ArcLight

I could be mistaken, but isn't 1M - 4M a weak bid, based on 5+ cards in the major, and shape? Or is this not standard? I thought with a hand of this strength (not using Jacoby 2NT) you would make a 2/1 response, then bid Spades. Or is this not correct?

You hold: ♠ x x ♥ K Q J T x ♦ A J x ♣ A Q x Playing 2/1 White on Red at IMPS I opened 1♥ Pard responded 2♣ - a game force RHO Doubles What do you bid? Redouble - what does that show? Since we hadnt dicussed it I bid 3♣ to show my Club support. LHO bids 3♠ Pard jumps to 5♥, RHO bids 5♠ What does 5♥ mean? What do you bid? I thought that 5♥ in competition meant bid 6♥ with a 1st or 2nd round control in their suit. I didn't have it, so I doubled Pard said 5♥ asked that I bid 6 if I liked my hand. It that the common understanding in competition? I think in an uncontested auction, 1♥ - 3♥ - 5♥ asks for 6♥ of you have 2 of the top 3 honors. This is covered in Root/Pavlicek Modern Bridge Conventions, and there is also a section in Amalya Kearses book. Are there any other discussions of these high level bids (at the 5 level or above - asking about some suit) 1♥-3♥-5♣ = asking for 6 if you have a club control? [not using Exclusion Blackwood]

I wouldn't want to risk a Dime ruff, and you cant ruff dimes safely if RHO has 7. Scenario 1 - you have received a favorable lead, the contract is probably cold, Draw and run trumps, maybe Clubs come in for no losers, otherwise 1 loser. Scenario 1 - disadvantageous lead. Since RHO was void in Clubs, hope he has just 1 more trump, and 4 spades. Win the return, play 1 round of trumps, unblock the Ace of Clubs, heart to the King, 2 Clubs discarding losers, ruff to hand and draw trumps.

Wow, its been years since I've programmed in C++. I much prefer the naming convention you use: m_num_boards to the other style numBoards I find it more readable. What is the m_ for, is that your cenvention for unsigned int? // This is something else I haven't already mentioned. // Ratings degrade in weight over time. If you played with someone // a year ago then your rating counts less than someone who played // with them 2 days ago. There is a lot of time for improvement over // a year but not 2 days. The following piecewise formula is complex // but basically it is relatively flat for up to 80 days and then drops // pretty linearly for another 80 days and then has a relatively long // flat tail. I like this idea. Lets add some more complexity! :P If someone gives out lots of negative ratings, then their weighting should probably be reduced. That way on crab doesn't ding scores of others.

Spade K, I dont plan on a squeeze play or throw in. I dont expect teh K to make, but try it as theer is no cost. Club to King. Finesse a Diamond. (2-2 with king onside or 3-1 with stiff K with East and we make) Pull trumps when in. Assume a trump lost. cash Club Q. Club to Ace. Were Clubs 3-3? If so discard small heart. I suppose if East has played the 9 and 10 you can finesse. If not take heart finesse.

>amiability ranking What if you play against a jerk? Might they not also rate you a jerk when an argument develops? A few days ago, in a pick up game in the main room (not a tournament) LHO opened 1 Heart, pard overcalled 1NT (stopper with 15-18), RHO raised to 3H. I had a long diamond suit that I thought might be able to run if pard had the Ace or Ace King, and I had the stiff Q of hearts, so I hoped pard might have a double heart stooper becaus eof that, so I bid a specualtive 3NT. A heart was lead, and 3NT was made, pard did have a double heart stop. My bid was probably not wise, but we were vulnerable and I thought the opps were trying to steal, and I figured pard would win any finesses she needed. I rate myself intermediate. RHO blurted out we were F_CKING CHEATERS I was a bit taken aback. I could understand a comment like "DUMB BID, You were SO Lucky" I sent the screen shot to Abuse and booted him. He resat, so I added permission required, and booted him again, and he tried to sit again and again as I kept denying permission. If I rated him "JERK" would he not do the same to me? If you play enough games, would you not run into lots of nasty people and accumulate a number of "JERK" ratings and become less desirable as a partner?

