-vulnerable on his first call, I'm going to place him with at least a minimum of 8 high card points. There are those players who believe 2♥ is a legitimate bid (as an actual bid or negative free bid) with the East cards, and I'm not disagreeing with them, but it may lose the ♠ fit in the process. The East hand also comes out as 12.10 on Kaplan + Rubens, so when West bids 3♠ after East's X - and 4♠ would also be a consideration if he trusts his partner for at least 4-4 in the majors - East can raise 3♠ to 4♠ without batting an eyelid. That singleton club is worth its weight in gold. Slam is not a good proposition here - too much needs to be right - so content yourself with game.

hi Timo (MrAce) I have read all the replies on this interesting question to the forum, and I just think personally there is no right or wrong answer here. It's just one of those hands where you will either make either 3♠, 3♠+1, 4♠ or 4♠-1 - and occasionally even 3♠ doesn't even make. How many times has this happened in a bridge lifetime? Many, oh so many. As much as we try to extract every little nugget from our bidding prowess, fortune will ultimately be the deciding factor and as much as I personally don't like saying this, Bridge can be a lucky game. The best players will always ultimately win in the end in the long term through skill, but the best players can also be beaten by luck too in the short term. When you replied to my post and said that: I passed 3♣ DBL and when pd bid 3♠ I passed again. Pd held. JT9x Qxx Axxx xx ♠K was with the opener. I say that (in my view) statistically the ♠K was more likely to be with West than the opener. So actually making 4♠ is against the odds...but there again what is needed is a large simulation (which unfortunately I don't have) with the South hand (of let's say 10,000 hands) to see actually how many times 4♠ makes on a variety of different North hands. That will probably be the only sensible way to judge whether to twist or stick.

hi Timo (MrAce) I'm a firm believer that you make trial bids (3♥) in suits that you need help, not headed by the AK. Opener could well have 0445 shape. With 1444 I'd be opening 1♦. So personally I'd bid 3♠ as quickly as possible. The hand comes out at a tad over 14 on Kaplan/Rubens, but with 5332 and a fair chance of a 4-0 ♠ break, I'll be content to make 3♠.

Hi Oceanss, Thanks for your reply :) I admit I was concerned about your situation, but good to know that he is genuine. But Akwoo's post really sums up the predicament you're in perfectly. The only thing I can add is that I get the feeling that you enjoy playing with this player. If so, be prepared to have two different bridge heads. One where he is playing with you: the solid, reliable, disciplined approach, based on his experience; and a different one when playing with other players: a bit more feisty and competitive. There's nothing wrong with that. All partners are different and you sometimes have to adjust your game according to their personality. Just as an extra consideration, and this is my personal opinion only, I feel that you have to be upfront with him and show him the replies to your post (if he hasn't seen them already). It's only fair. You're questioning what he's telling you in the context of the modern game, not undermining his considerable experience that you already know. Can you imagine Charles Goren and Zia Mahmood having a discussion about bridge? They wouldn't stop disagreeing! But Charles Goren might accept that bridge has evolved over the years to a point unrecognisable from his day. And that's it: bridge evolves, bridge changes. I wonder what Charles Goren would make of Fantunes? :) Good luck.

hi Oceanss, When Johnu says: Assuming partner is really an expert (and the jury is out on that question), he's not just old school, he may be from the Jurassic school. And even in Jurassic days this should have been a raise. You reply: Yet, all that speak as this johnu are not in any meaning welcomed or helpful And Vampyr says: So how does a potential respondent determine whether or not you want to hear their opinion? I will add, as a valid question, how do you know that this friend you met on BBO, a very good player, a true expert, is indeed that? I am not trying to be confrontational, please believe me, but trying to clarify a point here. You say, "But more we go, more "clashes" between us happen, etc..." Mmmm... I wonder if he a very experienced card player, but has not keep up with modern constructive bidding theory, or the intricacies of certain bids, and is actually stifling you with his outdated "knowledge". The reason I say this as I find many people on BBO who say they are "expert" or "advanced", and on the surface they look exactly that, with a multitude of conventions on their profile, but when you see them bid opposite you and put down dummy, you think "Why didn't you bid so-and-so, or don't you know fourth suit forcing is forcing to game, etc. etc." The point I'm making is that maybe he is undermining, not necessarily deliberately, your natural confidence and enthusiasm for the game, and that's why you have posted these hands on the forum as you are not sure yourself if this 'bridge relationship' is actually working. I'm just hope you're not paying him money for his 'advice', except if he is a certified player where you can actually verify his achievements and experience.

