arrows

Welcome to the BridgeBase Forums! Before beginning to use our service, we ask that you read over our Terms of Service. To most people this should not be of tremendous concern but it is worth reviewing. By establishing an account with the BridgeBase Forums (BBF) you agree that: 1. You will not engage in conduct or post any material that is defamatory, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of ANY law. Doing any of these is a good way to find yourself barred from the forums. The board should never go above PG-rated for any reason.

I see serious confusion here. When you are asked the meaning of a call, you are supposed to tell them what does the call mean to your parnter (if you have agreement), or what the expectation other people should have upon this call. NOT your motive of making this call. For example, 1NT-2♠ means I wanna play 2♠, not a minor suit stayman, not transfer or anything else, I don't have to address whether I expect I will make it or not, is that a problem? Giving a wordy explanation just make people think you ware trying to deliberately mislead them in such a particular situation that you have no ♠. I am not sure it is illegal or not.

When Mr. Matty Bergen said "Points, Schmoints", which , as I understand it (maybe very wrong), is euphemism of "HCP counters are idiots", I see no evidence found so far (but it always possible in the future), that he had made adversely effect on the quality of life of ordinary bridge players, by addressing a much larger bridge community with such drastic words. I haven't even gone that far, I am just saying counting HCP is not for me and I don't like it. And I only descibe it as "ridiculous". Is it safe for me to assume that won't affect the quality of life of nobody, or even it will, it's neglectable?

I was asked particularly about my strength of 2♥ bid, that's why specifically only answered "below invitation", and I think (maybe wrong) it makes sense intuitively. In my humble opinion, I found it extremely difficult to predict what methods going to work, and what not in bridge. 50 years ago, If I were going to use a method that 2♥ open can be either ♥ or ♠, or I open preempt with 4-4 assuming-fit, I would have been deemed as lunatic or idiot, but today if adopt these methods, people will think I am fashionable. Absolutely agree. But I wonder if "standard"is not acceptable, How am I supposed to interpret "it's not standard", which one of my respectful opps kept telling (teaching?) me?

Post Mortem: One of my professor always says : " Don't be afraid to ask a question, there's no stupid questions, there's only stupid answers." And I have been always wondering why. Now I know it! because asking rediculous questions is imperative for winning bridge! And I will try it more and more to improve my bridge and make everyone happier at the same time.

I was beaten, badly, in bbo league team today. But that doesn't stop me sharing my fun with other people. **characters: --arrows: an hardheaded troublemaker --ruxi: arrows' partner --uhv2cntHCP: one of the RESPECTFUL opponents uhv2cntHCP: hi opps what system and leads? ruxi: we play 2/1 uhv2cntHCP: leads? arrows: 3/5 suit arrows: 4 NT arrows: std carding arrows: o/e 1st disc uhv2cntHCP: which card = encouarage? (obviously, not everyone is well-informed what "standard" means) ruxi: high uhv2cntHCP: we play Polish club and udca (but one is assumed to be well-informed what Polish club and udca means) (ruxi opened 1♥, arrows raised 2♥, which obviously he shouldn't have done, because it's about to drag him into soup again. uhv2cntHCP doubled, ruxi followed with 3♥, pass, pass, ?) (and here we go again) uhv2cntHCP: 2h what hcp range? ->uhv2cntHCP: below invitational uhv2cntHCP: range ->uhv2cntHCP: below invitational uhv2cntHCP: what is below below 10 bleow 7 below 5? ->uhv2cntHCP: below 10 uhv2cntHCP: and above? 3 /5 /7 I need to know that ->uhv2cntHCP: above 0 uhv2cntHCP: 0-9 ??!! ->uhv2cntHCP: yes (Bingo!) (Look, I know you have a decision to make over 3♥, and you are consulting me, (Have you paid me for this?). asking how many HCP I had, and I would be hold responsible for whatever you were going to screw up. I am smarter than that (and giggling) . Finally, uhv2cntHCP doubled again, and his partner bid 4D and allowed to play there.) uhv2cntHCP: look opps i have to know same as u (cannot agree more, we know no more than you, honestly, we don't know what Polish club is and have little idea about UDCA. But I can see that you are knowledgeable not only in poslish club but also in 2/1. oh, maybe a little bit rusty on std carding method.) uhv2cntHCP: if 2h can be 0 hcp u must alert this (I don't know, I am not a director and will never be qualified, coz I don't know how to count HCP very well, I suppose that's the very basic requirement) uhv2cntHCP: raise with 0hcp it is not standard uhv2cntHCP: if 2h =0-9 how can the opener knows what to do later on ?? etc uhv2cntHCP: moment (kept bugging us when we were defending (and we misdefended), until the hand is over, and the auction of next hand started) uhv2cntHCP: can u tell me what is in your syst 1d/h/s - 2d/h.s? arrows: look, not everybody use HCP evaluate their hand, I could have raise with xx xxxxx xx xxxx (Damn, I am giving free lecture again! the good thing is this time, i skipped the "Jesus sake" part, coz I found it's not appealing, and my pray never got answered) uhv2cntHCP: u play 2/1 right? arrows: yes 2/1 GF uhv2cntHCP: u play 2/1 uhv2cntHCP: so if u bid not standard way u have to alert arrows: this is standard, 1H-2H below invitation, as I told you (correct me if I am wrong) uhv2cntHCP: so if the opener has lets say 17hcp and 2 h= 0-9 how u can find out what to do? ruxi: pd, i wonder whether the friend is suggesting we should improve our bidding before coming to bbo? ->uhv2cntHCP: he bid on with strength, like everyone else does (Thanks God, because there's no director to call, we are moving on....)

