smerriman

HardVector, you've missed Cyberyeti's point about three times in a row :) He was not referring to the takeout double as responsive. If you play that partner's responsive double - 1♠-(3♥)-X-(4♥)-X - guarantees equal length in the minors, then you'll often be playing a poor 5♦ whenever partner does *not* have equal length in the minors. The point was that the takeout double works a lot better if the responsive double isn't so strictly defined.

In terms of the 3NT bid, I tend to always open 1NT with 15-17 balanced (sometimes not with 17, but that would be due to valuing it as 18, thus falling into the 2NT rebid range). That seems to leave a jump to 3NT completely unused after a 2/1 sequence. But you can also show that by bidding 2♠, then 3♠, then 4♠. The other definitions provided for 4♠ (strong suit, no red control) sound useful.

You just mean slam right? You're already forced to game. "Natural bidding" just means systems like 2/1 or SAYC, as opposed to artificial systems (strong club). Not that you have no artificial bids!

[hv=https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&lin=pn|thepossum,~~M11594e9,~~M121188n,~~M12156ry|st%7C%7Cmd%7C3S459KAH3579DAC6JA%2CS78TQH8JD239TC8QK%2CS3JH24QKAD458JKC3%2C%7Crh%7C%7Cah%7CBoard%201%7Csv%7Co%7Cmb%7C1H%7Can%7CMajor%20suit%20opening%20--%205%2B%20%21H%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%2012-22%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C2S%21%7Can%7CSoloway%20jump%20shift%20--%20rebiddable%20%21S%3B%2017%2B%20total%20points%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C2N%7Can%7C5%2B%20%21H%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%2012-22%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C3H%21%7Can%7CSupport%20for%20H%3B%20no%20splinter%20--%202%2B%20%21C%3B%202%2B%20%21D%3B%204%2B%20%21H%3B%20rebiddable%20%21S%3B%2017%2B%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C4N%7Can%7CBlackwood%20%28H%29%20--%205%2B%20%21H%3B%2021-%20HCP%3B%2015-22%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C5C%7Can%7CZero%20or%20three%20key%20cards%20--%202%2B%20%21C%3B%202%2B%20%21D%3B%204%2B%20%21H%3B%20rebiddable%20%21S%3B%2017%2B%20to%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C5N%7Can%7CQuery%20kings.%20Have%20all%20keycards.%20Does%20not%20promise%20extras%20--%205%2B%20%21H%3B%2021-%20HCP%3B%20%21HQ%3B%2015-22%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C6S%7Can%7CKing%20of%20S%20--%202%2B%20%21C%3B%202%2B%20%21D%3B%204%2B%20%21H%3B%20rebiddable%20%21S%3B%20%21SK%3B%2017%2B%20total%20point%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C7H%7Can%7CSignoff%20--%205%2B%20%21H%3B%2021-%20HCP%3B%20%21HQ%3B%2015-22%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cpc%7CCT%7Cpc%7CCA%7Cpc%7CC8%7Cpc%7CC3%7Cpc%7CH3%7Cpc%7CH8%7Cpc%7CHA%7Cpc%7CH6%7Cpc%7CHK%7Cpc%7CHT%7Cpc%7CH9%7Cpc%7CHJ%7Cpc%7CD4%7Cpc%7CD7%7Cpc%7CDA%7Cpc%7CD3%7Cpc%7CC6%7Cpc%7CCQ%7Cpc%7CH4%7Cpc%7CC9%7Cpc%7CS3%7Cpc%7CS2%7Cpc%7CSA%7Cpc%7CST%7Cpc%7CSK%7Cpc%7CS8%7Cpc%7CSJ%7Cpc%7CS6%7Cpc%7CS9%7Cpc%7CSQ%7Cpc%7CH2%7Cpc%7CC7%7Cpc%7CD8%7Cpc%7CD6%7Cpc%7CH7%7Cpc%7CD2%7Cpc%7CS5%7Cpc%7CS7%7Cpc%7CHQ%7Cpc%7CC5%7Cpc%7CDK%7Cpc%7CDQ%7Cpc%7CS4%7Cpc%7CD9%7Cpc%7CDJ%7Cpc%7CC4%7Cpc%7CCJ%7Cpc%7CDT%7Cpc%7CD5%7Cpc%7CC2%7Cpc%7CH5%7Cpc%7CCK%7C]400|300[/hv] While 6♠ has a definition it doesn't make any sense to bid it; if you think grand is on you just bid it directly. (5NT doesn't just ask for kings, it confirms you have all of the keycards and says to bid grand yourself if you have an extra source of tricks). You could easily have a spade loser here so 7♥ seems a bit lucky. 6♥ is defined in GIBs system as "no king (below hearts)", so that would be the normal bid. (In real life, North shouldn't be bidding Blackwood. GIB is very bad at knowing how to cuebid.) Edit - actually, I guess you can't have a spade loser or GIB would have raised spades.

