wclucas42

Thanks for the responses. I would assume systems on after a balancing no trump bid?

So this hand appeared at last night's game. I admit I am not completely up to speed on balancing. So how would people approach this, first bid, with planned follow up? [hv=pc=n&s=sq854hakjdaqt4ca6&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=1spp]133|200|Match Points[/hv] All I can say is we didn't find the best contract and it was my fault. Worried 2NT might be considered unusual and not sure how to follow up after a double, I bid 1 NT. In retrospect I think I should have doubled planning to bid 2 NT. I chose the No Trump bid because East didn't support spades, which worried me partner might have passed with some spade strength and would bid NT after the double exposing my tenaces in dummy. A screen cap of the complete hand can be found here: http://1drv.ms/1K9wrSr the complete auction went... Thanks, Bill

Wow, thanks everyone for the replies... Work took a turn for the busy yesterday, and I haven't been able to sit down and catch up yet. I'm hoping to over the weekend. I appreciate everyone's time and thoughts, it's what makes this such a great resource. Thanks again, Bill

Up until now I was stuck with a take it or leave it position for the conventions I used. Now that I, hopefully, have this regular partner problem licked for the rest of the year, I can hopefully start making some adjustments. I am curious about how advancer would continue after this type of double. Thanks,

So we switch clubs and diamonds, and 2♣ shows 5-4 in the majors and 2♦ is 6+ any suit. I like the 2♦ ask for the major, but what is the ask for the single suit hands? Is it 2♥? It wouldn't be any worse than (1NT) - 2♣ - (P) - 2♦ - (P) - 3♣... Plus if you, as Marlowe suggests, just show your minor at the three level anyway because that is where you will end up than 2♦ is really long major with pass or correct. Just want to make sure I am getting it. As I mentioned elsewhere, I am not sure about the GCC stuff, but want to move that to a separate thread...

I wouldn't call it a preference as much as a habit, read the caveats section of my post. I think I have been, incorrectly, treating 2M as a natural overcall, and am considering just updating my card to show that... so considering your 2♣ M/m two suiter what does a 2♦ overcall show? I read Mike's post 4 times already and will probably do so again tomorrow.

Thanks for taking the time to write the detailed response. Your comments about disrupting their auction cover a lot of my motivation. Even having the NT hand on the table seems to help. Missing the chance to be a pest because my minor wasn't long enough seemed a bit confusing, but that was covered elsewhere so no need to rehash it. I have read about suction. I do like its simplicity and low memory load, but have never able to incorporate it. Its also not GCC apparently like rotating my club and diamond bids. I'm not really sure what that means, so there is my next thread. I consider myself inexperienced, and the Wednesday night game, if we are lucky enough to have one, is usually a 2 table game for the same 12 people, So I haven't had a chance to see a lot of variation yet, but my first sectional is this Saturday. I am expecting it will be a learning experience.

Thanks, this makes sense. Sometimes I just want to be a pest though, and I was using the higher strain bids to do so.

I agree the 6+ card suit is vague, I have updated it to read 6+ any suit. I also updated the other ones, but they are the crux of this thread... Would you believe me if I told you I referenced the stock convention cards to fill out my first card... Well that and this: http://www.acbl.org/...onvention-card/ It was last September before my first club game. One of the regulars was giving me some pointers. One of the things strongly urged was to identify the number of cards your partner would expect you to hold. So I went through and added the lengths of the holdings where possible... So in NO TRUMP OPENING BIDS my 3 level responses are also a jumbled mess. (i.e. 3♥: Splinter 1- ♥ 31(54)). At the time I could see how that information is useful when you are bouncing from partner to partner each week so I made the changes. A dozen sessions in, I am convinced I could just scribble convention names all over the card and everyone there would know what my bid means. Heck they usually do without even looking at the card, and when they aren't sure I get a question like "Is that Cap?" However, I don't look at the card much either so inertia has set in, but the GIB card is cleaner...

