ArcLight

Heck no! :o We set them 4. At the other table, our team mates stopped in 3, doubled down 3. We got killed on this board. B) We got KILLED this match and I just want to make sure its not because we are THAT bad. (I'm not saying we are good either, but I think we are at least OK :D Ive seen people balance at the 3 level with 4 Clubs and 4432 shape. I get burned because I expect "more" I assume that as one gets familiar with a pair, they are less likely to "fix" you with their nutty bidding. (Thank you all for your responses)

It seems that opponents make (and get away with) some really bad overcalls / balancing bids. What do I do? :lol: IMPS 1. Opps bid 2♥ over our 1 ♠ opening bid, all white, holding: ♠J x ♥Q 8 7 4 2 ♦K J 8 x ♣Q 3 I think this is a horrible 2 level bid, but maybe I'm wrong. What do you think? 2. Opps vulnerable, we are not. Pard opens a strong 1NT (15-17) opp bids 2♦ (vulnerable) with: ♠ x x x ♥ x x x x ♦K x x x x ♣ x This seems like a bad idea to me, but what do I know? Their card says overcalls are natural and show 0 - 14 HCP. 3. IMPS all red, pard passes, RHO opens 1 ♦ (showing 11-15), what do you bid with: ♠J x ♥ A K Q x x x ♦J x ♣ x x x Overcall 1♥? 2♥? 3♥? Pass? Other? 4. We are vuln, opps not. We open 1♦, opps bid 2♦, a weirdo 2 suited take out showing hearts and another suit (doesnt have to be spades), holding: ♠J T x x ♥Q T 9 8 7 ♦x ♣K T x Is this a worthwhile 2 suited overcall? Or too weak? What do you think? 5. Opps ended up in 4♠, down 4 undoubled 1♠ = 10-15, 2♦ = 10+ 1♠ - 2♦, 2♠ - 3♠ [hv=d=w&v=b&n=st2hqj42dj8caqj32&w=sak763h765dck9876&e=s954hk98daqt95ct5&s=sqj8hat3dk76432c4]399|300|Scoring: IMP NS uses some kind of strong club[/hv] Should one of the defenders doubled? [the system crashed when I posted, thats why there is a duplicate. It was not intentional and I apologize for the clutter - I only realized this because of Adams post]

The system crashed when posting and it appeared twice. Please ignore this, sorry for the clutter.

The Best are the loudest. Also MPs are a good guide. MPs times number of times they criticize/analyze per session is the best way overall. :P I'd think asking the good players in your area who they think is good Of course if some of the local players have won the Spingold they probably are not weak ;) I think I can analyze a hand AFTER the game, double dummy a lot beter than I can play it.

Buy your pick up pards all have stars. :P

I donno about bridge (as said we don't have pros here in NL) but in other areas there are masochistic students who prefer teachers who insult them. I'm one of those students. When I take art classes or sports classes, for example, I really hate those teachers who keep smiling and saying I do all fine. Because I know I suck and I know that if they paied attention they would know that I suck, and they should have the guts to telling me that I suck. I get nothing out of "You are playing so well". But "You butchered that" wouldn't help my concentration either :D How about this: "There was a better way of playing that. From the bidding, why didn't West bid with all those HCP? They must have a had a trump stack. So knowing that how do you play? ..." "Very good. Now keep that in mind for next time :) " Its not that hard to be polite and also give criticism if the student wants to learn (rather than just win some event).

Why would responder bid 2♠ with just 2 in this auction: 1♠ - 2♣ 2♥ - 2♠ 2♠ guarantees 3+. This might cause you problems on certain hands. But it will make the bidding smoother on many many more.

Using the Mike Lawrence version of 2/1: Jump raising openers first suit shows GOOD trump support (2 of the top 4) and a good hand, say 16+ points (or a king better than a normal opener). Its a gentle slam try. You probably only have 3 trumps because with 4 you usually bid Jacoby 2NT.

For those on a tight budget - The Library will have some of the older books, like Mike Lawrences "How to Read Your Opponents Cards". Thats a GREAT book. You will be amazed at reading it. Some libraries have "older" books such as those by Kelsey or Frank Stewart. Or Eddie Kantar, such as Modern and Advanced Bridge defense. The thing is, the more you read these types of books, the more you pick up. Here are some things you pick up form Frank Stewarts Better Bridge for teh advancing player - - look at the opponents bidding. - look at the suits the bid and DID NOT bid. You can infer their shapes sometimes, espcially if minor suits are involved, because majors are more important to show - opps didnt bid blackwood and end in slam? Maybe a stiff or void. Beware of doubling with 2 aces, watch one get ruffed.

