Siegmund

Re my #29 post: Actually I tried it with the idea of freeing up 2NT for something else -- but if you don't need 2NT for anything else, then you could certainly make the 2NT opening 22-23, and gain back an extra step so that opener can show his hand more precisely. That is true, and I haven't as yet invested much brainpower into solving that problem. That would be a problem worth solving -- but I am not any worse than the people bidding 2C-2D-3N or 2C-2H(bust)-3N now. And it's a lower priority problem than either the 20-21 hands or the previous item.

The new 2-volume Kantar book is mostly a reorganization of what was in Big Red. Big Red was ugly appearance-wise -- typewriter font text -- but an amazing book to which not much can be added for intermediate defense. A few commonly overlooked declarer play titles: For beginners, Audrey Grant/Eric Rodwell's "Bridge Maxims" - more detail than the Diamond Series books, very readable, something I come back to when I need practice hands for a beginner class For intermediates, Fred Karpin's "The Drawing of Trumps and Its Postponement" - a look at each of the reasons why we pull or don't pull trumps, so in effect, a look at each of the ways we might plan the hand as declarer. For people moving on toward advanced, Kelsey's "Countdown to Better Bridge." All about counting out suits and points and whatnot. Much better than the later Tim Bourke book that re-used the title. (All three of the above are out of print. And I loaned my copy of the Kelsey out and never got it back. Drat.) If you want a complete sequences of progressively harder declarer play books, I would include those in spots 1, 3, and 4, with Watson, Bird's Endplays for Everyone (not because I love it, I don't, but because there arent many other choices), Love, and Rubens's Expert Bridge Simplified in spots 2, 5, 6, and 7. For advanced defense books (for people who already know how to count but are lazy about it), Jim Priebe's "Thinking on Defense" and Davis Weiss's "Defense at Trick One". I don't really have a complete sequence to suggest for defense - Kantar is a good start but then there is a gap - basically learning how to visualize and count the unseen hands - before people are ready for the advanced books. For bidding, the sequence I used to recommend to beginners was Commonsense Bidding, Modern Bridge Conventions, Modern Losing Trick Count, To Bid or Not to Bid, and then specific items as needed, depending what conventions people were learning or what aspects of the game most interested them. None of those 4 is perfect, either, but nothing that I liked spectacularly well has come along since. Best one-convention book: Andersen's Lebensohl book. Best one-aspect-of-the-game book: Preempts from A to Z. Best overall-advice books for int+ folks: Rubens's Secrets of Winning Bridge, Woolsey's Matchpoints. If you have a complete novice, Danny Roth's "The Expert Beginner" and "The Expert Improver" are a decidedly nonstandard but intriging way to start.

I have been experimenting with a structure very much like Post #8: 2C = bal 20-21 or big ...2D = waiting, or 5+ hearts any strength ......2H = bal 20-21 .........2S = waiting without hearts .........2N = H/S (like jacoby then 2S) .........3C = 5H4+C .........3D = 5H4+D .........3H = 6+H slammish .........3S = 5332 GF (to not wrongside 3NT) ......2S = spades (responder assumed to be waiting, unless he rebids hearts) ......2N = 22+ bal, systems on ......3C = clubs ......3D = diamonds ......3H+ = hearts (+whatever jumped into, etc) ...2H = 5+ spades any strength ......2S = bal 20-21, followups as over 2C-2D-2H-2N and higher ...2S = 0-3, no 5CM ......2NT to play ......3any natural forcing ...2NT = 6+ clubs (rare - and maybe it shouldnt be used at all - but I dont know what else to use it for) ...3C = 6+ diamonds It is a real pain if you have the big hand with hearts. But it helps greatly with the 20-21 hands, and they are much more frequent than the monsters.

Memorial Day weekend (23-26 May). Fun little tournament, onsite lunch each day and evening parties hosted by local members each night. My regular p for such things has bailed, if any forum folk might be passing through.

Unassuming Club gets to 6C, via an auction in which the spade suit doesn't get mentioned: 1C-1H (two way / natural) 2C-3C (19+ without heart support / 6-9 or 13+, club suit... 2D now shows 10-12 responder) followed by a simple ask that shows one ace and no king. Opener COULD show his spades after 3C, but I don't think he should, when he knows about one fit already and the odds are much against responder having 3 spades with him.)

Yes. But if your strong club auction underperforms old-fashioned standard methods, that's something to be aware of :P awm's comment reminded me of the fact that those pairs DO have a way to tell.

There is always good old fashioned Standard, where on the posted hands, it would go 2C-2D 2S-3H 3N-4H Pass while with 2 of the top 3, North would give a positive response on the first round. But the real surprise to me is that South is getting to make a 4th seat opening. Vulnerability and 2nd seat notwithstanding, I would wager at least 80% of the people I know are opening 2H as North. In that case, I think 2H-2S,3C-4H is a reasonable auction (if partner has a club feature, he will not also have DA or DQ, and we've pinpointed the diamond lead for the defenders.)

Before Webs came back into fashion, we "always" used one section up to 17 tables, with 34 boards in play (of which 26 got played.) Can't imagine why the director wanted to split it down to 8 and 8 1/2 table sections. I have observed two directors in the past year using Webs when they had full tables and splitting sections when they had half tables (these were 20-24ish table games). It had me convinced there was some reason a web with a half table didn't work -- but I sure can't think of one.

