The_Badger

About a year ago I asked the same question of BBO hands, given how computer hands seem more distributional, etc. And guess what? I did my own analysis of a range of hands, over 100, compared them to statistical charts of frequency, and found that they virtually matched given a range of +/-1%. So it's fair to say that they are randomly dealt.

As Helene said, 'Pass' is the correct bid here, and 'Pass' is usually the hardest bid for some players to make. An easy way to look at the above hand is as follows: "Think partner has passed on the first round of bidding so will be (most of the time) without 11-12 to open, and I have a balanced 14 count. We need 25-26 high card points (most of the time though distribution comes into the equation obviously) to make a 3NT or 4 of a major game. So the likelihood of us having enough points to make 3NT or a 4♥ game is reduced considerably. So do I want to encourage partner to bid by bidding again? The answer is obviously 'no'. So I 'pass' to show a minimum hand without a fit for the suit partner has bid" The statement above may look longwinded or convoluted but can be summed up quite simply: "Partner has passed on the first round of bidding so game is very unlikely." What you are doing is, and what the majority of bridge players do automatically, is assessing partner's initial 'pass' as a bid in its own right before you bid and working from there. If you had a ♥ fit you would compete: without it you are staring at a minimum balanced hand. As you get more familiar with reacquainting yourself with bridge in general, certain situations will occur again and again, and it becomes almost an automatic reflex how you bid or play, so don't feel disheartened or disillusioned as the more you get back into bridge, the more you will feel comfortable with the game in general. It's rather like riding a bike again.

I'll let others answer you at length on here about discards, but it actually comes down to your partner remembering what you played at trick 1 to his lead. Then he'll know what king to throw at the end.

Everything you say is true. It can be a bit of a free-for-all, especially in the main room. It irks me too that players don't make introductions, don't have profiles, get ratty when you want an explanation of a bid, etc. etc. That's why I only play with friends on here. My solution for what it's worth, is to use the "friends and enemies" button to differentiate between those players who you find agreeable/acceptable, and those you find disagreeable. The problem with this in the main room as there are so many players it loses it's effectiveness as you will invariably join a table where you know no-one. However, in the smaller public clubs, it can be an effective tool. I also suggest watching as a kibitzer for a while, flitting from table to table, noting how players behave, clicking on their profiles to see if they have filled out a profile, etc. It's surprising how much you can learn about players by watching them! And you can also allocate 'friends' that way. As they say "Birds of a feather flock together" so once you have established yourself here - and it does take a bit of perseverance - and found a few likeminded players, you will get invites to join games and meet other players who want to play this game pleasantly. Good luck.

It's quite common to play a 12-14 NT non-vulnerable or vulnerable in the UK, although pairs do play a 12-14 nv/15-17 v structure too. I actually like the pre-emptive value of opening 1NT with 12-14, and so does Fantunes (I have a feeling theirs is a 11-14 range, occasionally with a singleton too.) Occasionally you will get stung for a large penalty, but I feel there are many positives opening weak. As for incorporating it into a 2/1 GF structure, I can't see too many difficulties. If I remember correctly, Fantunes said a weak no-trump accounted for 28% of opening bids.

No need to be sorry for so many BBO queries on here. If it's helping you and others get a grip on this game then that's only a good thing. Keep them coming. :)

As soon as you bid 5NT you announce to partner that you have all key cards 4 aces and the king of trumps between the two hands, and 5NT asks for a specific king. (You probably have also announced to partner that you hold the trump queen indirectly, too, or enough length in the trump suit to drop the Q by bidding 5NT) It's exactly the same (without asking for a specific king) as Standard Blackwood. You don't bid 5NT missing a keycard - in Standard Blackwood's case, an ace. Obviously, if the ♠K response is not what you are looking for and pushes you into the wrong contract, then you shouldn't bid 5NT.