Isn't that the definition of an unblock?

The first thing you are taught when learning 2/1 is that after a 2/1 response, you no longer need to jump to show strength - you can keep the bidding low in order to give yourself as much time as possible to find the best contract. But what the jumps actually mean seems to get glossed over. After 1♠ - 2♣: - 3♦ + 3♥ - presumably splinters in clubs? Would 3NT still be to play? - 3♠ - presumably setting spades as trumps and asking for a cuebid? What would 3NT then mean? - 4♠ - what does this mean, and why would you choose it over 2♠? - 3NT - what does this mean? Is this simply a bid you should never make (without prior agreement - if so, what's a normal agreement?)

Perhaps success stories aren't posted about :) I suspect you're experiencing confirmation bias, where you're only noticing hands when it did cost (and including some cases like this where it was still the right play). Would need to do a proper analysis of thousands of hands before making claims like that - I have a feeling 9/10 is just a teeny bit inaccurate. Yes, I know there are cases where it costs. And yeah, they should change how GIB selects between dummy double equals.

Normally 5NT would ask you to bid a specific king below the trump suit. In most cases if I just had the king of spades I'd bid 6♥..

I see so many people do it, but I don't see any point in saying that you play Stayman, weak 2s and strong 2♣.. seems to me that would be more important to note if you *didn't*! (I also see Gerber so prominent in profiles, despite never having seen it once bid in the last few years of playing on BBO..) In terms of the 2/1 part, if I were playing as a pickup partnership, things that occur commonly that I would like answered in a profile: RKCB 1430 or 0314? (You only say RKCB. With a typo ;)) Inverted minors or not? 2 way or 4 way transfers? NMF, or some other form of checkback? What defense to 1nt? Standard carding, UDCA, O/E? Plus possibly whether you play strong/weak jump shifts or Bergen. (And which type of Drury, if you play it.)

I don't understand what point you're trying to make.. South is a human? You can see East throwing the queen is optimal with the current layout, as well as if South has A854. So there's no doubt East got it right. From West's perspective, East can't have QJx, or J9x, because West holds the J, so I'm not sure what you meant by those cases. Are you saying that West should infer East can't hold the 9, because otherwise South would have led a heart? I don't see how that is true - South doesn't know the heart finesse is working regardless of whether they hold A954 or A854. Yes, GIB defends on double dummy lines for future tricks. But it doesn't assume the declarer had double dummy knowledge for all previous tricks and rule out any layouts where the human didn't play the double dummy optimal line.. that would be ludicrous. A human should throw the jack. GIB did too, and it wasn't by accident.

If East plays low, declarer simply runs the ten and guarantees 10 tricks. Playing the Q is required to hold declarer to 9 tricks. Switch the positions of the 8 and 9, and unblocking both the Q + J is required to beat the contract. GIB usually randomly throws away an honour when it figures it can't cost, and most of the time it is correct double dummy. Mistakes are usually in interpretation of the bidding, or when it makes it tougher for partner. Given it's the right play here and is easy for GIB to work out, there are no indicators at all it was done randomly.

