BrianEDuran

Hello From a team game, 7 board round, board 2. [hv=d=n&v=n&s=sj7xhjxdqj7xxca9x]133|100|Scoring: IMP 1♣ - (1♥)- to you, playing 10-13 in this seat and color[/hv] your playing 10-13 NT in first seat white, medium light style. Comment about why are always appreciated. Especially if you are planning to pass and take action if LHO bids 2H and it comes back to you. Thanks

Hi all Just a curiosity question. Does your local club allow for appeals? Please vote for each club you attent. Edit: I can only seem to vote for one club, don't know why... Thanks Brian

Mike I've notice a large increase from pairs in my area. None about a year ago, 3 or 4 pairs now. All of them are playing something close to The_Hog's link. Brian

Hello I think Lavithal discards are great. I'll even claim they are the best of the three most common in my area, standard, odd/even, & lavithal. I'll give a VERY simplified waterdown reason for why. With standard I don't think you can paint enough of a picture for partner on the defense. Your one card usually ends up saying don't lead this suit, which means partner needs to figure out which suit to lead. I actually don't think this is a huge problem. Odd/even is way to clear to everyone at the table. Not just your partner, but declarer as well. Lavithal, like Goldie Locks said, is just right. It has the clarity of Odd/even and less guess work for partner then standard. The key reasoning is you get to discard in a suit you don't want, which usually means partner is protecting it. If partner is potecting the suit, it usually means they have longer then then declarer, which means it is easier for partner to read then declarer. I have one additional reason for liking lavithal, which is you use the same philosophy in many other carding situations. Like when you give partner a ruff, to indicate which suit you want to return to your hand. I second the thoughts of those that say put your energy into counting. Brian

Hi all I think there is a dimension missing to this question, being the level of opponents. If you are playing in a local club game, few people are counting out the hand, even when you open a NT. But in "good" events, lets say A/X nationals, everyone is counting. My answer would depend on the field. I want the strong hand in hand in a weak field. In a strong field I want the undifined hand in hand. Brian

Hi ArcLight I think the easiest agreement, which requires little changes to your NT structure is to play 4C ask RCK (not Gerber). It works over both 2H and 2S responses to staymen, or a Jacoby transfer. In my mind this falls into a class of agreement were jumping to 4C is RCK agreeing a suit, like over weak 2s by partner, 4C is RCK. I think this is a Bergen thing. I find using 4C as RCK in many of these situation easier then kickback, since the agreements are the same regardless of which suit you are asking in. Doesn't mean that Cascade's or another methods is scientifically superior. Brian

Hi I think it depends on your teammates. They know the situation, it seems likely to me that they would push for game, or at least push for a swing. Doubleing them into game might give back what your teammates have worked so hard for in 3NT. I find most players are unwilling to be the one to go back to the table and say, "I know I made a questionable bid, but I thought we needed the swing." It might be even hard to find teammates that will accept this. Will yours, when they make 3NT, but your let them make 2NTX? Whether double is a good bid in general, Ben your expert. Brian

Hi all In a sectional in ACBL the following auction occurs. (2♣)-X-(p)-XX (P) My RHO passed my partners XX after looking around for a long time. Clearly trying to decide if he was suppose to say something. I don't know if he didn't know what to do or thought he could make 2CXX. At which point I decided to call the director (maybe it was a little unethical of me to wait for him to accept the bid, but their card made it look like they know what they were doing and my feeling was he decided to show a good club suit or wanted his partner to make decided). The director doesn't state why he makes this ruling put says my partner can make any bid and I am barred from the rest of the auction. But why? Was this because he felt XX was clearly convention in this situation, like a responsive double (which was what she had and what I took it as)? Or just because there is some rule about illegal calls? I thought once RHO had bid, it would have been accepted and I could do whatever I wanted. Thoughts? Brian