So The Defense Vs. No trump section of my card reads like this: vs Strong 2♣: 6+ card suit 2♦: 5-4+ majors 2♥: 5+♥ 2♠: 5+ ♠ Dbl: Penalty Other: 2NT = minors (5-5) vs Weak is blank as I haven't yet played against opponents that use a weak no trump. Back in January prior to a match opponents were reviewing my card and asked something like Shouldn't your 2♥ and 2♠ over 1 NT also promise a minor? I said usually, because if I was 5-4 in the majors I would bid 2♦ Afterwards I googled, and found that the requirements for the bids vary from 4 of the minor to even 5 of the minor depending who is asked... So If I am (5-3)-(3-2) with 10-12 points am I to just sit on my hands with a solid 5 card major, or worse bid it at the three level in second seat? I think I am missing something, not the first time, so I was hoping someone might be able to help me clear it up. Usual caveats apply: Not really wed to the convention open to other means like DONT. I learned it because it was turned on by default at some level of bidding card in iBridgeBaron. Being self taught with the internet as my primary tool I may be missing the obvious, and not realizing it. Also what do people use against weak no trump, and why is more than one needed? Thanks, Bill

The regular partner of a guy from the local club is on sabbatical, so it appears as if I stumbled into a temporary partnership. As we're both rather busy we have been trying to align our agreements at the table, which has proven to be interesting. Recently after defending a 3NT contract, he asked: "If I had doubled would you have known what to lead?" I forget the exact auction and which seat opened, but it was in the vein (1♣) - P - (1♦) - P - (2NT*) - P - (3NT) - AP *8-19 balanced. I admitted I had no idea the double would have been a lead director and would have just assumed it was for penalty. "The math isn't there. It's just asking for an unusual lead, a lead through dummy in this case." was his response. I get the math argument, but I see plenty of 3NTXs contract on BBO and online through my phone. So I googled... There were a few hits 2 by a single author: http://robinsbridge.blogspot.com/2014/12/doubling-3nt-for-lead.html http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/lead-directing-doubles-of-3nt/ I emailed the links, and it's not how he is used to playing, which is fine... For lack of anything better we settled on "Lead dummy's bid or implied suit or shorter major if N/A" which feels a little incomplete. So first how common is it to use Double of 3NT contracts as lead director and if you do play that way how do you determine the "unusual" lead? Thanks,Bill

Very apt, I must say. It definitely feels that way a lot. I don't have tons of free time, and trying to jam my questions in here when I am being interrupted over my lunch hour or in the evening when my kids should be getting my attention means I get distracted resulting in a lot of ID10T type errors. Add to that I am still still in over my head and trying to understand a lot of this and it's usually a recipe for disaster.

Sorry helene_t, I was definitely in the balancing seat. I fixed my diagram's from today.

Thanks everyone for the comments, at least I didn't get "No no, none of those bids" this time. Let's fast forward in the auction to what I think was my crucial mistake... [hv=pc=n&s=sakq9hk9daq92ca85&d=w&v=b&b=16&a=3hppd4h4sp]133|200[/hv] Partner's positive response here had me thinking about slam, but we were now, as was pointed out, wrong sided against the heart lead. How would you proceed to look for slam? 4♣ control showing cue bid 4NT looking for a 5♣ or 5NT response 5♠ voluntary 5 Bid Bash straight to 6♠

Yeah, missed the slam that's part 2 of this question...

Lefty was a bot...

why 3NT over 3S? Partner should know we likely have a fit. Is this a Serious 3NT Bid?

[hv=pc=n&s=sakq9hk9daq92ca85&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=3hpp]133|200[/hv] If I opened I would rebid 2NT, but since that would be insufficient I had to improvise...

Wow, this book looks complete, and textbook is right. Unfortunately, it's length and density make it unsuitable for the audience. I put it on my list though. It may take me 6 months to get through, but it covers everything on my current personal hit list. it also supports my understanding of Kantar's offerings. Considering all constraints I think Modern Defense currently has the edge.