Doubling a 4♠ bid forced pard to the 5 level. Was Norths hand really good enough for that? His pard had passed a chance to open. Was 4♠ likely to make? What if South had more Spades and fewer diamonds, might not the contract go down a lot. It depends on your opponents preempting style, but in general, I think too many people see a preempt as a red blanket waving in front of them and charge!... Into a horrible contract thats doubled. In this case Diamonds makes. Other times it goes down, converting a positive score into a negative. I would have passed as North.

>Basically a style where you bypass diamonds in all weak hands after a 1C opener to bid a 4 card major. What is the strength cut off? At what point would you respond 1♦ rather than 1 ♥/♠?

1. With Responsive Doubles, wouldn't a DBL show the minors in this auction? 2. How high do you play Responsive Doubles? [up thru 4 diamonds?] How would pard interpret DBL? Penalty? 3 suit takeout?

Mike Lawrence also adds that you dont make the jump shift without 2 good suits, HCP (in other suits) are not enough. His big warning is this sequence is one you must discuss with pard. If you make an assumption that turns out to be wrong, you will get a bad result. If you play it as a splinter, then you can use a jump to the 4 level as showing a void.

>What do I say if p asks why I lead away from AQ? You show him Eddie Kantars Modern Bridge Defense, chapters 1,2. >but I'm only sure he's right because he's Edwin Kantar I thought his logic on why this holds was quite reasonable. I don't remember if this is covered in Mike Lawrences Opening Leads, or Robert Ewens Opening Leads.

Somewhere is posted what is meant by Advanced, Expert, etc. I think Experts are supposed to have won a national title, Advanced is a strong club player who wins sectionals and maybe regionals. Intermedaite is a decent club player. Probably many people are not aware of this. How easy is it to rate players based on their defensive play, if they don't have time to discuss things? Also, if an expert was paired with a terrible player, I think the experts defense would suffer as he is fooled by his pards random carding. He would be rated a bad player. Ho does the Lehman rating work? How would a players rating be affected is they improve over time? The value of ratings is to be able to play with players at your level. Its no fun to play with and against much weaker players. (Though I'd be happy to play against stronger players if they would let me)

>If u were really shifty you could ask a question about a bid when u are interested in that lead during the auction and so on. I've had it done to me - my favourite one was - is that natural (aghast) and then shaking head when answered yes - guess who had 7 cards in that suit... This is shifty. I wouldn't like it done to me. But then where is the fun in cheating? Its far easier to cheat, especially at a low level game. You can develop some gesture signals, such as looking at RHO with a good hand, and LHO with a bad. In the case where you describe can you discuss this with the TD and ask him to observe the opps? >That's very true. No wonder Matt said, "I was reminded why I no longer go there." Playing an unusual system against opponents who aren't used to unusual systems is generally no fun at all. Im not used to them, so I guess we shouldn't play against each other. Thankfully, this isnt a problem on BBO because of the text box available with the alerts.

I disagree with all the above. Were the opps trying to pass illegal information? If so, then thats a problem, and you should speak with the TD. Or were they clueless (didnt understand the auctions). There are plenty of players who dont know Precision or MOSCITO. How are they to know what to do if they dont understand the auction? If anything YOU And your partner are getting the benefit of them asking questions, in case you have a bidding misunderstanding. Maybe an opp has a hand worth overcalling/balancing with but doesn't understand the auction. What are they supposed to do? At least in BBO I can ask each opp questions, and they can alert their bids with accompanying text. (I find it interesting to learn about systems as I encounter them) In a club game, if you aren't going to bid, then it pays to be quiet and ask for a detailed explanation at the end. Thats probably annoying for you, and time cionsuming, especially if they ask a lot of questions, and take a while processing the information. But what is the alternative? That they should not get the chance to think? Wouldn't that be a huge benefit to using a non-standard system (for the sake of argument call anything other than SAYC,2/1 non standard in the USA even though there are good plyers who use other systems) One last point. Not everyone who plays Bridge is as serious about it as you are. There are plenty who play it socially. It takes their fun away if they have no idea what the auction means. Its frustrating for them, and its frustrating for you when they ask all these questions.