Hi all A couple of bidding issue I had this weekend. [hv=d=s&v=n&s=sk9xxxhqxdcatxxxx]133|100|Scoring: MP First seat [/hv] Do you open? (I'm assuming 1C) If you open because because of shape, do you still open without the Q of hearts? I openned, but was told how wrong I was by several players better then I, but I'm still not convince, so bring it on. [hv=d=s&v=n&s=sk9xxxhqxdcatxxxx]133|100|Scoring: MP First seat [/hv] Your partner opens NT, 10-13 in first seat. You can not show a forcing club hand without going through staymen. Any takers for 5C instead of 3NT? Anyone bidding a forcing club hand? Partner shows 4 hearts and denies 4S, now what? I think in MPs 3NT is clear, but since it IMPs I thought I would toss it out there. I bid 3NT, opponents forgot to take there top 5 tricks. Thanks in advance. Brian

Hi all I like the kokish structure a lot. For me it is especially help for since we play 10-13 in white and 12-14 in red. The 14-15- hands are hard to bid, but this structure helps. We play. 2D=1RF, 5+ (2N, 3m NF) 2H=1RF, 4=4=4=1 or bal. 14-15- (2N, 3m NF) 2S=strong with clubs 2N=15+ - 17 balanced 3C=min with clubs we always show four card majors unless the hand is really strong so with any hand with 18-19 point balance and a four card major, your partner will push to slam when they have a four card major. While it has yet to come up :rolleyes: I like having the 2S as the strong club support. You can start looking for slams at a very low level, or play in 3NT if you don't like what you hear. But as I said, never come up yet, so hard to judge how useful it is. I think the most useful thing is being able to play in 3m in a constructive way. It seem like most plays after making 5 bids below 3NT they are always going to bid 3NT. And it allows you to bid 2C on wider type of hand. Brian

Hi As many other people have pointed out judgement is key. Hand evaulation is one of the hardest part of the game, and it is something even experts have problems with. I don't know this because I'm an expert, but because they blow it at my table some times, and all I see in magazines are bidding forums were"experts" don't agree. I think this is the number one improvement an intermediate player can make. One of the hardest parts of bridge for me is getting the most out of partner. While I doubt any partner would every have said I'm rude or anything, I have very scatered result at individuals and not so good results with pick up partners. For me it takes several games before I know what the right thing to say to cheer up your partner/teammates after a cold game was set. Getting the most out of your partners is hard, some people are naturals for some people it requires work Every level player can improve here. As for spectic line item 1) forgetting agreements, I don't actually think this is big deal. It will happen, it has happen to everyone in this forum, and will again. What matters is how you react afterwards. Apologize to partner, say you will talk about it after the game, and move on. In most club games one board doesn't make or break you game, since everyone loses one or two. Moving on after a problem hand is my number one improvement most beginners can make. Don't think about it, don't talk about, play the next hand. This is extremely hard and I would say that as many Match Points are give up by people thinking about earlier mistakes (which they can not change) as the mistakes themselves. Brian

Hi Well nobody picked my suggested bid or 2S. While maybe I scared them off with the comment of the 4-2 fit, I did mention lower that we are playing 5 card majors. In the post mortum at the bar (maybe we don't think as clearly as we should then) 3C was the favorite. In the club forum a negative double was voted for by most of the stronger players. Still pondering over the weekend I went to one of my favorite books to see if there was any useful gems, "Competeive Bidding int he 21st Century" by Marshall Miles. In a section called When Not to Use a negative Double, he gives the following hand. QT K76 A7543 852 His comments: " Without the overcall, you would have bid 1NT, but what do you do now? Many players would make a negative double, but I think that is wrong. No matter what partner does now, you will have a problem. If he rebids 2S, should you raise? Depending on how well the hands fit , you could either be cold for game, or too high in 3S. If he rebids 3C with AJ63 (regardless of the rest of his hand), you don't belong in clubs, but if you take him back to spades, he may again be too high. Or he may thnkg you have a better hand for this sequence and bid a hopless game. To me, this in not a negative double, but a clear-cut 2S bid if you open five card majors. You normally have three-card support fo a raise, but when partner has a minimum opening, 2S will be the best contact nine times out of ten. This is not as radical a suggestion as it may appear. If East had passed, you would have bid 1Nt and corrected a 2C rebid to 2S (and probably a 2H rebid to 2S to give partner another chance to bid, since partner would expect four-card support and a slightly better hand if you raised hearts). If you are will to let partner play in a 5-2 fit without competition, why not let him play in a 5-2 fit after and overcall?" What do people think of his arguement on the hand he provides? Would you bid 2S? Do people think the same arguement applies to my given hand? Why not? Too strong? Six card suit? What would Miles do???? Brian