just curious, why didn't you show the full hand layout to us, Maybe it helps people have a better idea on what's going on

Thanks all for your answers. A couple of more quesitons: 1. is this 1♠ response (deny spades) practically has upper-limit in strength? 2. How are the RESPONDER's rebids of 2♠, 2NT, etc. typically used? Thanks in advance.

When and only when your partner opens 1♥, interchange the meaning of 1♠ response and 1NT response. I saw some players using it in tournement. and I heard it is called Kaplan switcheroo, not sure if I get it right, I tried to google it, but nothing found. I'd be grateful if some one can help to explain the implication of using this convention, pros and cons, etc. or anything about it.

I suddenly have a question wanna ask (and I am serious): suppose my partner opens a preemptive 3♥, and I bid 4♥, Is my 4♥ bid considered a natural bid?

I would bid 3♠, whatever parnter takes it is, I hope he could describe something about his hand; Then I make a guess (hopefully educated one by now) on bidding some number of clubs.

Ben, I RESPECTFULLY disagree with you that "FREE" was not yelling in his/her post earlier. Although you are yelling at me, who is well-known now a troublemaker, I have no hard feeling of you. I understand you are a nice guy, but just used (or hired?) to do the troublesome jobs which the owner of this forum don't want to do. Take care. Don't get too excited.

My humble opinion: Although the claim of "LOTT is more accurate than expert judgement" is argubly an exaggeration, I think predicting the EXACTLY total trick about 40% of the time make it quite accruate a tool in the game of bridge. and generally correct with a deviation of 1 trick over 80% of the time make it practically very useful. I have been seeing many players making poor decisions which I believe they wouldn't have made, were they aware of it was a violation of the LOTT. I am not sure whether studying the LOTT isolately, without put it into a context of auction, is a scientific approach or not, but I am pretty sure it is not the bridge approach. Since the LOTT often off by about 1 trick, we need frequently make some adjustment on the "raw" prediction. Fortunately, there are always some bidding context for us to evaluate our hands from other perspectives, such as, shape? losers? fit in side suit? wasted high card? etc. we can then form an evaluation on these factors and choose to bid aggressively (making a positive adjustment to the "raw prediction") or conservatively (making a negative adjustment to the "raw prediction"). Therefore, it is usually not hard for an average player, who undertands all the basic concepts, to make better decision by following the LOTT and the adjustment routines. And IMO, with ordinary hands, if you think you made a "lawful" decision and it seems not worked well, chances are you have overlooked some adjustment factors. It is well known that LOTT is far less accurate when dealing with wild distributions, off by 2 tricks or even more. And there's no reliable guidence on how to make adjustment of 2 tricks or more. But with wild distributions, it's more or less a guessing game any way, even for world class players. Most bridge veterans could recall the hand that Hamman made an unfortunate lead and the french team made slams at both tables. Demanding LOTT working with wild distribution just makes no sense. why? because eventually we use these tools in the CONTEXT of some bridge AUCTION. With wild distribution, chances are the auction will start at , or immediately reach to the game level or above, at which, most of the time, we are not even given a chance to investigate what is our trump, why should we be worried about the accuracy of the LOTT? In these cases, if I do know what the trumps are, I will think of following Grant Baze's advice, "with 6-5, bid one more". In conclusion, I think it's safe to say LOTT is a good start point to consider how high one should bid in competition, and make the necessary adjustments along the way, and this part, is the art of experts. So for me, I'll say I wouldn't want to make a decision that crudly violates the LOTT unless I am 100% sure what 's going to happen next and prepared for it, like having a well-calculated escape plan when partner trying to get the throat of me after the game.

I would raise 3♠ if i were East. understandable that ♥KQ seems no good, but that's not enough an excuse for not raising with 5 card support. As west, if the RHO opened 1♥, I would probably double , then convert diamond response to spades. But right now because the 2♥ had taken away lots of my room, it could end up awkwardly if I do the same thing. So I think 2♠ is the preferred call in this situation.