See wank's reply below. I personally forgot that after a 1NT response and a reverse, 2NT is not Lebensohl. ( Senior moment :( ) Postscript: Now having read another half-a-dozen posts on the forum, I realise that I was provisionally right - it is Lebensohl by agreement. Not all players will play it this way though. One thing that has always struck me about the 2/1 system is, on some occasions, how clumsy the (forcing) 1NT response can be, with its large(ish) point range, and relying on it to cover a multitude of hands. Using Checkback and Lebensohl does really help, but intervention from the opponents can scupper its effectiveness, and sometimes even 2NT is the only contract you wish to be in.

I agree Nigel. 4♥ looks better, even if you end up in a 4-3 Moysian fit. The only thing that concerns me is keeping control of hand as declarer if the opponents ♥s are 4-2 and they play a forcing game on defence. But maybe I am burning too many brain cells on this one, and the opponents ♥s will always split 3-3 in a Moyse, or partner will definitely have a 5 card ♥ suit for his bid :)

Actually, it's quite a decent opener with 2.5 quick tricks and a 12.25 count in Kaplan and Rubens, but without using a Support Double on the second round ( X after 1♠ to show 3 card ♥ support ) becomes problematic later on. Agree with wank that partner could have a 2-4-1-6 hand ♠xx ♥KQxx ♦x ♣Kxxxxx hand, and may be a 'finesseguess' away from a 5♣ game. However, given the actual bidding, and the opponents both passing on the first round of bidding, and dying quickly in 2♠, I would personally opt for 3♥ now. (If the opponents have 9 ♠s between them and shape I would have expected them to barrage to 3♠ so I believe partner is more likely to have a slightly stronger 3-5-1-4 shaped hand.) In my opinion, 3♥ just seems right now, and wait and see where we go next. [ btw 'Finesseguess' is now a patented Badger word when KJ is involved :) ]

Apologies Timo (MrAce). BridgeLosers/BridgeWinners was just a play on words, typical British satire. The emoji :( was my way of saying "don't take this seriously, folks". Everyone is entitled to their point of view. I only laid into Caitlynne on this forum as her post was really derogatory, like if you bid 4♦ you are a total putz (to use an Americanism). That, to me, was unnecessary rudeness personified. I have over 35 years' experience of bridge under my belt, including playing with and against some world championship players, and plenty of grandmasters and life masters. To me, 3♠ doesn't look quite right: it lets the bidding "hang in the air" and probably puts more pressure on partner, than on the opponents (especially the 1♦ opener who will have a fair idea whether 4♠ - or even 4♥ - is on.) That's why I'm not keen on it as the 1♦ opener may just let the contract rest there, in 3♠, afraid that if he bids again, a major suit game will certainly be reached by East/West.

hi Henry, ( thanks for a great forum question :) ) gszes excellent reply covers all the bases, in my opinion. Both the questions you pose depend on partnership agreement. The only thing I can add is that the 2♥ bidder has chimed into the auction vulnerable against non-vulnerable in 4th position, in the crosshairs of a strong NT opener, and an unlimited partner. Yes, there are players who would bid 2♥ on tram tickets just for a lead and/or to disrupt the auction, but most will have a decent suit with a potential trick or two outside at these colours. +200 is usually a good result at MPs. We might find it heavy weather trying to make 3NT even if partner has a ♥ stopper. That ♥K looks like such a lonely card :(

Caitlynne says: I am bidding 3S. 4D could work out - and if it does, it will be because of good luck - but it is a huge overbid that can cause partner to turn a plus score into a minus score. It is the type of bid that VERY poor players routinely make and later congratulate themselves for when it works (as it far too often does) wallowing in ignorance of the disaster that it might have created. I totally disagree with that statement: "It is the type of bid that VERY poor players routinely make...etc, etc, what total codswallop! Given that there are many commentators on here who are very experienced who are advocating bidding 4♦ too, shows your total ignorance. Are they all POOR players? Obviously not! Yes, I do agree that 4♦ could go wrong, however, I am willing to take the chance that partner will exercise some discretion given that he has opponents who have opened and responded on the first round of bidding, and a partner who hasn't. 4♦ to me says "Just choose. I have both majors. We have a double fit and I reckon we can make game with you as declarer."