Hi Lets start with a low heart to the J. Maybe they give count that will help later on. Now the J of diamonds. If the jack holds or is covered. It easy, with 3♠, 4♥, 2♦, and I play for 3♣ by ace and clube towards the queen. Since i have an entry problem, this only work with 3-3 split, or Kx on the right. Assuming the J does not hold, I now have a problem. If LHO started with 4♠ and the club K, I can come down to a four card end position Q7 --- --- Ax --- __ A QJ8 Brian

Hi Brian

Hi Spade to the ace, low spade ruff low, and low heart to the J. low spade to the for another ruff. I think I might be able to protect 4-2 spade split if RHO has only 2. But now lets say LHO follows, I actually think it right to ruff with the ace of hearts, since the 4-2 is more likely then 3-3. Now I play the T of hearts out squashing LHO 9 of hearts, which I assume didn't fall in the fist round. 3-3 split less then 50%. Qxx opposite 9x vs. Qx opposite 9xx, maybe 50%. Hope I'm close. I love squash plays. Brian

White all, you hold [hv=d=p&v=w&s=skxhtxxdxxckqj9xx]133|100|Scoring: MPs[/hv] Partner opens 1♠-(2H) to you? Your playing 10-13 in this seat and color, which you open with most 5 card suits 5 card major, 2/1GF It MPs and you and your partner rarly let the opponents play in 2H or lower contracts Playing Negative doubles, and new suit by unpass hands in comp forcing for one round. Whats your call?

Ochinko I think you have an interesting idea of coming up for a rule for a direct seat double. I especially think this would be useful over 2 and 3 level preempts. Some partnerships are very rule oriented, while some have general understandings. I think a major consideration of the usefullness if what type of partnerships do you have, since rules work best when you are both on the same page. As for you specific rule set, I like the idea of the "delta" Its a very useful figure of merit for doubles. But often when having a void int he opponents suit, it seems that you weighing is too much. Lets take, Jxxx, ---, AJxx, Kxxxx, NV, you would double with. I just don't see my partner making the right decission after (2H)-X-(4H). Here are some things I would consider when coming up with a rule for direct seat doubles. You definetly need a diffent rule for a direct seat double at different levels. Consider what types of hands your partner is going to balance on. I'm a big fan of agressive balancing, this mean lighter hand don't need to take an action. If you figure out how agressively you are going to balance, you can figure out how sound your direct seat bids will need to bid. Think about when partner might pass for a take out, or what partner might expect in the bidding gets high. How many tricks to they think you hand will provide? This goes back to LTC, which you mention. A ace and king might not be enough. Good Luck Brian

Having dinner with a friend last night who plays some poker, he claimed that after playing 10K hands you have enough deal to construct some understand of your weakness and strength. How many games of bridge to you think you need to play? I'm guessing more, since with most poker hands you can bid a little, bid a medium amount or bid a lot. It seems to me in bridge there are more choice and more random things can help. I did a quick study of my MP result when playing with 2 partners of 20 (480 hands) games, and got results for my weakness that I didn't believe. After 50 (1200 hands) games I got results I believed, but my STD did not go down all that much. After 50 games, about 6 months, my skill level has changes a good amount, or so I hope. :) So how many hands does one need to get to make statistical analysis to find weakness? Is if possible to play that many in a short enough time frame for your skills not to change? Should one just not care and study when they personally thing they need to improve on? Thanks Brian

Hi Since nobody has mentioned my reason for playing Reverse Bergen instead of standard version, I thought I would through it out there. I have a general overall system agreement the strong hand are always slow. Basically just like faster arrival but also to do with conservation of space. The strong hand now has more room to look for slam. While in Two Drury and Bergen Raise this may be a detrimental, it is nice to have a rule to follow. Makes it very easy two figure out an agreement you had about strong a weak hand. For example puppet stayman (2NT-3C; 3D) and you have 4-4 in the major, is 4C or 4D a stronger? Brian