Thanks Vampyr, I'll check it out. I wouldn't really want to use words like teach and class, I'm trying to maintain expectations here. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif I looked at this one on Baron Barclay. It looked more like a workbook from the limited description available. Amazon didn't seem to have volume 1 only volume 2. Could you perhaps be thinking of Defensive Bridge Play Complete? I ask because I was considering this book for me to read as opposed to Modern and Advanced Defense. Reviews also suggested it took both books to cover the material in that one, but the material was updated and an easier to read due to font and layout changes. If it really is better than the newer two put together, I'm interested in hearing those opinions. I picked the initial 2 because they both seemed very approachable and I would gauge the interest level of the group as mostly casual. There is curiosity about "what should I lead" and "what would this discard mean", but I think material on unblocking and surrounding plays would actually hurt interest. So I was looking for something to get us all started, and had a good continuation for me, without making people feel like they bought half a book, or worse... Thanks

Can anyone having read both "Introduction to Defender's Play" and "Eddie Kantar Teaches Modern Bridge Defense" comment on whether there is sufficient variation to warrant owning both? I was able to "Look inside" the later and liked what I saw as to content and level, but no such luck with the former. The goal here is to get an introductory book on defense for a relatively new group. However, I, at least, would like to move on to Kantar's book on Advanced Defense and Kelsey's "Killing Defence at Bridge" I want a good book for the group, and if needed, I can read a different title to help me catch up at club play. I know they are two very different goals. Is Introduction to Defender's Play staling and Modern Defense intended as an updated equivalent? Is Modern Defense not a good book to start with for a new group? Is Modern Defense a must read before Advanced Defense? Are these the wrong books altogether? Maybe a Grant title for a new group? As always thanks,

2NT is invitational in no trump 2♣ is standard Stayman. Yeah, you're right., I would have a 4 card major for 1NT - 2♣ - 2X - 3♣, otherwise I would just use 2♠ as a club relay. That's what I get for posting before coffee...

I like this, I already play systems on after double so its not much of a change. Unfortunately I can't find a setting available on iBridgeBaron to light it up. I am also uncertain how I could include this on a card for a pickup partner to say yeah or nay. Maybe I'll just trot the bid out at a game and see what happens, at least it would start a conversation and I could gauge what is "standard" at the local club.

It was over a year ago I was at my local watering hole having a conversation with a visiting professor I had gotten to know He was a lapsed player, and new I was trying to learn the game. He asked how my game was progressing, I guess it was a slow day, and I was bemoaning the "new" cappelletti interference introduced when I moved to the "intermediate" card, He started explaining the basics to me and I asked, "but what about clubs, you'd have to show your stopper at the 4 level" and I think the reply was something like yeah that can be a problem... I didn't think to question it at the time and it erroneously stuck, I'm not passing blame, I should have caught it. Heck, I subsequently "read" Lebonsohl Complete on loan and still held that misperception. Sometimes I just need these mistakes to slap me in the face I guess. I did read that part of the article (and the linked one) and do see the benefit, but playing as I was at the time, it wasn't like I could have a systems discussion with my iDevices, so I stuck with what was offered. While I have been able to play regularly at the club lately, I am mostly a fill in player for standing partnerships and as such I don't have a standard set of agreements with any partner. My convention card reads like a menu of the things I can play and before the game the person I am playing with reads it over (they never seem to bring a card) and we set a final system usually by subtracting some of the conventions and maybe adding ones they prefer. Although if it isn't on my card I probably don't know it (like Ogust.) I should also mention thanks for the help again. I was ready to alert at the table last night and I don't think there was a single bid from my partner that required one. We did have one key card sequence so I mentioned it at the end of the auction and people, while polite, did kind of look at me like "duh, we understood the auction."

I Like the disclaimer... When I moved to the "advanced" 2/1 card on my copy of iBridgeBaron, which is admittedly where I learned to play exclusively for the first two years, this convention was either on by default or it was modified before I adopted the card and appeared as if it were. The first time the bid was used I had to search for it...I found this article by Larry Cohen: http://www.larryco.com/BridgeArticles/ArticleDetails.aspx?articleID=565. It was enough for me to leave it on as I thought it would be fairly common practice and I should familiarize myself with it. As it turns out that assumption was wrong. With that said, I have grown to like the method. Unless there is another conventional use for 1NT - 3♣ I am missing I find any hand I would want to bid 1NT - 3♣ can go through regular Stayman so the auction would become 1NT - 2♣ - 2X - 3♣ . My favorite thing about it is it establishes the game force and tells partner I have at least some higher level interest. It's really just a habit though, so I would be interested in the perceived downsides to this treatment. Thanks,