Are there any books or articles that describe cue bidding aces and kings at the same time, rather than the traditional aces first. Ron Klinger has a brief section in his book "Cue Bidding to Slam". I'd like to see cases where the players knew to bail out early.

Mike Lawrence prefers Strong Jump shifts over weak, and has 3 types (they are not all Monsters either). He explains his rational, and says something to the effect of "If you play all 2/1 bids (including 1D-2C) as 100% GF, you need Weak Jump Shifts. " His system treats a 2/1 as a 95% GF, to game or 4 of a minor if 3NT isn't possible. It seems to me that playing Match Points weak jump shifts are mor efrequent and might be better. I dont know which is better at IMPS. As Lawrence points out, a number of strong players (by his standards) use them. The "fun" of 2/1 is it can mean many different things.

Could someone describe the World Championship books in detail? Is it a card by card description of the play, and the probably thought process behind the play and bidding? Sort of like Reese's "Play These Hands With Me"? >Clues From the Bidding at Bridge. 2nd edition, Julian Pottage >A terrific book. One or two page play problems. Most of the book is focused on counting and visualizing the hands. When it sticks to this theme I give the book an A+. In the second half Mr. Pottage starts to discuss advanced/expert levels of declarer play technique on some hands. Maybe I should give it another chance. I read about a third of it and didn't like it. Maybe "Clues From the Bidding" is an Advanced book, not an Intermediate book? I thought some of the clues were a bit flimsy. I wonder if the emphasis was on "creating clever hands" rather than teaching realistic and practical deductive reasoning. The declarer play in Pottages book was certainly advanced, not intermediate. I much prefer other similar books on deductive reasoning/visualization by: Mike Lawrence Eric Jannersten (Card Reading) Andrew Kambites (Card Placing for You) Al Dormer (Dormer on Deduction) Hugh Kelsey (Logical Bridge Play) Marshall Miles has a couple of books that I havent read (All 52 Cards, and Inferences at Bridge).

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=saqhaq75dakq5ck62&w=skt876hdj3caqt743&e=sj543hkt986d864c5&s=s92hj432dt972cj98]399|300|1♠-X-2♠- pass pass-X-pass-3♥ (I forgot the bidding, it was either 3♠-X-pass-??? OR pass-pass-X-pass 3♠-X-pass-??? [/hv] 3 Spades doubled made. What do you do when you have a monster with 24 HCP and pard is quiet? Bad luck?

What can we tell about pards hand? Overcaller probably has 5 diamonds, we have 5, leaving 3 left. Pard probably has 1 or 2 diamonds. I'm guessing pard has 5 clubs,1/2 Diamonds, and 3-3 or 4-2 in the majors. We may end up in a 4-3 fit in Spades, or 4-2 or maybe 4-4. Overcaller probably doesn't have 5 hearts, maybe 4? Or less? Whats his shape? 3-3-5-2? Do the opps have a likely part score? In hearts? If we pass, and pard doubles we may get a nice penalty. Opps may run to a bad fit at a higher level. Pass.

Card Play Made Easy (volumes 1-4) by Ron Klinger, Andrew Kambites 1: Safety Plays & End Plays 2: Suit Combinations 3: Trump Management 4: Timing and Communications I very much like this set. Each book presents a concept in a short chapter with perhaps 4-6 example hands. Then there is a quiz of 8 very good, well chosen problems. Not only do you have to figure out the problem, you need to use correct technique. Its like a book version of Bridge Master. At the end of each book is a review test of between 24 and 60 problems. While these books are only 96 pages each, they should take you 6-9 hours to complete. [Explanations & ~50 example hands & ~64 chapter questions & ~40-60 Final test questions] I would not use them as my first source to learn a subject (instead I'd use a book like Victor Mollos Card Play Technique, and Terence Reeses books). But once you have a general knowledge of a technique (Card Combinations for example) these books are a very nice test and further teaching tool. You will learn and be tested on the concept as well as proper technique. They are Intermediate level, though I'm sure many who consider themselves advanced would not get more than half the problems right. I especially like the Suit Combination and Trump Management books. Well worth getting, I will make a point of rereading these every couple of year to improve and maintain my technique. Note: Vol #1 is out of print and it sells for $70 - $250 (Im not kidding!!!) You need to keep your eyes open and wait for one to come up at a reasonable price (I got it for $11.50 including shipping)