Hi For the most part I play 10-13 or 12-14 NTs, and couldn't change now. But like any agreement, there are some problems. With most partners we have discussed that 1m-1M; 3M might be a 17 count and balanced. Something like: ♠KJ ♥AQxx ♦Kxx ♣KJxx This is ofcourse not ideal, but bidding 2H isn't great either. Some times there might even be a double on you left, like 1m-(X)-1M-p; We have talked about 1m-(p)-1M-(X); where XX showes a 15-17 4 card support or 18+, and 1NT denies 4 card support, vs. playing support redoubles but never acted on it. Do people have advice on handelling this hands? Maybe even a convention? thanks brian

Hi all I'm reading Birdge Bridge Odds For Practical Players, by Hugh Kelsey & Michael Glauert. It goes over some stuff about Vacant places, but I still have a few questions. 1) Anyone have other recommendation on literature on Vacant Placess, online or in english print? 2) I don't understand why one should not count suit they only have partial information in. For example if you now RHO has 5 spades and LHO has 2, plus one round of diamonds has been played, they suggest you figure the odds to be 8 (13-5s) to 11, not 7 (13-5s-1d) to 10. They did "imply" that the both following in diamonds does affect the odds, but only slightly, so it would be something like 7.9 to 10.9. But I don't understand why this is the case. 3) Great, now that I understand vacant place, how many do I need before the odds vs. a finess come into play? I know that with AJxxx opposite the Kxxx its slight better to play for the drop, but what if I know 1 more vacant place, or two, or three? When does it become time to finess. Is there a table out there about these hands, the a suit combination, but with vacant spaces? Thanks in advance. Brian

Hi 4D - RCK in Diamonds 4NT - RCK in Spades On this auction I would have to do through my artificial bid (3C for me) to make a quanitative bid. As for Inquiry's situation, sounds like you are not playing minorwood, most people in my area would assume 4NT is always RCK for the last bid suit, discussed or undisscussed. So that would be my assumption too. I would still bid 3C in hopes my partner bid 3nt and then raise to 4NT to make a Quanitiative raise and I think lots of others would find that approach. Final partnership harmony strongly implies treating it as RCK. I'm sure everyone would understand partner responding as RCK then saying it was quanitative and passing, when you are trying to decide between six and seven. Brian

Ok, fixed those little problems with the post. Their signals are standard. And nothing else is marked on their card. (I don't know what the nine of diamonds ment) As for why would LHO double with 3-5 in the majors, well that is the question. But maybe his heart suit was headed by the ten. Also if he is 3-4 in the majors, then his partner has 4 hearts, and decided to bid 2D instead of 2 Hearts. Why would he do that when his best diamond can only be the J? Brian

Hi all Maybe this is simple and I'm just over thinking the situation (which seems to be a constant problem of mine). First round in a six board club swiss, playing the best team in the room, against two good player, that don't play together a lot, playing percision you decide to open 2C with... [hv=d=s&v=b&n=sqjxxhkqxdtxxcatx&w=shdc&e=shdc&s=st98hajdqxckj98xx]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] 2C!-(X)-XX-(2D) p-(p)-3C-float LHO has some crazy moments which seem to work out well for him, and RHO is solid up the road player. There was a short hitch before the 2D bid. LHO leads A and K of diamonds, lefty playing the 9 and low. LHO plays a spade to his parnters ace then spade back to the king and a spade, all following. After the ace of clubs, everyone follows, and now I think you have two chooses; LHO- 3-4-4-2 & RHO=3-4-4-2 or LHO=3-5-4-1 & RHO=3-3-4-3 Thoughts on which one seems more likely? Why? Thanks Brian

Hi all I'm a slight stickler for alerting, feeling that full discosure is important for everyones enjoyment of the game. Last night my partner and I passed and the opponents had the following auction: 2♦!-2NT! 3♦!-4S 2♦ - 4-4-4-1 11-15HCP 3♦ - singleton diamond Over "splinters" my partner and I play X ask for a higher rank lead of the two remaining suits, while pass implies the lower or a trump lead. First, should this agreement apply here? And would you assume that it does without discussion? If so, then I think his pass should be alerted? The pass and 4S bids came very quickly. At which point I tanked, not thinking of bidding but the above questions. After pausing for 20 seconds or so, I passed. Now I really got myself in hot water, should I say something about not thinking about a bidding? Brian