To the administrator: Should we shut down this thread too? Because it finally turns out someone yelling in the public. ((NOTE: OTHER THREAD NOT TO BE DISCUSSED PUBLICALLY. This time it is me yelling!!! I am getting tired of repeating uday's directive on that other thread, and tired of editing your continued comments on it. Consider this a final and very serious warning. - ben))

Don't yell at me, OK? I say you are yelling because there are excalmatory marks in this part. and it particularly addresses to me. I didn't poison anything. You are not in a position to make judgement in public about what's wrong, what is right. I don't know who you are, but I think it's pretty safe for me to assume you are not God. I am not here to argue with you, so please just delete this part, and I will do the same too.

Nice catch, Fred! I think we all know what I am talking about. I know it's very tough to make a bullet-proof argument. That's why I didn't say it's "unambiguous" I said it's "less ambiguous". or didn't I? And of course, even that statement, open to further debate , too.

As everyone knows, the mother thread of this one has been just petrified. Let me make it crystal-clear, I am not questioning the right of adminstrator to end that discussion, I am questioning the timing. ((Large number of paragraphs deleted by inquiry) Also, I didn't see anyone yelling at the public during discussion, I would have great interest to know what that is all about. ((NOTE ADDED BY INQUIRY: When uday writes as he did in the "mohter thread" (as you say) that "This thread has turned less than civil. I have shut it down. It may not be reopened elsewhere on these forums, and I will move it out of the public area in a few hours" It is obvious you can not re-intreduce the topic, can not reask for apologies, can not continue the discussion along those line. I am certain both sides would have more to say, but uday's edict ends this discussion as far as public BBF posting is concedrned. - ben

IMHO, "to play" means given the bidding context so far, I wanna play what I bid. First of all, "to play" must be a natural bid, otherwise makes no sense. second, "to play" implies "Not Forcing", it's obvious. Third, as most people have said, "to play" definitely doesn't mean parnter must pass. To illustrate, For example, a natural bid might be forcing as well, a Non-forcing bid might not be always natural. Say, your partner opens multi 2D, you bid 2S is neither forcing nor natural. In conclusion, "to play" is less ambiguous a description than natural or not forcing, because it automatically qualifies both.

Now I demand an apology for this, because what you claimed is generally not true. You can choose to hide, of course. By the way, you may now permenantly oust me from your club, and I am more than happy to accept that.

The only thing I remember is that there was an incidence earlier. I was playing an ACBL BBO tourney and you (Abalucy and Abadaba, whoever it was)was happened to be the director. I played with a pick up partner and in one hand, our opps had a bad result because (they thought) I opened a 14 count 1NT, and they are trying to make an issue on me. You came to the table, and without even give my partner (not mention me) an chance to explain anything, you just take opps' word and believe we attituded at the table, force we appologize. My partner, who just wanna to play on, did. but I refused this nonsense. you then kicked me out and threaten will inform ACBL for the zero-tolerance violation. Later, you put me back because my partner insist that I was polite and did nothing wrong. I was very upset and write a post here to explain the whole issue, many people here would remember it. That post was then deleted by whoever in charge here for it might contradict to the policy of this forum. Later, you saw me at bbo and seems wanna have a talk, I said ok, but you never contact me again. Whatever you wanted to say to me, I decided to let it go..... I hate to bring this up, but you claim I was suspended for ethical reason, things are getting serious. I have to tell the whole story to let people have a better idea of what had happened.....

I assume "the player" refers to me. Correct me if i am wrong. But I don't remember when I was suspended from the club. I have never received any form of information(email, messenge, or talk at bbo, whatever) that telling me I was suspended. Yeah, I can imagine that I was suspended in a "secret" manner. Might it be better for you to show us some evidence when you make a claim to the public?

Things are getting tricky these days. You bid something, and was asked what does it mean, you said you wanna play it. and nobody believes you. Man, this is bridge, how could one just bid what one wanna play? it must not be true, you must be trying to hide something. Can't you see everyone is using his/her bids to convey coded, sophisticated messages? What? you don't have a system?? you must be joking, or you are really nuts. You need to learn how to appreciate the ultimate esthetical completeness of mordern bridge, in which one never bid what one wanna play!

Let me make it crystal-clear, I am not questioning their right to ask the meaning of my call. I am questioning the timing. As it turns out, he had no cards and no intention to bid over 2NT. shouldn't he put off his question after the opening lead?

The sadness is that few people think "I wanna play 2NT" is a correct answer. For those who play bridge a game counting HCP. This is outrageous violation of their law. I admit that I presented it in a sarcastic way. But common sense is what all a pick-up partnership has. we don't have the luxury make up some fancy preempt. For example, in the first hand, my LHO open 2H showing H + any other suit. Obviously, they are seasoned partnership Another thing I wanna point out is that the incompetent director and management gives more leeway to the bad guys and hurt who are playing honestly. After the sequence 1C pass 2NT pass; pass ? It won't take a genius to predict that the chances of my RHO are going to take any action over 2NT is zero, since he passed 1C the first time. But he kept asking a question before his final pass and it's his partner turn to lead. I am not suggest anything here, but what else I suppose to think?