hi Rowland, To me, 3♠ is a BridgeLoser's bid :( [i'm really surprised that the majority of players on BridgeWinners opted for this.] There's a likelihood that the auction will die in 3♠. It ain't forcing. Period. And there's no indication that the 1♦ opener can compete further, and South with his pre-emptive 3♦ hand really isn't in a strong position to gauge whether competing further or sacrificing is an option. So if we don't drive to game with 4♦ we might not get another chance. North had an opportunity to bid again to muddy the waters, so let him decide at the 5 level vulnerable whether he wants to sacrifice against 4♥ or 4♠. Just a small final consideration, over our 4♦ bid South might by either "Passing" or "Doubling" help North gauge whether a sacrifice is prudent, but only very experienced players might have this "Inference Bid" in their armoury.

The late great Rixi Markus usually advocated bid what's in your hand, so I go along with that and bid 4♦. Dbl might work out well, and both 3NT or 4♠ might be on but...knowing that two hands are unbalanced, you can bet your bottom dollar (or pound) that the suits are more likely to split horribly if you arrive in a contract. I believe Dbl could backfire horribly too if partner has to take a decision, thinking that your hand is a bit more meaty than beyond the ♦ suit. Yes 4♦ for me. And if we get the wrong result, we sure won't be the only ones.

Hi Jason, You can construct millions of NT hands opposite millions of other hands, and what fits for one does not fit for another. A general rule is that hands with primarily aces and kings usually play better in a suit contract, whereas those with a mix of honours and intermediates will usually play better in no trump - but it all depends how they fit, suit or no trump contract, of course. My personal general rule is if a NT sort of hand looks anaemic, that is lack of intermediates and many small cards in a balanced or semi-balanced shape, dock a point from the high point count. The more you play bridge, the more you will get a gut feeling about what is right, and where caution is necessary. There's also an extra consideration when you open 1NT. Due to Stayman and Transfers, the NT opening hand will invariably be hidden, and the lead will come towards it. That may guarantee an extra trick, and certainly makes the defence a little more difficult for the opponents. So, if it looks and smells like a 1NT opener, then don't hesitate, because you hold KQ or a QJ doubleton in a suit. You have no knowing what partner has opposite you until the bidding is finished.

And I couldn't agree with you more, Cyberyeti, (believe it or not!) on the 1NT rebid. But players will bid 1NT, irrespective of a ♠ overcall to show either 'shape' - sort of balance(ish) 2425 with a partial ♠ stop, and/or point count, a poorish 17 downgraded to 16. The inference that I was suggesting with my previous post was, in Acol, why use Checkback Stayman, or an semi-unlimited 1NT rebid when there are better options available with natural bidding? In the modern style ♠ A J ♥ A J 8 3 ♦ K J ♣ K 9 7 6 2 1♣ - pass - 1♦ - pass - 1♥ - would be acceptable and forcing (new suit), and, 1♣ - pass - 1♦ - 1♠ - 2♥ - would be, in my opinion, be preferable (though I am not totally keen on this as the hand is 5422, perhaps not a great Kaplan and Rubens count (but as I've now checked it, surprisingly 17.05), but we have to compete and show our strength and shape) and forcing (reverse), and, 1♣ - pass - 1♦ - 1♠ - Dbl - is an option to show 4♥s but if the ops raise ♠s, how will your partner know that you are either a) being competitive with a minimum hand, or, b) semi-strong , or c) with longer ♣s than ♥s? Acol is neat but not infallible :)

Or maybe we should take up the card game 'Patience' :) Yes, it is very annoying, but (and I am just surmising on this) I believe that where a player does not play or bid promptly is more often than not down to the BBO site - sorry I said that but I believe it to be the case, just my opinion - than the player. It happens far too frequently on here, especially where you're having a pleasant game with three other dedicated, quick players, and then one of them suddenly goes 'cold'. As I said in a previous post, I believe the site works well if you are on a regular PC, but I keep on hearing problems from players who use tablets and iPads, and maybe using WiFi doesn't help either (?) Don't ask me why. Or is it the download version of BBO that causes problems? (I'm still on the Windows version) The jury's out.

