The_Badger

Play for fun. Usually play your system. 2/1, Acol, or SAYC. NT usually strong but also weak/variable. Fairly standard extras, wk/st 2s. Any Blackwood, tfr, spl, smol, St lds/ card. Prefer to bid my cards rather than miss a contract The last thing I would want to do to any beginner or novice on this forum is to criticise, but the above is from your own profile on BBO, and I am sure that the majority, if not all, of my co-commentators would agree that it is hardly the profile of someone who has just begun to learn this game. All of us give our time and knowledge on this forum for free, and when I learnt the game many moons ago (from books only) I was not afforded the 'luxury' of bespoke opinions on virtually any bridge subject from a learned bunch of bridge agony aunts and uncles as that inhabit these BBO pages. Instead of battling us, be grateful to learn from us: accept the constructive criticism (for the most part) that comes your way. I accept that I can sometimes get things wrong on here myself, and I have learned to accept my fair share of constructive criticism from my fellow commentators. That's life.

Any player can make a mistake. I was only recently reading a (David Bird?) article in a back issue of English Bridge magazine where a world-class international player forgot to count up to 12 in a small slam and took an unnecessary finesse. One down. And yes, on this hand my cat could have played the cards better...

law of total tricks + experience + intuition + gut feeling = whether I should bid or not :) and for those of you that enjoy a spot of light reading... http://www.bridgewebs.com/farnham/Law%20of%20Total%20Tricks.pdf

Most bridge players use a formula based on the Law of Total Tricks. (I assume that you are not familiar with this as you haven't mentioned it). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_total_tricks .

The easiest way to look at this is that 3NT is just a more popular (an understatement) contract than five of a minor. Partner can't have any ♥s as East has shown six and you have four, so should have some help in ♠s and ♣s, and of course ♦s as indicated by the 3♥ bid. Partner has a balanced hand 5332, and in this day and age it is even very acceptable to open 1NT with 6322 shape with a good(ish) six card minor, and one of the reasons for that is the highlighted phrase in the first paragraph. And it is also quite acceptable to finish in 3NT with just a single stopper in a side suit: it happens every day of the week. Your hand doesn't normally gain any tricks by having ♦s as trumps and ruffing in the long hand, and there are two less tricks to make in a 3NT contract too. I trust, like my co-commentators, that I have convinced you that 3NT is a better contract, possum, and I am sure they will also agree once in a while 5♦ will be the better place to be, but on percentages many, many pairings will chance their arm with a 3NT contract holding the South hand.

There's also the scenario where a takeout double is used to describe a very strong hand unsuitable for a simple one level overcall. Once upon a time, a long, long time ago, a jump shift overcall was made on a strong hand. In today's bridge jumps shift overcalls (1♦ - 2♠) are made on weak hands due to frequency. And as steve2005 rightly says, you cannot always have 4441 shape suitable for a TOX (takeout double). 4441 shape only crops up about 3% of the time whereas 5431 shape is about 13%. And welcome to the forum, perk1329.

"Simple bridge system" sounds oxymoronic. A simpler bridge system might be out there rather like a simpler partner, but at the end of the day I expect many players who use bots want them to be as technically involved in the bidding and play as possible. Hrothgar's reply succinctly sums up where BBO bots are now. It's either "buy a new car time" (very expensive) or patch up the old banger so that it's still roadworthy.

Absolutely right, Cyber. Thank you. I was just looking at South's point of view given the bidding to date.

Logic dictates that there's no point in warning the opponents that they have found the wrong fit: a penalty double at this level is ludicrous. And in the interests of not confusing partner too much, given that there are so many defences to 1NT, I personally would have the Dbl as takeout of the suit bid, a maximum NT opener with a doubleton in the bid suit. Trying to second guess what the overcaller might have here after the pass/correct bid by his partner is awkward. I'd keep it simple for my partner: takeout on all examples, obviously keeping an eye on the vulnerability too. You might have a maximum NT hand, but the opponents may have the majority of the points given that partner has passed. The last thing you want is a 500/800 penalty to your side when the opponents have only a part score available. p.s. I might add that I don't play professionally any more, so other players might have specific defences to 1NT defences, but whenever I did play Dbl of a bid suit, whether it was natural or a pass/correct scenario (as in the Multi) was always takeout.

Just consider yourself unlucky, possum, with a bot bid that turned out to be a rot(ten) bid. At least you ended up in a slam, albeit one level too high. Those who ended up in just 5♣ with the North hand seriously underbid their (two ace) hand opposite a 2NT opener with a fit, though the irony of all this is that 5♣ is the par contract on best defence: ♦lead, ♣ruff (though who on earth would lead a ♦ without a Lightner double?)

If you go into "My BBO" "Masterpoints" it lists your masterpoints history, award scales, and special honours.

The more I look at this hand, Nigel, the more I realise it's a bit tricky around the edges. Good post. Like mikeh I'm torn how to play this, even at IMPs to make sure that the contract is safe. I assume the opponents were using the Multi or Benji as West has turned up with ♦KQJxxx and ♥K so far.

