ArcLight

Openers 2♣ rebid showed a minimum hand, did it not? Around 13-15 total points (HCP + length) How can he all of a sudden have extras? Was the 2♣ bid wrong? Responder showed a minimum hand as well, did he not? With the 2♦ preference. Can't responder have 6 HCP, with 5 ♥, 4 ♦, and 2-2? How will 3NT make? It doesn't look like the partnership has near 25 HCP. Maybe a long ♦ suit? What would openers hand be? 3=0=6=4 or 3=1=5=4 But I don't see how opener can have extras based on the initial bidding. Can there be anotehr explanation? Can Openers hand have improved with ♦ support? Something like: ♠ x ♥ x ♦ A Q J x x x ♣ A Q x x x I think The hope is if pard has a ♠ stopper, and ♦ support, there are (hopefully, maybe with a finesse) 6♦ tricks, 1 Club tricks, 1-2 major suit tricks (in pards hands), and if that doesn't materialize, the Club finesse. This seems less than 50% I'm curious what the "correct" answer is >If you play that 2C is forcing, as many here do, Using 2/1 or SAYC is that really forcing? Then how would you bid 1-2-5-5 hands? Or 2-2-5-4 with 2 weak doubletons in teh majors? Do you bid 1NT on that? I always thought that was showing a minimum

There is a search feature that works reasonably well. As for Winning Card Play, I think I posted a review on that one. If not ... Winning Card Play by Hugh Kelsey Covers card play technique, similar to Victor Mollos "Card Play Technique". Squezes, Trump Coups, Elimination & End Plays, Defense against all these Well written, good examples, worth reading. Good overview. I'd read it in conjunction with some other books on card play such as Mollos book, and the Card Play Made Easy series (by Klinger)

Justin, If using NMF (or some kind of Checkback), I can see your point about 1NT. What if you don't use NMF (or some kind of checkback)? Would you then still bid 1NT?

> In Workbook, when responder rebids his suit(1S-2C;2D-3C), that is game invitation and 2C's game forcing is canceled. (so this is almost game focing.) But in CD, that sequence is not invitation, and still game focing. In the CD this is forcing because you have not yet reached a game contract (3NT or 4M) However, just because its forcing, doesn't mean you will ALWAYS end in game. You can sign off in 4 of a minor if you can't find a fit or stopeprs for 3NT. Forcing = you can't pass for now, but you can pass once beyond 3NT That is a key difference between the Lawrence style and Hardy style.

I have experienced this as well, where it takes a long time to process the claim. I wonder in some cases if its the opps just not accepting it? In some cases opps will just not click accept or reject, and instead just sit there. For simple claims, nothing requiring any thought.

>If members could be encouraged to fill in data such as >- which language they speak All civilized people speak English :P >- whch bidding systems the play All civilized people at least know SAYC :o

(I have edited this, see below, after thinking about it last night) Lead a club, here is why ... --------------------- Can pard have the Dime Ace? If so he can lose it if we dont return a dime. If pard has the KJ in Dimes a dime return will also work. What does pard have for a 2♥ overcall, opposite a passed pard, and only a 5 card heart suit? Would pard have cashed teh dime ace before returning the 3rd heart for us to ruff? No, he would have no reason to suspect our trump holding. Pard can have the Dime Ace or the Dime K. We have 3 tricks, and will get at least 2 more (AQ trumps), we need 3 more. Can anything bad happen if we dont return a Dime? Yes, it can be discarded on Clubs. But we still have time. Lead a club. Assume pard doesnt ruff. Declarer wins and leds a spade to Dummy. Rise with the Q. Play another Club. Assuming a 2-2 split, declarer is locked in dummy. He can lead a spade or a dime or a club. If Declarer has AJ in dimes and leads the Q, we wont get any dimes, and declarer can continue and enter hand. Or he can lea dthe spade J. The problem with that is we continue clubs. Now he's locked in 100%. He cant get back to hand then back to dummy. Leading a dime can hurt, can't help. Leading a Club can't hurt. Rules of Defense 1. Thou shalt not underlead aces against a suit contract (except in a few unusual cases) 2. Thou shalt not lead unsupported aces against a suit contract "to get alook at dummy" (unless hoping for a ruff with a doubleton and no other lead) 3. Thou shalt not break (open) new suits. Let declarer do that ----------------------------------- Addition After more thought - leading a club, and then continuing a club can hurt if pard has a stiff spade and 2 club, hence south has 2 clubs. South wins the Club ace, leads a spade. We win, lead another Club. Dummy wins, and leads another winning club discarding a dime loser. Then leads another spade. We win with the Ace, all thats left id the 9, with south holding the K and T and small. On our next exit, south ruffs with the 10, pulls our 9 with the king for: 3 clubs 1 dime 4 spades making the contract The contract is set if pard holds the 10 or K or spades, or a doubleton spade, Is pard more likely to hold S x H A K J x x D K J x x x C x x [this is set on a dime lead] or S x H A K J x x D K J x x x x C x [this is set on a Club continuation] I think with the later pard may have bid 2 Spades [Michaels] so the first is more likely. I think leading a dime is better. Also, without the J, declarer makes S x H A K J x x D K x x x x C x x

Imps, all White RHO opens 1♦ Whats your call with: ♠A K x x ♥ x ♦ K 5 3 ♣ A K 9 x x 1 - DBL, and bid after pard bids, showing the BIG hand. (Maybe pard will bid spades? yeah right ...) 2 - Overcall 2 Clubs? 3 - other? ---------------------------------------------------------- As your partner, How would you respond to DBL [ 1♦ - X - p - ?] holding: ♠ T x x x ♥ Q J T 9 8 3 ♦ J T ♣ x 1. Do you jump to 4♥? 2. Bid 2♦ - asking pards input 3. bid 2♥ 4. Other ??? What??

>I'm sure he would answer your question, but it's very annoying when this happens (to me anyways) at the table. I meant that in jest. I WOULD like to play against Larry, but I would assume he's there to WIN. He's not there to be my pal. > Generally the mindset is on winning and killing your opponents not on answering their bridge questions. And often these questions come when RHO and LHO had a misunderstanding or a disagreement, and they ask you to judge. This is not a fair position to be put in. It seems very presumptuous to ask bridge pros that you don't know very well for free advice while theyre playing (which is their job). I agree, I shouldn't have written that. I was kidding.

>It seems to me that nowadays that isn't often true - people don't seem to want to play in events where there will be "superstars." Larry Cohen has an article on his website about some pair that was upset to face him and David Berkowitz. I'd LOVE that. Its like a free lesson. Maybe you can even ask them a question like "how would you have bid with my cards"? Larry seems like anice guy, maybe he'd tell you. I challenge all you stars. C'mon, lets fight. :) You and your star pard against me and ... well I'll dredge up someone. (note - this is a joke, don't get upset. No star will waste their time with me, and no one will fight) :)

For the jump to 3NT declarer should have a great hand. Admitedly AKQxx opposite at least xxx is usually good for 5 tricks. What else does Declarer have? ♦ King He still needs more, and pard should have around 9HCP? Pard has shown up with 2 (the ♦Q), what else will he have. As Arend pointed out, the play in ♠ doesn't make sense as Smith, because pard already signaled encouragement on trick one. Might it not be a suit preference signal for the higher suit - HEARTS? Maybe pard has AJxx in hearts and we can take 4 tricks if we get in. We have to hope pard has the Club King, and declarer a doubleton heart Q, and the other assorted HCP. And pard already has shown up with the jack. I don't think this is likely though. Is declarer a decent bidder? Would you expect them to bid 3NT with: S AKQxx H Qx D Kxx C Jxx I assume not. I think 3NT is cold, ans since this is MPs cut down on over tricks. Forget the set. At IMPS - Because of the heart spots, we must hold them, discard clubs. At MP - discard a dime, and 2 hearts. Maybe declarer has a dub Q and we can get 4 tricks. OR discard dimes, and hold hearts, hope we get in to cash the hearts hmm... discard dimes hold hearts >Also no one is hesitating this hand except for (possibly) you, so think fast. LOL! B)