Thank you Graham for agreeing with me :) Just as parting thought on this 2425 hand, the 17 HCP given ♠ A J ♥ A J 8 3 ♦ K J ♣ K 9 7 6 2 and the bidding let's say goes 1♣ - pass - 1♦ - 1♠ rebidding 1NT makes things extremely difficult if the bidding subsequently goes 1♣ - pass - 1♦ - 1♠ - 1NT - 2♠ - pass - pass - ??? or even worse 1♣ - pass - 1♦ - 1♠ - 1NT - 3♠ where you could easily miss a ♥ game Crowhurst and Checkback go straight out of the window, so 2♥ seems (in my opinion) the only sensible rebid (as opposed to 1NT) with that hand, as it describes it perfectly as 5+♣ and 4+♥ with 16+ HCPs - a standard reverse in Acol, forcing for one round. (Ok, you might once in a while get too high in the auction, but it's better I feel to announce your suits than pitty-pattying around hoping the opponents aren't going to throw a spanner in the works.) I believe what has happened is that because players tend now to open 5 card majors as opposed to 4 card ones with Acol, and that the Checkback Stayman option has been imported from SAYC and 2/1 so that 4-4 ♥/♠ fits can be found later in the auction. All well and good if no interference from the opponents, but the modern game is a little more ferocious these days, players overcalling light for lead direction, and partners supporting them on the principle of The Law of Total Tricks. The Acol system might have been superseded by more up-to-date and advanced bidding systems, but it is still a very neat system when used correctly. Three major changes, I feel, have changed its structure somewhat: the modern use of 5 card majors; the ubiquitous use of a weak NT (12-14); and, the use of weak 2's, whether by Benji/Reverse Benji and/or the Multi. Admittedly, in its purist form (with strong 2's) it is not quite suitable for the cut and thrust of competitive bidding, and the weak NT can cause problems to the opponents, but has to used with discretion, especially when vulnerable, as it has the habit of biting you on the bum every so often :)

hi Liversidge (Terry) I try to be complementary on here and try not to criticise, but someone (bridge teacher, perhaps?) or some books are making life very difficult for you. Ok, Acol's evolved since the days of 4 card majors, and many players now play 5 card versions these days (I personally call this "Bastardised Acol" for good reason, as Acol evolved trying to find a 4-4 major fit as opposed to 5-3) But times change. Not that I've read it myself, but the best reviewed Acol book on Amazon is Acol From Scratch...by Nigel J Jones. As it was published in 2015 it is virtually up to date. Given that you state that you are a 'Beginner' on your profile, Terry, I get maybe the impression you are trying to run before you can walk, seeing all these fancy conventions that some of the 'experts' use. Conventions will not make you an expert, but they do help in certain situations, but hinder in others. The best way for you and your regular partner to progress is probably both buy a copy of this book, and bid and play exactly as it says. Forgot about too many fancy conventions at this stage, like Checkback or XYZ, except if they are included within this text. A good system grounding from a good bridge book is worth its weight in gold, and if you and your partners are singing off the same 'hymn sheet' so to speak, then success and results will come your way. Conventions are secondary considerations that can be tacked on to the main system as you progress. Even though Ron Klinger is a prolific bridge author, and well-respected by me, reading too many books on the same subject by the same author can sometimes confuse. I learnt bridge myself by concentrating on one book, Begin Bridge by G C H Fox, and whilst it is a little bit out of date these days, it is a good grounding for playing 4 card major Acol with a Strong NT. Good luck!

Hi euclidz (Jack) You're not the only one it affects, trust me. Many a time I've been at a settled table, and then suddenly one of the players just does not respond. I used to have problems with both the Windows and download version of BBO, but don't seem to have any major problems now - just one abrupt disconnection in over a 100+ logins (under my other profile). I use a Windows 10, IE 11 setup, on a 8 GB RAM computer, with just a wireless 7.2 Mb dongle on EE (Windows version of BBO) Before I had Windows 7, IE 10, on a 2 GB RAM computer with the same dongle. There are multiple reasons why freezing and disconnection occurs. I am no computer expert but it was explained to me that the operating system may not be fast enough, so best to upgrade to Windows 10. (I am not sure if Microsoft still offer a free upgrade.) Also the RAM on the computer may not be enough if multiple things are happening on the computer at the same time. Close other windows while running BBO, and establish how much memory, let's say virus software, is being used too. Very good virus software can take up quite a bit of your computer's RAM. My computer was plodding, plodding along with 2 GB RAM, so it's now 4 x bigger and a lot better for it. As someone else said, the latest version of Adobe Flash is an important addition. And also checking with your internet provider if they are repairing masts in your area at any given time, because if you are on wireless like me, the reception can sometimes dip if maintenance is being carried out. I'm not sure where you live but I am sure that not everybody is on a 4G network in the UK. You may be still on 3G which is a lot better than HSPA , but isn't as good as 4G. Also, players tend to complain more, I find, if they are using an iPad or Tablet, that BBO isn't as user-friendly as using a normal PC. Don't ask me why, just a casual observation from conversations on BBO. Hope this helps.