I tried 2C asking for hearts and 2D asking for spades, rather than Stayman, as a thought experiment once, and used 1N-2C-2red-2S as relays for shape. I don't remember it being hard to fit things in -- just a bit weird that the shape relay had to show how many spades the NT bidder had even though there was another bid to find that out first. I did not also have relays available after 1NT-2D. I just used the one extra step after 2C vs. 2D to relay. That meant that 1N-2C-2D-2N+ and 1N-2D-2H-2N+ could again have the same meanings, and ease the memory burden a bit. It was quite a disheartening experience for me, and discouraged me from using relays in any context (though theoretically I think they can still have their place after some other opening bids.)

Yes. (At least on my Windows machines. It ought to on any browser supporting Flash.)

Whatever the merits of the convention, it is one hell of a name. Wish I had thought of using it.

Haven't seen this particular variation, but the general idea is related to 'Rubin Two-Bids.' They didn't try to cover two different weak ranges, but were just 2C=weak diamonds, or various strong meanings, 2D=weak hearts, or various strong meanings, 2S=weak spades, or various strong meanings.

I can confirm that -- I play a lot of set games, and a fair few robot tournaments, but for a variety of reasons (sadly, mostly to do with the software and the directing staff) almost never play a human-vs-human tournament at BBO. As to the original NYT article... anecdotally, I know many people who play both places, but know many people who learned online and later came to the club, and only a small handful who quit coming to the club in favor of playing only online. (Same thing with poker - states like WA and NV banned internet poker to "protect" their live casinos, but I and many other people learned poker online and later played in casinos... without online poker, I would have never given those casinos a dollar.)

Nothing to add to the maths... but can tell you that I learned about the game of Chinese Poker, and the "dragon hand," in the summer of 2004. My partner was dealt one, and explained what Chinese Poker was to the rest of us at the table afterward. I have had my eyes open for them at the bridge table ever since. I had one within a year, and one in 2010. Given that I was playing two club sessions a week when I was in Alaska, and a bit less at the club but a lot more at sectionals since I moved - that gives me 2500 or 3000 live hands a year, so it looks like I am "right on schedule" for seeing them about once in 9000 trials. Unlike madhu, I have never seen an unshuffled pack dealt out, though I have seen a lot of new packs shuffled and then put into boards. (Admittedly in recent years I've mostly been either at tournaments with hand records or at a club with a dealing machine.) I have, however, seen an 8-high hand more recently than I have seen a dragon hand.

Of the theories suggested in the thread so far, I find the golf analogy most plausible. Probably because I remember when it seemed like half the people I knew at a tournament brought their golf clubs, and played a round in the morning before the 1:00 session. (Tournament organizers take note: there are still a lot of people bringing their golf clubs to tournaments, but now they are skipping the 10AM game to play their round, if the weather is nice.)

Can anyone offer me insight into this phrase? I've never used it myself... but slowly became aware, as I heard others around me saying it, that they were, in fact, celebrating getting a small masterpoint award - people afraid they hadn't broken average but were pleasantly surprised to do better. But in any other sport, to scratch is to withdraw before reaching the finish line. I would have expected it to mean "I didnt qualify" or "its so bad I dont want to come back for the 2nd session (even though I will anyway because I paid for it)". I am left scratching my head every time I hear the phrase used positively at the table. Anybody know the history of it?

It's far from the dumbest ever, but just yesterday at the club, RHO opened 4S in first seat and equal vulnerability. We tried to penalize it. After dummy came down with void Qxx KQxxx KQxxx we still liked our chances after our three aces cashed. But the 4S opener had AKQTxxxxx(!) of spades... so no trump loser. I've seen it before, yet I still keep pretending that people will have a 7-trick hand when they open 4M at equal. Sigh.

Not yet mentioned in the thread is Andersen and Zenkel's Preempts from A to Z They recommended 3D asking for a 3-card major. I don't have the book handy but I think their proposed rebids were 3H = 3 spades 3S = 3 hearts 3NT = both majors 4C = no major. I don't doubt that it can be squeezed into one fewer step if you are prepared to occasionally wrongside 3NT. But simple is good, for a moderately uncommon situation. I found it actually came up with some frequency, with the one regular partner who played it, and gained me something I could not get by any other means. When partner opened 3D and I had a nice 5-card major I actually missed it.

...in other words, partner wanted an attitude signal from you. He either needs to not lead the king, or, better yet, needs to take ace-attitude-king-kount off the card.

With several of my partners, we have an agreement to not play Drury; instead we open 1m on any hand that would make us wish we had Drury if partner opened 1M in 3rd seat. It is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a necessary convention. Helpful, in some bidding styles and systems, yes.

I have a temperamental ex-wife in Perth. Stay far far away :)

Yes, the more often your 1NT is offshape, the stronger the case for Garbage Stayman. (Though I would have expected (443)2 to always show a profit, as (43)51 and 3361 do, even in a classical style.)

Over 1NT I've heard of showing any club stop... over 2NT, both partner and I felt two solid stoppers were needed to be doing that. (At the table, opener's club holding was AJ83, and whether this was a pass or not was a topic of dinner conversation. I gather for you two it would be.) Lot of difference between 400, 420, and 430 on this board.

♠QJx ♥Qxxx ♦KJ9xx ♣x MP, Unfavorable, partner deals and opens 2NT (20-21). Not playing Puppet, so 3S may be 4 or 5. 2NT - pass - 3C - X 3S - pass - ? 1) Do you choose 3NT or 4S (or something else?) 2) Do you have an agreement what club holding partner requires to Pass or XX? What would you assume with a competent partner but no previous discussion?

With my usual partner, 6C=0, 6D=Q, 6H=A or K, higher=2 of top 3. But "whatever shows 1" has to be the right answer. We don't know why partner asked, just that he had 21 other calls between 1H and 5NT available if he had wanted to find out something else.