That's a good point, Cyberyeti, though I'd rather X than bid 4♣ here. Yes, there's always the possibility that partner is 5143 and we play in a ♦ suit Moysian game instead of ♣s. But nobody said bridge is an easy game...

I say this with my tongue firmly in my cheek, It's only a 'Fun Hand' if you gain 14 IMPs, Diana :)

You're absolutely right, possum, especially so in the Relaxed Club where chit-chat and discussion should be encouraged. Given that many Australian and new Zealand players still play Acol (which I see from your profile that you do) why don't you given The Acol Bridge Club (Public) on BBO a go. I have no idea if it busy in the evening on your side of the world, but it has quite a few tables operating during evening hours in the UK.

Yes I would! It's actually a skill to teach people bridge, and if they are smart and intelligent people they should have the means to learn the game in the company of other likeminded people at a recognised bridge club with an accredited teacher. They also get to learn the game in the environment that, hopefully, they will use in the future, meet other likeminded people, and will also help the bridge club stay afloat given that numbers are dwindling at many clubs. I have no problem with helping to some degree once a player has learnt the basics. If I had a pound or dollar for the number of times that people, including friends, have said "I always wanted to play bridge, or, I used to play (usually around the kitchen table with my folks) and I want to learn the game properly." Most of the people who say this are a similar age to me and have had ample opportunity in their lifetime to learn the game, and human nature being what it is, because I play and comment on bridge here and they know this, it piques their interest at that very moment and they think that I will devote endless hours passing on my knowledge for free. Why should I? My attitude might sound curmudgeonly, bordering on severe, but it is born of experience of teaching people chess, a game that in my opinion is easier to learn than bridge, and seeing these players learn the game and not make any effort beyond that of trying to improve their game. I recognise that many players want to play only at a social level, be it bridge or chess, but there is a competent level of attainment that all players should aspire to in any pastime or sport. Can that be done around the kitchen table? Probably not. University students have to go to lectures, read books, visit libraries, to learn material for their degrees, and whilst I wouldn't expect a novice bridge player to devote the same amount of time to master the intricacies of bridge, I would expect them to at least have a few lessons. And what is better than having a few lessons in a bridge club at the very beginning?

Do yourself a favour, Jinksy. Tell these smart people to learn bridge in a bridge club. Why lumber yourself? So instead of bridge, let's say that you want to teach them quantum mechanics, for example. Any easier? I have had a number of people say to me 'can you teach me bridge'. I say no, not because I am selfish, but because it is a difficult skill to learn, especially for middle-aged people or older, even for intelligent people. To me you are just making a rod for your back. Criticise me as much as you want, but i'll rather be honest. It's surprising how many people when you suggest that it is better to learn bridge in a bridge club do not take up the offer. That's human nature as when you offer something for nothing there's always takers.

Agree. It's a hand that just looks ready made for a no-farting-around-the-edges sequence of 1♥ - 1♠ - 4♥

I expect many players felt that with both majors X was a better call opposite a passed partner, and as Tramticket has explained, 1♠ is the routine call. Moreover give partner just Kxxx in ♠s and a 4♠ contract is only a finesse away, with a reasonable likelihood that finesse will win over the opening bidder. 4♠s on 15 high card points! But that's the rub: distribution is king. But you will never discover your best fit if you don't bid your suits. To suppress a six card suit headed by an ace at the one level is just bad bridge, even playing with robots. There are some players who think along the lines that if partner responds in ♦s to the X, I can now bid my ♠s. But that is wrong bidding-wise as it shows a stronger hand than the one given. Even allowing for distribution points between the two hands, the combined hand count is nearer 22 than the 25 needed for a 4♥ game. Sometimes playing in a part score and logging a plus score, or defending their contract, isn't so bad.

The vulnerable 18 point game with poor intermediates and just a 4-4 fit is where genuine many very good players NEVER end up. Trust me. Overbidding is overbidding the world over...