It shows a double negative: http://www.bridgeguys.com/Conventions/cheaper_minor_second_negative.html GIB has a lot of unfixed bugs where it bids cheaper minor when it shouldn't. This isn't one of those cases though.

In the Flash version, Options -> Export Deal -> Handviewer Link -> Show no longer works, since the tinyurl expands to an http URL, which is then blocked (as it's mixed content on an https page).

Ah, of course. Was thinking when you said opener was hoping for a heart cue, that meant he'd bid slam on one - but of course, 5♠ is still an option. I can tell you know what you're talking about - I enjoy your posts :) (That's why I had to double check my figures 4 times before correcting you in that card combination thread!) OK, enough from me, I'm looking forward to seeing what the actual disaster turned out to be in the original hand..

Apologies if I shouldn't have been posting in this forum. I did mention it was a non-expert comment; I concluded a void not because cuebidding guarantees one but because I couldn't think of another hand opener could have when cuebidding would be more beneficial. In particular, I was thinking of opener having something like your last example, but where I have the heart king and not the spade ace - I cuebid 5♥ and we reach a slam missing two aces. But obviously it's all based on some risk and I now see there are cases where cuebidding might be more useful than Blackwood. Thanks.

Yep. Congrats to those players for making the top 4.

If they wanted to restrict to the examples only, then they wouldn't have used the word 'as'. Removing the word 'as' would give exactly the definition you are wanting. Perhaps it doesn't to you, but as by in this context clearly means for example to me.

Just for my interest, what's a possible hand that you think opener has? I tried to find one that fits your description here (one worth a second cuebid but too weak to RKC) but couldn't, so would like to know what you came up with.

Yeah, GIB's definitely at fault on this one. In many occasions, it doesn't put a limit on passes - sometimes this is correct (eg you can still have a strong hand when passing after an overcall), but here it's not (the description for pass shows up to 21 points). Additionally, the descriptions for 3♦ and 3♠ both show 5+ diamonds and exactly 10 total points. This isn't a simulation bid; it just doesn't know how to choose from the bids it has. There is no reason to force to 4♦ when you can simply bid 3♦.

That doesn't seem relevant to what I asked. I'm asking if you believe "as" in that statement means the same as you did in the other statement; namely that *only* flowers like roses require special care, and there isn't a single other flower that is unlike a rose yet still requires special care.

Non-expert comment follows.. Whether 4♥ is last train or not, continuing with 5♣ confirms partner must have a heart and club control. But partner didn't bid Blackwood. The only explanation I can think of is that partner has a heart void. Perhaps KJxxx-void-Axxx-Axxx. In which case I'm not sure we want to be signing off in 6♠. I'll go with 6♣, just in case partner doesn't have the diamond ace, and let him make the final decision.

Yes, I haven't wanted to push anyone with a deadline since there have been a lot of challenges for people to get through (perhaps too many). But it would be good if we could get the round wrapped up this week.

Main Bridge Club (BBO) :)

I'm going to disappoint you all now :( But rhm/nullve's combined line looks pretty good. I guess it depends on the level of opposition - as an unknown opponent in the MBC, East did indeed have xx-xx-Axx-AQTxxx and failed to open (which explains the diamond preference). I couldn't see an alternative, so successfully finessed the 8, then led towards the diamonds twice to make 10 tricks. However, I made a fatal flaw - and nullve made the same flaw in his first line. I ruffed the club low, rather than with the 9. All West has to do is insert the ten of spades on the first trump, and the spades are blocked. You now have no hope of making on the actual layout; nor on the double heart finesse (which actually forces you into the alternative line suggested, so I guess that's a consolation!)

Exactly - ie not how Lamford interprets the phrase.