My own take on Brexit (in a slightly comical way) is as follows: We are a somewhat elderly team of four. We have tried various conventions, tweaked our system, asked experts, analysed results, conferred and discussed, but we've never quite got it together as a team. The winning formula was never quite there. We are still at loggerheads with our teammates and partners now and again, and we never qualified for anything of any note. Then one of the team decided that's enough's enough. They are going to leave. There are other options available: go it alone, maybe even give up bridge, or find other teams, move on from the status quo. "No, that can't be right," say the other members of the team, "we must persevere because we have played bridge as a team for so long, that one day we will eventually win." "If we can't win after 43 years together" says the leaver, "then we will never win." The other teammates look at him anxiously, trying to gauge his determination, but he still leaves reluctantly. "Damn" says one, "he was the best player in the team, and without him we will definitely never win!" Another pipes up, "I blame all the rules and regulations, those tournament directors made his life so difficult!" The third member remaining ponders this and says "Even I agree that maybe we should have adopted European-style 5 card majors along the way instead of playing British 4 card major Acol for all these years" :) :) :)

I understand exactly where you are coming from Zelandakh (Mark) because reading a book and understanding it will never be a substitute for putting the ideas learnt into practice at the bridge table. And what some bridge person may class as intermediate, may be to some technically advanced and vice versa. But intelligent young people do get their heads around most technical-like things pretty quickly, and that can happen with bridge too - I assume. It certainly happened to me as a teenager. I'm sure we've all be there, bridge book or novel, and thought this is 'heavy weather' at the moment, put it down for the time being, but gone back to it with the intention of finishing it come what may. If we think we can cope with another book by the same author, we'll buy another; if not, we will search out easier material to read. That's why I say it is "automatic" to move from one level to the next, as no-one (except a complete idiot) wants to feel out of their depth, whether it be a novel or bridge book. But, I agree, reading is just reading, and there's a big difference between reading and the reality of actual bridge playing and experience.

Hello tnevolin (Tim) First, let me congratulate you for all the input, time and effort you have put in to devise a new hand evaluation method :) Anything that makes hand evaluation easier is very welcome, but.... a)....of those 400K hands analysed, how many (approx.) are for contested auctions, non-contested auctions? b)....were the "opponents" on these auctions using the same NHE? c)....was there any factor involved of reassessing hands during the auction? d)....etc. etc. I say this as obviously I don't know your background or age or bridge experience, but I too, when I was much, much younger tinkered with various formulae and evaluations to make this game easier. At least yours is far more straightforward and a lot less complicated than some of the things I devised! At the cutting edge, bridge bidding has become a lot more cutthroat in recent years. I am currently re-reading a book published in 1993, Partnership Bidding at Bridge by Andrew Robson and Oliver Segal. Computer simulations are all well and good, and the GIB program is excellent, but would your method be foolproof in a competitive environment? I ask this as there already many evaluation factors out there already: Losing Trick Count, Law of Total Tricks, etc. Does your program (maybe at a different level) incorporate those? Or is it based solely on a primary points hand evaluation? I remember those "ask the experts" bidding contests that most bridge magazines had where experts used a complex (usually relay) bidding system to establish whether a 4-4 minor suit small slam was feasible after a dozen or so bids. Establishing key cards and distribution. Can your system do that? The point I'm making is that your system is probably very good for teaching novices and beginners how to evaluate hands initially, and that's great, but until it is used successfully at higher level expert bridge, then it's a hand evaluation system that helps but might not be conclusively the ultimate solution to many a bridge player's woes. It's worth reading the Wikipedia entry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_evaluation) to get a taste of what's currently out there, too. (Anyone using Zar points these days?) Good luck!