I'd suggest reading lots of good books, not just on technique, but on deductive reasoning and drawing inferences. Also buy all the Mike Lawrence software. You can also buy Bridge Master. There are many good books on Defense. Start with some at your level and work your way up. You can't learn to think about everything at once. get comfortable with things in stages. Count HCP, suits, tricks for both sides. Ask why a suit was lead against you and why another one wasnt. Look at the bidding. Look at discards - why was a card discarded. Card Placing by Assumption - do you NEED a certain card to be in one hand to make your goal, then assume yes. Look at Spot cards Know the opps signaling agreements Why did opps play in an unusual way? Good books on deduction (ALSO - look at Mike Lawrences Counting at Bridge 1,2 CDs) Countdown to Winning Bridge Bourke, Tim & Marc Smith Dormer on Deduction Dormer, Albert Card reading; the art of guessing right at the bridge table Jannersten, Eric Card Placing for you Kambites, Andrew Logical Bridge Play Kelsey, Hugh How to Read your opponents cards Lawrence, Mike Inferences at Bridge Miles,Marshall All 52 Cards Miles, Marshall Better bridge for the advancing player : an introduction to constructive thinking at the bridge table Stewart, Frank Winning Defense For The Advancing Bridge Player ~ More Constructive Thinking At The Bridge Table Stewart, Frank Some good defense / HOW TO think books [beginner]How to Defend a Bridge Hand Root, Bill The Bridge Player's Comprehensive Guide to Defense Stewart, Frank Dynamic Defense Lawrence, Mike Pathways to Better Bridge Defense Roth, Danny Step-by-Step Discarding Roth, Danny Opening Leads in Bridge: How to Choose the Correct Card and Use All the Available Information Sowter, Tony Partnership Defense in Bridge Woolsey, Kit Killing Defence at Bridge Kelsey, Hugh Defend these hands with me Pottage, Julian Matchpoint Defense Priebe, Jim

That is exhibited at all levels, up to world class.

I would say these mistakes are also made by intermediates and many BBO "Advanced" players and even some BBO "Experts".* These are core skills that should be taught from day one, as opposed to conventions. This is my big gripe in BIL. There are tons of lessons on "Improving J2NT", an "Improved Puppet Stayman" when these players are leading unsupported aces, bidding Reverses with a minimum opener, not knowing basic carding such as playing Q from QJ when pard leads the A from AK, etc. ================================== Take Out doubles are scary by those below "Advanced" as you never know whats going to happen. Pard has a stiff King in the opps suit and raises your jump response to game with 11 HCP (counting the stiff K). ;) ================================== * = not true Advanced and Expert players, just those who misrepresent themselves.

Sorry, I didn't realize this question was recently asked in another folder. Thank you for the link jtfanclub

When (if ever) would you risk your contract for an overtrick at IMPS? Would you risk a game for an overtrick if the success rate was 95%? (say a 4-0 split, with one specific player having the void, and no information about distribution - xx opposite AKQxxxx, if LHO is void, you duck, else do you try for the overtrick with no other entries?) It seems that over 20 games you would come out ahead doing so. These types of decisions might not come up so often. And it would be a real downer to lose a match by a few IMPS because you went down in a cold contract searching for 1 IMP.

With no outside entry, the 2♦ seems obvious, doesn't it? Turns out the opps screwy bidding allowed them to make 11, as pard lead Q from QJTxx and declarer had the stiff K. Rising with the ace (teh wrong play in general) sets them 2. Defender apologized for not rising with the ace, but later said doing so probably wasn't a good play in general. My thought is why apologize for any play unless its obviously a real mistake? If you make an informed guess and it turns out wrong, so what? Why apologize?

Killing Defense at Bridge by Hugh Kelsey When I started playing bridge I also started reading many bridge books. I tried reading this one when I had 5 months experience. No surprise that I found the book way too hard and put it down. I made a note in my log of books read "Too advanced. Requires reader to make assumptions as to what declarer has to set the contract."" I found that interesting as a measure of my thinking as a beginner. Counting shape, HCP, and tricks is the beginning. Here the emphasis is on more than just counting, its on visualization. Declarer or pard may have some high spot that makes such and such a play dangerous or safe. Why didn't declarer or pard attack some suit, or switch suits? What is someones shape? How will the play go? Will entries be a problem? The first several hands were easier, then they got harder. There is a tough chpater on Squeeze defense (not simple ones either!) though Kelsey says its not that important as far as your game is concerned, mainly just for experts. Many of the hands are solvable if you think them through. Even if you don't get them, just the thinking and reading the clear solution will help. On a few of the hands I didn't agree with the bidding and wasn't able to solve the problem. For example: with 5=1=2=5 which suit (both good suits) would you open? Back then Kelsey said ♣, today wouldn't many open Spades? Also, with using 4 card majors, there were a few hands I wasn't sure of the shapes. The book is geared towards Advanced or Intermediate Plus level players. Perhaps some of its fame as a classic is it came out 40 years ago and was probably the first Excellent and non trivial book on defense. I rate it an A-, though others may rate it an A or A+. In any case its certainly worth reading (and rereading every couple of years). On to More Killing Defense in a month...

1S 1NT 3H 4C I vote for a cue bid in support of hearts. Question - if playing 2/1 with a delayed limit raise (10-12 support points & 3 spades) you would start of with 1MT also. How would responder continue inthis sequence? Opener is very strong, and game is certain, and Slam may be there. How does responder investigate a Spade slam? 4NT is Blackwood for hearts, yes? A cue bid is in support of hearts. What is left? 5 Spades? Asking to bid 6 if what? Or a jump to 4 Spades, implying the delayed limit raise?