I'm sure BBO stopped negative votes many years ago. If something doesn't look right on here, I'm sure most of us ignore it, or preferably reply politely stating why the comment is wrong/looks wrong. I'm the first to admit that I don't get everything right on here, but have spent over 40 years trying to get things right generally in this game. I always have my head in a bridge magazine/book on a daily basis. It's just a shame that I can no longer play due to illness.

Agree. The robot's bidding is crazy, though technically I feel 2♠ is a better call than 2♥ on the second round. With so many cards missing in the minors, the likelihood is that partner is more minor -orientated than has ♥ support. though obviously he could have ♥s. I must admit a degree of bias here as I have said previously I'm not a great fan of the nebulous 1NT in 2/1. If the E/W robots had bid at the Level of Total Tricks immediately to 4♦, you have no way knowing whether the 1NT response has been bid on a good or bad hand. With SAYC partner would have bid 2♣, and whilst that bid doesn't improve your hand, you at least know he has 10+ points somewhere.

The 4♠ pre-emptive opening bid is the worse bid to arrive in this contract. I readily admit I don't play with the robots, but I prefer a rebid in ♠s to introducing the ♥ suit on the second turn. However, that's the problem with the nebulous 1NT in 2/1. Partner could well have a ♥ fit. Though with the three top honours in the suit, and three cards longer, I would prioritise ♠s as the rebid here.

The West that didn't double 5♣ should be thrown out of the club! At the five level it's a bit of the swings and roundabouts game. Occasionally you will double a five level contract and the opponents will make it, but more often than not it will go down. It's all down to the percentages in the long run. As other commentators have rightly said, as soon as you pre-empt it's up to partner to make the last call. Obviously I am not privy to the scores on this particular board, but 6♠ is a very reasonable contract, so your pre-empt of 3♣ has stopped the opponents reaching this optimum contract. Bidding again just lets them either double you or find the right level. Your hand is absolutely (pardon the expression) total crap, and when partner raises to 4♣ perhaps even crappier. And as billyjef rightly says, "Let sleeping dogs lie".

Mikeh's excellent reply covers all the bases. The only thing I would add that even though the auction is contested, the range of the splinter should remain the same.

IMPs or MPs, Nigel? This looks too easy I assume there's a nasty catch :(

There are so many cards in ♠s missing that it probably doesn't make any difference except on the odd chance that West has led away from KQxx(x) so if you don't play the J on the first round, you don't give yourself that miniscule opportunity to grab a trick just in case ♣s don't behave. ♠J trick one

Jump shifts showing strong(ish) hands opposite opening hands shouldn't be made with hands that have a mediocre to nearly good trump suit, I feel. The 6322 shape, lack of intermediates, and KQ9xxx suit would put me off jumping in Acol, let alone SAYC or 2/1. Paul Soloway, the multiple world and national championship player, who gave his name to this convention must have a very good reason why he set it to 17+. Obviously distribution and suit quality can be taken into consideration when you jump shift with ♠AKQJtx ♥xx ♦Atxx ♣x, but not with the South hand as in the hand diagram.

Practice makes perfect, they say :) I'm more disillusioned missing out on stuff with a regular partner than the robots. They do get a bit of getting used to.

I was going to say the same thing in my post about the odds of a bidding a grand slam, but if anyone reading the forums is wondering what my colleague, Tramticket, is on about here, it is generally accepted that grand slams should only be bid where the odds are 75% or greater. In reality though I'm sure most of us have been at the seven level once in our lifetime depending on a hook (finesse) or a drop.

With East as dealer, in my view this is a far easier hand to bid with Precision - opening 2♣ and relaying - than with SAYC or 2/1. With Precision the six card ♣ suit doesn't remain hidden, whereas with SAYC and 2/1 there's a 4-4 ♥ fit immediately on offer.

The bidding and vulnerability is always useful on a hand, Pete, as if we can place North with a six card ♥ suit or 5-5/6-5 in the reds, we then can place the black cards with South. Most players would probably have played a third round of ♦ to (try to) discard the ♣ loser before taking the ♠ finesse. By the way, South with three cards to the J in ♦ can false card as he's not going to win a trick, so you can take his ♦ discard with a pinch of salt except if we know that North holds the red suits.

I personally think it's a complete toss-up: heads you win, tails you lose. After looking at this for ten minutes plus, there isn't a lead I feel comfortable with. A part of me goes with Winstonm, lead aggressive and lead a small ♦ against a small slam, but we already know declarer is minor suit orientated, even possibly having a solid or semi-solid five or six card suit to boot to open 2NT - more likely to be ♣s given our holding. And South will (probably) be 4432 or 4441 shape, possibly but less likely 4333. With a five card major the bidding would have gone differently. On reflection I'm probably leading a ♦ too, though there are some suit combinations where it will cost a trick, the most obvious is where dummy has Kx and declarer AJx. Though part of me says that a ♥ may be better as partner is likely to have length - at least 4 cards given the bidding, but that lead might help declarer too. I haven't voted :unsure: