ArcLight

This is MP not IMPs so I don't see the need to take risks and press on to game. The problem I see with 3♥ is pard will accept game with 2-3 hearts and AKJxx♠ and you may go down. I think your minor suit holding is potentially wasted. What does pard need to accept raising 3♥ to 4? You have 6 losers, and need pard to cover 3 of them. How likely is pard to have that? The opps haven't bid (pard may have 5 spades) so they rate to be balanced or don't have much.

>This hand reflects a more common problem that 2/1 partnerships always need to discuss, as this hand type comes up all the time, and most of the time, opps wont bail you out with a goofy 3♥ bid for you to double to oblivion. It turns out the 3♥ overcaller had ♠A J x ♥T 9 8 7 6 ♦A x x ♣x x 3♥X (pard had Kx in hearts) on a spade lead would have resulted in: Declarer winning pards Q with the A, ruffing a spade, return to hand with the ♦A and ruffing the last ♠. Losses would be 4♥ , 2♣, and maybe a ♦. -500 vs -620 for the cold 4♠. I was quite surprised to see a 3♥ overcall with that hand! Quite off shape, with a lot of defense On a low heart lead (not likely from AQJx with the heart bidder on your Right) and a heart continuation, pulling dummys trumps, results in declarer having to play trumps from his own hand, for 1-2 additional losers 1) How many cards does a 2/1 bid promise? Most play that 2♥ over 1♠ absolutely promises 5+. We do, thats why I didn't respond 2♥ over 1♠. A minor suit response will usually show 4+ but in some rare circumstances may show 3, in which case one bids Clubs. >2) What is your agreement about openers simple suit rebid in a 2/1 sequence? Does NOT show extra length, just denies anything else interesting to tell responder, like a 2nd suit. >Does 2NT show extras? Shows stoppers and an NTish hand as an alternative

You are South, North opens. [hv=d=n&v=n&s=s742haqj7dkt3cak7]133|100|Scoring: IMP Pard opens 1♠ [/hv] 1. RHO passes, How do you respond? Lets say you make a 2/1 (Game Force) and bid 2♣ 2. Pard (opener) rebids 2♠, not promising extra length. He just doesn't have anything noteworthy, like a 2nd suit or a self sustaining trump suit. RHO now bids 3♥. (opps are pick up pards, intermediates) How do you bid? (You are vulnerable, opps are not.) 3. You are vulnerable, and decide to investiage game and slam. But the 3 small trumps are a concern. Since you haven't agreed trumps, you are afraid to cue bid, so you bid 4♥ to show good support. You didn't splinter or bid Jacoby 2NT earlier, so pard shouldn't expect more than 3 trumps. 4. Pard bids 4♠ in response to your 4♥ How do you bid? Pass, Blackwood, Other?

>There is a difference between being rude and offensive and playing on someones mind. I don't condone rudeness, and I am not rude at the table I'm not saying you are. (If thats how I came across I apologize). But just because you are able to put up with crap, doesn't mean others will. > (I make enough of my own), but I do believe in making my life difficult for my opponent in every way that is legal and moral at the table. OK, I'm curious! How do you make life difficult for the opponents?

>I personally find this sort of thing fascinating and sometimes wish there was more of it. I don't think what Zia did was horrible, but I don't care for that behavior. It doesn't add to the enjoyment of the game. In general (not referring to Zia or Brad) players who are obnoxious make the game less pleasant for all. > For all the wonder of vugraph, it is ultimately just symbols on a screen and it can resolve the drama down to a logic puzzle when the whole personality clash adds a vital dimension. I don't really care about the personalities at all. I care about the card play and the at the table psychology, not the off the table baiting. >The game can often do with a bit of personality and inter-personal edge to give it a bit of needle and zest. Thats your opinion, but not everyone shares it. > Many other sports rely on such things to up the adrenalin levels between competitors. There is a limit to what constitutes good/bad behaviour, but gaining a psychological edge and using it to your advantage is part of any sporting contest. Thats true,, but hopefully there are rules to prevent it getting out of hand. I'm not saying what Zia did was a big deal. But if it was typical to be unpleasant to others, then why bother playing? >Maybe its because I grew up playing the game in an area where people wouldn't hesitate to use the same sort of tactics on me that I grew stronger through it and would relish the battle. So they were jerks to you, and you think thats acceptable? Maybe many people like bridge as a social game, and if there were enough nasty players it would result in fewer people wanting to continue. Just because bad behavior is common in the USA doesn't mean its enjoyable for most of us.

I see opponents frequently making horrible overcalls or balancing bids. If you always bid over them, then you get set more often and it just encourages them to frequetly interfere. BUT If you penalty double them for 300 or 500 in a part score hand, it will give them pause and help protect your other auctions. If you can get away with bidding 3 ♣ with QJTxx and an outside ace and king at the 3 level, going for 100, then why not bid all the time? Whats the downside? -100 instead of -110 or -170? But when the opps start doubling you, then -300 or worse is far less attractive

>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/07/13/zi...adbutt_outrage/ HYSTERICAL! :) :) :lol:

Match Points non Vul vs. Vul In 2nd seat pard opens 1 ♥ (2/1) What is your response with: ♠x x x ♥K 7 6 4 ♦A J x ♣A x x What are your thoughts?

>It is possible that partner squeezed out a double on a 4432 12-count Would most people double with that? I thought you needed a better hand to double a 3 level bid. More like 15 points or some corresponding shape. What if the preemptors pard has a good hand? You are going to the 3 level without shape or high cards and may be done quite a few.

Becoming a Bridge Expert by Frank Stewart. At 300 pages with many hands and bidding sequences it took a while to get through it. Overall its ok, but not great, maybe a B-. The book is aimed at Intermediate/Advanced players. What I found interesting was all the things one can do with Standard bidding (not 2/1 or using any conventions). There is a section where a bidding sequence is given and you have to select teh hand that best fits the pattern. This requires some careful thought, and the emphasis is on how well you understand basics. Another good section was "Is it Forcing". These are the common situations where knowing your partnership agreements are far more useful than using 6 way inverted Check Back Stayman or Inverted Majors. Lots of assorted hands covering various topics in decalrere play and defense. I think the section on Competitive bidding may be a bit out of date. Overall, not bad. I wouldn't buy it. But it did make me think about some common bidding problems. I did find the bidding section interesting enough I bought one of the Authors book "The Biddrs Bible". It may be obsolete too for all I know, but if its anything like the first section of this book, it should be worth looking at.

My solution:

I don't think the ♥J is a Chineese finesse. It must be the case East has the 10. If West had K T x in hearts, they would cover the Q, establishing the T as a 3rd round winner. Thus East must have the 10. East has discarded 2 hearts and played low on the Q for the 3rd. Run the ♥J, covering if West plays the K.

>Let's suppose that you're playing that it isn't forcing. Still, why would you pass it? You have a doubleton honor in your partner's suit and a max. If it were merely invitational, why would you decline? The standard is it is forcing. The poster was not using an unsual system (I don't think). If you have an agreement that its not forcing, it should be posted, because its not what people expect. Same for a pair using Penalty Doubles insted of Takeout Doubles.

I have a simpler question - Why did West pass his/her pards forcing 3♦ bid? A new suit by responder is forcing and frequently is looking for game or slam. Its not an attempt to improve the contract.

>Its amazing to see how lawrence use such a negative approch in his faught the law way, both in the book and in the book publication, i wonder why he does that. I agree with you that it doesn't help. HOWEVER In numerous books and writings both Marty Bergen and Larry Cohen mock world class players for not following the law and getting bad results. Marty Bergen wrote that "the Law is more accurate than the judgment of the best players in the world". So I guess the Meckwell and Hamman and Lauria are all stupid because they don't always follow the LAW :lol: I think Larry and Marty were perhaps a bit arrogant in how they touted the LAW, about how good it was. And their mocking didn't help their cause either, and it set them up to be "taken down". (I think anytime an idea is expressed as it was it sets up a bar to be knocked over) 10 years before Larry Cohens books Kit Woolsey talked about the LAW in his book MATCHPOINTS. He mentioned it as a guide and said that it wasn't perfect. But Cohen and Bergen (esp. Bergen) were more of the "this is a law, follow it" viewpoint.

>Or that a weak 2 bid must contain exactly 6 cards headed by 2 of the top 3 cards and 6-10 points - if not it is cheating? I frequently ask their pard what they expect for this bid because so many play it differently. Just as long as you know their partnership agreement

>The pointed rounder: asks about every bid how many "points" you or partner have. When you say you don't use points he keeps asking for his precious points and refuses to bid unless he gets a decent answer. "0-37" is an ok explanation for him. How about the cheater: They use an unusual system, usually complex, and don't alert. Frequently their bids mean something different from what you would expect. If you are unfamiliar with their system, you are frustrated because you want to be able to draw inferences from their bids (or lack of bids). So you ask questions, only to get cryptic responses. This generates further questions. They feel its perfectly alright for them to draw inferences from your bidding, but its not ok to draw inferences about theirs. If you ask questions you are delaying the game and they get annoyed. The high strung nit picker - playing against intermediates in club games (as opposed to advanced players in a regional they will bitterly complain if there is ever a slight pause at any time, even if its a high level bid in competition. "Bridge is not agame that thrusts decisions upon us, you are never allowed to think." >Insurance Agent: Always rejects a claim. :( :lol: :lol: :lol: >The race car driver: Often says, "Please play". "faster pls" and "too slow, bye" are also common heard from this one. :lol:

Maybe his pard raised him on a 3 card heart suit, and he didn't like the idea of a 4-3 fit at the 4 level. Also, the suit quality in hearts could be a factor. Axxx opposite Qxx if not fun. Even Axxx opposite Qxxx can result in 2 losers. He probably didn't see a source of tricks, or the ability to develop a suit.

JTx vs Tx vs Jx If I understand correctly, you always play the higher card from the (worthless) doubleton first, because when you have JTx you want to distinguish this (useful) holding from the worthless doubletons. Is this true because this is a suit pard bid? Or is it always carded this way? (I'll have to look this up in Kantars Modern Bridge Defense)

From pards play of the Club J declarer has the CLub 10. (I don't see why you would play J from J T x) Unblocking the Club king = a free trick for declarer They have 22-25 HCP, so we have 15-18. -13 = 2-5 for pard Weve seen his J, so he can't have the Dime holding KJxx over Dummy. He has room for 1-4. What if he has AT9 in spades? Maybe I'd like a heart lead from pard, to set up 2, assuming declarer has 3 hearts. With 4 no hope there. Don't want to open Diamonds. If pard has AT9 spades, opening Spades gives away 3 tricks. With ATx it gives away 1. Dont want to lead another heart into the AQ combo. The thing is, if I unblock the Club K, I give away a trick, if pard doesn't have the 10. So I see no advantage to doing so. If I duck, maybe declarer opens a suit? Nahh... Declarer can get 2 clubs, 2 hearts, and some extras, but for 9 I think he needs to touch all the suits. I win the Club King, Play Ace and another diamond. Let declarer have 2 hearts, 3 dimes, 2 clubs, (maybe 1 more) but we get 3 Spades, the ace of diamonds, and pard can lead back a heart. (I can't wait to see how far off I am, having made the only play to allow declarer make an over trick!) :blink:

Nicely played Han. In Phils case, his opponent made a weird takeout double. How was Phil to expect that? I would think that his opponent would also get to play some high level contracts on 3-2 "fits" and in the long run wouldn't do well. Of course they would dish out some random bad results along the way.

Frances, Pard doesn't have room for many HCP, assuming dealer has at least 12 HCP. If spades are 4=3=3=3 and we cash the K, dealers Q will make. I think its important to get pard in to lead a spade. Cash the A♦ and if pard discourages, play a club. Don't cash the master Spade yet. (or am I missing something?)

Mike Lawrence has "I Fought the LAW" which discusses problems with the LAW (presented in the Larry Cohen books). Mike also has a 2/1 book titled "the COntested Auction"

>The Jack would deny the Queen...when signalling in the fashion, you play the top card guaranteeing the card below. The Q would be harder to read - the Q might either be promising the J or a switch signal. You have a point. The Jack would be an extraordinary signal. PLEASE shift to the higher suit. The 8 is in the middle, continue teh suit. Should it be interpreted as "I may have something in hearts"? Its an interesting idea (if your pard can be sure to read it clearly). >And yes, people do open on AKJxxx, xxx, xxx, Q. Which is the actual hand. I would expect a 2♠ bid on that, unless that hand is too strong for a 2♠ if the partnership uses wild 2's and 3's. If the Q were in the other Reds I could see it, but it would never occur to me to construct a hand like that for declarer. >Again that is the point - do you try to construct a hand that you think is reasonable Yes >or do you trust that if partner could see that a heart switch was needed he would have played the J and not the 8, even if that means declarer opened a hand that you feel is substandard? This is a difficult question. In the case of the Club 8 I don't think thats a clear signal. Perhaps its a hint, compared to the J which is a signal. In the absense of prior discussion I think the 8 would be interpreted as Attitude - continue the suit, even though pard could play a lower middle card. If pard played teh lower middle card, he might fear you would shift to the lowest suit. I think I'm misunderstanding something. How does leading a heart help your side? You will get the Ace, thats it. Let them lead it and you get 2 (or 1 with the Club discard). That discard is cold. >You are also right in that after the opening lead defeating this looks hopeless. Even assuming AKJxx, Kxxx, xxx, Q he has at most 1 club and 2 hearts to lose. The only way to prevent an overtrick is if partner holds Q9x of hearts - so do you plunk down the Ace and risk giving the overtrick in case partner has the KQx of hearts or do you go passive? At IMPs I personally try to go for the set, at the risk of losing an over trick, unless I'm 95% sure the contract is cold. Then I'll cash out 1 IMP is worth something. Better to get 19 than 11 over 20 hands.

>Is it the hitch, or is it actually the removal of your ability to spot hitches as Queen-indicators? Ken, Its not us who are saying that. Its Hamman and (I assume ) Zia or Rosenberg. >Hesitations are hesitations. We all need to be wary of them. That being said, my suspicion is that Smith Echo irritates people because it erases tells from tempo. I don't see how you can make that statement without seeing what Hammans or Rosenberg/Zias exact objections are. My "irritation" would be having to stop play for a bit to ask the opps to explain reverse Smith to me, and then have to ask a few more questions. The opps are sharing information and I want to be in on it. Its probably equally annoying to my opps to have to explain the convention and then answer a few more questions.