[hv=d=e&v=n&w=sth8654da5432cj54&s=sq742haqj7d97cq96]266|200|Scoring: IMP E S . W . N p 1♣ p 1♥ p 1♠ p 3NT[/hv] North is declaring. (this is the actual bidding, even if you don't like it, besides you are defending, not declaring or dummy) Pard leads the ♦Q (top of sequence, denying the K) What do you play? (Why?) A♦? 2♦ (UDCA - Positive attitude)? (no other signals available)

>As far as smith, Fred gave a good explanation. FWIW I still don't play smith today and never have. However, Bob does play smith! In fact Bob disagrees with several of his ideas from 10 years ago. This to me is one of the main reasons Bob has stayed at the top for so long, he never got stuck in his ways and beliefs and adapted as the game and theory of the game evolved. Justin, What are some of his ideas he no longer agrees with (other than Smith Echo)

>My main point is if Arclight prefers to vote to ban unusual systems f2f players, those that pay, should get to vote. Those who disagree should continue to convince the rest of us. Just do it politely please Woah! I didn't exactly say that. I said I don't enjoy destructive and randomizing methods. Id rather not play agaisnt all sorts of systems, though I would like to play against experts using systems I'm generally familiar with. People who want to play their pet systems should have a place to do so also. I just take exception to the posts that moan about how terrible it is that such and such is banned, and that its ruining the game. Allowing those systems would make the game less fun for many. Solution - 2 venues. But since I don't play F2F right now, I don't really care. And since you vocal group likes to complain about the harm the evil ACBL is doing, I say ... good :) Ban MOSCITO :( Down with all your favorite systems :(

Uh, no they don't. Its different hands that are making the double. :o You can't say that a bidding sequence means the same, regardless of which pard makes a double. The defenders don't have the same hands or limitations. Also, I asked about a specific sequence, not a different one which you added. (shich is ok, but its not the one I was asking about, and is a bit confusing, since it looks the same as first glance) Hand 1 could be a hand that has 6 hearts but is not right for a weak 2. Perhaps it had a void or 4 card spade suit, whatever. Maybe it has Q J T 9 7 5 in hearts? plus some outside defensive strength like Q J T in a suit and another high card like a king. Hand 2 may have a heart holding like K J T 8 7 (4) , plus some outside balanced defensive strength, like queens and jacks and 10's >Think about it. Your partner is going go stretch to balance in 4th seath with short hearts. So if you penalty double, and your partner leaves it in, he was going to balance anyways, and you could have left it in. You don't need a penalty double here, because you can convert his takeout double later Pard will balance at the 3 level when the opponents have a misfit? :D Responder is probably lickling his lips, looking for that red card. (since he bypassed his 5 card diamond suit to bid 1 spade on 4 spades) :)

Not for you, with your attitude. :D For anyone else, hell yes, its a good book. >"However, I think that Hamman goes off the deep end when he starts up a bitch session about all the nefarious methods that need to be banned in order to preserve bridge as he knows it." I dont think he's off the deep end, I think he's spot on!

What on earth make you think the pair were weak players? Don't jump to conclusions. You can still draw interferences when playing against unfamiliar methods. But it's more work than when playing against familiar methods. And still fun. >What on earth make you think the pair were weak players? Don't jump to conclusions. I never said anmything of the sort. The second paragraph was a general statement, not directed at you or your opponents. Thats why I put it in its own paragraph, rather than in the same paragraph. >I'd rather play against experts, using 2/1, so I can attempt to draw inferences, rather than against weaker players using some system that I'd be unfamiliar with. I just find that less enjoyable. If my post was unclear, and you thought I was insulting your opponents, I didn't mean it that way. In general, I try not to deliberately offend/insult in posts, so if it looks that way, I may not have written the post clearly. (How would you have written my post to make it more clear?)

And in many cases, I'm sure it's a surprise that not everybody plays it the same way. It's shocking to me that so many people play it as 5 hearts. Perhaps the issue is the auction: P---P--1♥-P 1♠-P-2♥-P P---X To me, that is 100% takeout of hearts, so having a bid to show long hearts and short spades is redundant. Wait for partner to reopen, and then convert the X. If partner doesn't reopen, they were making 2 spades anyways. I mean, that's the whole point of takeout doubles. Too bad you have the wrong auction. What you show is not what I showed. You show: P---P--1♥-P 1♠-P-2♥-P P---X I showed P---P--1♥-P 1♠-P-2♥-X I asked an expert and he said that with traditional bidding, the DBL was penalty, (though others may have variations and not play it that way.)

Here is a quip from Mike Lawrneces "True Bridge Humor" also repeated on his 2/1 CD. 2 Priests are playing Duplicate and are playing slowly. After a long auction they end up in 7NT. The play is going slowly when the director comes of and says "Dear fathers who art in 7, hurried be thy game" ============================================ Another quip (supposedly true) - a client was playing with Peter Pender (a deceased world class player). After Pender bids blackwood, he puts the client in 7 Spades. "There ought to be a squeeze in there somewhere". The client looks at him, and places the 7NT bidding card and says "You find the squeeze".