Adam puts it well >(1) An image problem; young people think it's an old person's game, and statistically it is! Even if its a great game, this alone can be a turn off for new players. Learn bridge and go socialize with 70 year olds... >Sorry Arc, but I don't buy your argument. It is just not a fair comparison. It takes a while (for me anyway, I'm still not there yet) to learn a bidding system and to draw inferences. If people use other systems, you can't draw inferences unless you play 20 questions - and thats really unpleasant for all involved. If people use unusual methods they will "win through surprise". Who wants to spend a huge amount of time studying defenses to lots and lots of things. Its not "lazy" its just not enjoyable. In Paul marstons MOSCITO notes he mentions something about Americans wanting to have a defense against each convention, rather than a general method. He says the LOLs in Australia muddle their way through just fine without all the defenses. I don't belive taht. I think they do get some bad scores and the "smart" person using the convention is getting better scores than their skill indicates. I also think this lessens the LOLs enjoyment. "Lazy" would be refusing to learn any conventions. What the postors who keep on throwing out the term "lazy" fail to realize is drawing inferences is a real skill, not easily learned. Bridge is quite interesting even if everyone used the same system. There is enough in the play and defense, let alone bidding, to make the game enjoyable. I'm NOT saying new ideas shouldn't be used and tested. Just that I don't particularly enjoy dealing with them. And you syhouldn't think that most people want new methods all the time, nor that newer players like complex methods. At the very least a good defense should be suplied by the user at the table to the opponents. That way you are winning on skill, rather than gaining a fw undeserved good scores ovefr opps who aren't familiar with your method. I was watching some of the players here who like to call those who don't want to study a ton of defenses "lazy". The funny thing is though they list themsleves as advanced, their card play didn't reflect that. They made basic errors, and failed to draw inferences. Maybe if they focused their efforts on card play technique and defense they would do better? I would rather play against Fred (or any expert) using SAYC or 2/1 than some one using an unfamiliar system. At least I'll know whats going on as I'm getting my butt kicked :D There was a thread that Frances Hinden posted about some match where her opps didnt alert things, and she had to ask all sorts of questions. Then there was the comment her opps made "I ws thinking of bididng 3 clubs because you didnt open a Multi and your bid showed 6 spades so you had to have clubs..." That wasn't enjoyable for Frances or her pard. Studying opponents system notes is not particularly interesting to me. Maybe I'll have to do it if I ever compete for some kind of title :-) Until then I'm content to work on my card play and counting

Wow I missed this. Maybe I can play next time.

>I am 53 and am always in the younger half of any field in which I play....but can the acbl draw any inference from the lack of younger players and its restrictive approach to innovation? Appaently not: their latest triumph as an organization seems to be to announce an affiliation with the American Association of Retired Persons... that'll get more young players hooked.... Why do you assume that younger players are turned off from Bridge by the ACBL and its "restrictions"? Is it possible, even likely there are other causes? Are other forms of entertainment (like Computer Games or Poker) more appealing to many people? Are other past times, such as bowling leagues, in decline? One of the turn offs of Bridge is its complicated to learn a bidding system, and it takes a while until you are not horrible. Why should a new person try Bridge when there are some really cool computer games available? As for "new methods", Bobby Hamman make a comment about people using unusual methods. He says that even if he has studied their method and has a counter, others don't. So that pair are getting good score noth thru skill, but through surprise. One way to deal with that is to have a "defense" sheet available to give to opponents if you use an unusual system/bid/method. I think there are plenty of interesting things in bridge other than bidding systems. Bidding systems and conventions are interesting to me, but spending a lot of time studying them is not. And I suspect others also don't want to spend a huge amount of time coming up with defenses. Though some do. There are plenty of average plus players who use compelx methods their opponents are unfamiliar with and thus they occasionaly do well. They think its due to their skill. I would much rather compete against a world class player using a system I know, than an average pair using a completely unknown system. The World Class player would do much better against me than the average pair, but I'd enjoy it more. I'd rather play against Fred , using 2/1, than someone using MOSCITO. (I could watch him execute a quadruple compound shifting entry squeeze)

I'll bid 4♣, expecting to go down, but its insurance against a big pay off for the opps. If I had an entry or two I might pass and lead trumps. The big problem is I might not get in to lead more trumps and cut down on ruffs. I don't see a source of tricks for the opps, except by ruffing. Unfortuneately I can't stop that. 3♠ Doubled making would be rather unfortunate.