A defender may not deliberately pause so as to convey information to pard, or mislead declarer. My concern is that at times I have to stop and think and count, even if I dont have a high card to play. I need to think for a little. (I'm trying to count out the hand, and I need to do it as the play progresses, can't play 10 cards then reconstruct the hand) 1. Are you allowed to say "I need some time to count?" 2. So as to avoid giving information away is this legal: Play in tempo, but ALWAYS take around the same amount of time before playing a card, say 8-10 seconds. In other words, you always pause before playing a card, so no information is revealed to pard, and declarer can't complain that you paused for no reason. [8-10 seconds is an example, and I realize its annoying. My intent to to learn to count faster, and I need to practice it, and I dont want to give away information by pausing at key points. What I mean is "I am trying to count out the hand. I always do this, even if I have no valuable cards, or the hand is cold. I am trying to learn to count effectively"]

>re: 1D : 1S : 2S Mike Lawrence advocates raising with only 3 cards support. But he will also say that 1NT may be a good bid if you have an NT type hand (with stoppers).

Judgment at Bridge by Mike Lawrence 1976 Its 30 years old, but still a very good Intermediate level (and below) book on some common bidding mistakes and other types of mistakes. Most of the book focuses on Bidding. Underbidding, Overbidding, Preference bids, dynamic hand evaluation, and Takeout Doubles, with lots of examples. There are also sections on Signaling (and its misuse), and maybe a few other subjects. There is nothing earthshattering in the book. With all the examples it does a good job helping the reader clear up some mistakes and misconceptions they may have had. There are a number of highlighted guidelines such as "When the Bidding has reasonably described your hand, and partner then makes a decision, trust him. You must have a strong reason to override him" You hold: S: K 10 9 8 7 H: Q 9 7 4 2 D: 4 2 C: 3 Pard opens 1D, you bid 1S Pard bids 2C, Your bid? You have a misfit, bid 2D. ( I dont have the exact hand or bidding sequence in front of me) There is another hand where you hold something like: S: Q 9 5 H: x x D: T 9 8 x C: J T 8 7 Pard opens: 1S - p - p - 2D X - p - p - 2H 2NT - p - ? What do you do? The idea is that pard bid on despite your showing no support at all, he must have a huge hand. Your few scattered points are in his suits. Bid 3NT and expect it to make.

In general Hugh Kelsey books are Not for beginners or even low intermediates. I don't think leading the Spade Q is so strange, even though I ultimately chose another lead (for a lower score) Pard opened 1 Spade, implying he has as least 5 Spades, and at least 12HCP. You have 5 Spades and 4 HCP. Therefore the opponents have at most 24 HCP, which is a bit short of the 29 usually required for 11 tricks. Thus one of the opponents must have extra distribution. If declarer has Kx and dummy x in Spades, leading to pards ace gives them a discard. If dummy has the Kx and declarer x, leading to pards A may result in a discard on the K. Leading the Q can't cost, and may help, in case dummy has Kx. The reason I rejected the Spade lead is I assumed it would be ruffed. In general, the Mike Lawrence books force the reader to picture the unseen hands. It may take a while to make the opening lead as the player processes the data.

>Improve your opening leads by Hugh Kelsey and John Matheson I liked this book when I read it. I plan on rereading it again. What I liked was it made you think about the bidding and what the players had rather than some general rule "(Dont) Lead trump when ..." In the example you gave you know pard has 5 spades so its possible you will get no Spade tricks at all. If declarere has the Spade K doubleton or terbleton it will make, but even if not, spades can be ruffed. I can see leading the Spade Q in case Dummy has the K. I was thinking a low Club because with the opponents bidding to such a high level they may be void and we have to get something going. My first thought was Spade Q, then I selected low club. 5 out of 10, oh well. I plan on rereading Mike Lawrences book "Opening Leads" as well. It too focused heavily on what the auction was telling us about the hands.