The salient question in all this, whether you use either Cyberyeti's, mikeh, or ggwhiz's preferred action is what constitutes a bust in the East hand? Now that we know that East hasn't got a Yarborough, what type of hand, suit(s), control(s) could East possibly have? I actually like the forcing pass (2nd bid) aspect of the 2♣ opener as it does enable East to have extra bids at his disposal. However, I'm not totally sure about bumping East's bid into a grand slam until I know the answer to the first paragraph of my comment. EDIT: There's a small inference that I had not considered before. Given the adverse vulnerability, for the opponents to drive to 5 level immediately sort of suggests that the hand is very distributional, and South is very weak with little or no defensive tricks. That in turn suggests that East possibly has a better hand than commentators have suggested. What concerns me here is who else has a void in their hand? You might reach a reasonable small slam or grand that flounders due to a Lightner Double - that's the pessimist in me - but the optimist says that you cannot win matches by trying to cover every eventuality.

Sit tight until the fat lady sings :) I haven't a clue what's partner's up to, and what sort of hand he has for X and 5♥ instead of a straightforward overcall/vulnerable pre-empt opposite a passed partner. (I can only assume that it was a State of the Match bid.) Partner's got lucky and found you with nice trumps, but you have little else. Pass

I can only agree with the bidding if East's hand had been posted - which makes it less of a problem than it already is, I agree. The problem with splinters and control bidding is that they should have definite parameters. Splinters must always be singletons, never a void. Controls after splinters must be first round, not second, etc. I am sorely tempted to bid 6♠ here. And if I do, I don't see the point of mentioning the ♣K en route, and let's face it the opposition have some beans for the X, and rarely are grand slams bid and made when one opponent has an opening hand. However, my big concern here is that partner does not have the ♦A and has ♥Ax and you cannot escape two losers. Let's given him ♠KJxxx ♥Ax ♦KQ ♣AJxx which just about leaves the opponents enough for a double on the first round of bidding. 5♠ is wussy; 6♠ just happens to be unlucky...

I'd rather collect 50s than put partner on the spot. The last thing I want is the opponents collecting 100/200s. The whole hand could be something like... [hv=pc=n&s=saqhqj5da8765cak7&w=skjt9hakt97dj43cq&n=s876543hdt92c8654&e=s2h86432dkqcjt932&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=1hp4h]399|300[/hv]

Who plays in four of a minor in an uncontested auction? It's a no-man's-land between the two places where you should be: 3NT and 5/6m. Having said that, there will be many hands where a responder will have no better bid than to raise the opener's suit bypassing 3NT. And there will be other auctions where responder will have a good hand opposite opener, and will want to leave space to explore every slam possibility. So, in a way it is both invitational and forcing, but the bottom line is that the partnership cannot stop bidding at the four level.

I'm not quite sure why you want to bid 2♦ on a doubleton here? (I'm sure you meant to write 2♣) That aside, you'd be dead unlucky not to come away with 4 ♥ tricks from that gappy suit, and add that to the three other tricks in your hand.... ...3♥ rebid it is. A 2♥ rebid is a serious underbid.

He's not that good: he missed the grand :)

Some very valid points in your post, Mike +1

2♦ was an awful bid by partner. I would take 3♣ by partner after 1NT as forcing, although bidding it on such a poor suit is nearly as awful. A new suit (2♣ by opener) here as helene_t rightly says should be a forward move and forcing (searching for game in fact). Raising ♣ with 4443 doesn't look right. With a double ♠ stopper I'm re-assuring partner over his shortage (and with good cards in his suit bid) that 3NT looks the most likely contract by bidding 3NT. (And sometimes five of a minor can be a better contract but 3NT is where the majority of players will head to given the choice of 3NT and 5m. C'est la vie)

Slight variation on this. If you had arrived in 4♥ via a transfer and the hand holding ♥83 is playing the contract, I would lead a low heart from dummy towards the closed hand. Gives the defence a chance to go wrong.