Time for an off topic rant :) >Drinking and driving does not, per se, damage others. It does, of course, have great potential to do so, but that's another kettle of fish. >I'm a libertarian: to me, the golden rule is as some Wiccans express it: "an' it harm none, do what thou wilt." I would add the corrolary that if you what you do does harm someone, you make reparations to that person, and not to the State. So if you get drunk and kill my child what "reparations" do I get? I will be satisfied if I am allowed to kill all your family members while you watch. Baring that, no reparations will satisfy me. I don't think that makes for a workable society that anyone can do what ever they want as long as they don't harm anyone. The problem is they will ahrm people, and what will you do then? I want to be able to drive my Hummer at 100 MPH I'm a good driver. If I kill you, what can be done? I want to keep a Tiger as a pet. Or more than one. They are so cute and I think they are tame. My babies would never harm anyone. So what if they do? Your child is dead. What can we do to make that up to you? The problem is too many people are not responsible, and not held accountable. I want to own fire arms. I leave them loaded and unlocked around my house where my kids and their friends play. I'm a good driver, I can talk on the cell phone while reading a newspaper and drive at the same time. >Here in the U.S., a professional named Billie Baxter some years ago challenged the IRS, who at that time had the annoying habit of coming into the World Series of Poker and thaking their rake of the winning directy from the cash on the table. >Baxter challenged that poker was not gambling - miraculously, he won. So accourding to the IRS, poker is a game of skill. In a sense, it doesn't amtter. You are supposed to pay taxes on your net gambling winnings, not the amount you win on one hand, without counting what you lose on the next. So you are paying taxes on your winnings at that moment, rather than April 15th. (yes there is the time value of money, but the tax rate is the same)

>Not a really big thing but getting to be more and more of a nuisance particularly as I suspect much of the planet has now graduated from the old 800 x 600 standard. Not me, I still use 800 x 600 because its easiest on the old eyes.

You need to ask Fred. He has a package for that.

With pick up pards I am frequently terrified of takeout doubles and their responses. 1 H - X - p - ? You have 10 HCP, 4 Spades concentarted honors, so bid 2 S. Pard raises you to 3, opps double. Down 2 Turns out pards DBL is based on: S: x x x K: K D: K Q x C: Q x x x I see a fair number of fake out doubles. Seems like I always end up in 2 of the short major, down 1-2. I don't know if the poeple making the fakeout double just don't realize what a "text book" takeout double is. I'm not sure they have an agreement, they are springing this "fakeout double" on their unsuspecting pard as well. Their pard gets burned also. Do experts use "fakeout doubles"?

Hotshot , thank you for explaining the scoring >It is clear, is it not, that the pair who doubled 3S when 4 was on made a worse error of judgement than the pair who doubled 4S when it makes "on the nose". It seems reasonable that the doublers of 3S deserve a worse score than the doublers of 4S. No, I dont agree. It seem sto me that both contracts should score the same. In any case, there is no point arguing, the scoring table is as it is. I was just curious.

This is my motivation in asking for the "Dont Play With" feature

According to Richard Pavliceks score chart (and also on BBO) 3 Spades Vulnerable, Doubled, making an over trick = 950 but 4 Spades Vulnerable, Doubled, making 4 = 790 WHY are they not the same? They are BOTH doubled, into game, making the same number of tricks VULNERABLE - Why does 3 spades doubled making 4 = a lot more than 4 spades doubled making 4? I there a hidden bonus?

Just to clarify, this was the position Spades are trump, and all gone ♠ 6 ♣ 5 opposite ♣ A 4 I claimed they sat there. Had it been 5 cards in each hand, then I could see their reluctance.

Sometimes a claim is made and its not obvious (to me). There may be 5 cards left. I might reject the claim, or may stare at it for a while trying to figure it out. Other times a claim is obvious, trumps are pulled and declarer has only trumps and high cards, and there are few cards left. Against (self rated) Advanced & Expert opponents, I claimed with 2 cards left in each hand. A trump and a small club opposite the boss club and another card. I claimed, and the opps just sat there, neither rejecting or accepting. (If they thought I would play the low card from both hands they should just reject) Spades are trump, and all gone ♠ 6 ♣ 5 opposite ♣ A 4 My question is: When someone makes a clearly simple and obvious claim, is it not rude behaviour to just sit there and do nothing? How long do you give them? What if they sit there for 10 seconds? I said "The claim is good, accept it and lets move on to the next hand" (Again I held the last trump and the high club, it was very obvious, no thinking involved.) They continued to sit there. My pard thought I should have said nothing.

I'd pass, but what does pard need for 3NT to make? ♠ K Q x and take the finesse or K Q x x ♥ A x x x ♣ x x x [ x x] ♦ x or x x You have the ♦ stopper, they take 4 ♦ and you take 9 It could easily turn out badly, but its not like asking pard to have something unrealistic. >You couldn't pay me to bid with this. Do you take Paypal? Is $50 enough :P