ArcLight

With 4-4 in hearts, opps may be 4-1 and there is a chance of a trump loser, Jxxx is not that unlikely. Also, even with 3-2, you may not be able to ruff a suit good, or ruff out all losers. With the 3NT bid, I'll assume pard has the Ace of Hearts. Axxx in Clubs sounds plausible. I assume pard wouldn't make the slam try with KQJx in clubs opposite a stiff. Whats pard short in, Diamonds? Can he ruff the 3rd round? Then what about Spades? You will have 1-2 losers (depending on the finesse) with a 5-3 fit with no fillers. If he's short in Spades, then either you ruff Clubs or he ruff Spades. I dont think there are enough trump, you need 1 more. Slam can make, but I think it requires good suit breaks and a finesse. I guess its a tad under 50%, so I'll sign off in 4 Hearts.

>It has been at least ten years (probably longer, but memory is the first thing to go once you reach my age) since I doubled a partscore into game and they made it. It is far more common for me to score up +200 or even +250 Mike, I think I read somewhere (Mike Lawrence?) that if you never get burned by making a penalty double (you double them into game), then you aren't doubling enough. In securities trading (on Wall Street) one of the adages is if you haven't taken any losses, you aren't taking enough risk. Might there not be more benefit in making more doubles, if you gain more points, even at the expense of an occasion bad result (doubling the opps into game)? Provided you come out ahead. And you can always tailor the bid to the situation.

Winston, What defense against NT would you suggest? (one that pick up pards will be familiar with and can be used in most venues) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This is what Mike Lawrence wrote on his Conventions CDs "I am not saying DONT is a wonderful convention. I am saying you should be prepared to bid when the opponents open 1NT. If you dont like DONT try something else" His primary advice is that you use somthing other than natural bidding over a strong NT. He cautions that it should not be used against weak NTs. And that its purpose is to interfere, not reach the best contract. "the main goal is to hinder their bidding" Soem have posted they don't think that it doesnt do that well, via 2 Clubs or Dbl, which will be the most common bids.

Winston, Mike Lawrence has a booklet (56 pages) explaining DONT. The 2NT bid shows the "BIG" hand. But its very rare that it comes up, and probably most people even know about it. People have posted they dont like DONT because it might not "disturb" that much. But it doesn't expose you to horrible penalties like some of the other conventions becaus eit keeps you lower and allows the opps to compete in a suit part score. Bidding to the 3 level in a minor can result in some severe penalties on occasion. In his CD on conventions, Mike Lawrence wrote something to the effect of "it doesn't matter that much which convention you use, as long as you use some convention against the opponents No Trump". He rated DONT 2.5 out of 5, and didn't present any other, he may have liked its simplicity.

How will the opponents make 9 tricks? How will you make 10? I think your side should make a penalty double. If the opps make their contract, you get a bad score in any case. Setting them 2 Doubled = great score Setting them 1 Doubled = poor score if you can make a partscore and other tables are allowed to play in 3 diamonds. Maybe their 3 H bid has found the winning sacrafice. But maybe the misfit between you and pard means LET THE OPPS HAVE THE COUNTRACT, DOUBLED. They may have handed you a top.

Kelsey recommended passing, because of length in openers suit. In this example, the 1H overcal = down 2 doubled, -300. I think that was just unlucky, but anything can happen. Of the 4 examples I posted, this was the one I most disagreed with him on. Pard having as liitle as 4 Hearts to the King has play for game. His overall advice makes sense, I just think some of his examples were too timid.

Kelsey recommended passing, because of length in openers suit.

Kelsey recommended passing, because of length in openers suit.

Kelsey recommended passing, because of length in openers suit.

Aside from an HCP range of around 15-17, what criteria doeas your hand need to meet to make a 1NT overcall of RHOs opening suit bid of 1? I always thought that having length, say 2 stoppers in the opponents suit, and no long suit would make the hand a good 1NT overcall. However, the risk is that with a weak dummy, you can't get in to take a marked finesse through RHO. So your tennaces over openers strength may not yield extra tricks. I posted 4 polls, and a number of good players chose pass rather than a 1NT overcall on certain hands. Hugh Kelsey suggests passing with length in openers hand. The book may be out dated, but after reading that section, I'm not sure when to make 1NT overcalls and when to pass with a strong hand.

For 2♦ please vote for: Other. I should have added the 2♦ as one of the options.

North opens 1 Spade. [hv=d=n&v=n&s=sqt83hkj2dakqj6c2]133|100|[/hv] As East, what do you bid? Please use standard overcalls, not ultra modern non-natutal ones. From Hugh Kelseys "How to Improve Your Bridge", p 82

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=skt94h8daq73cakj5]133|100|[/hv] RHO bids and opens 1♠, your bid please (please use standard methods, no ultra modern unnatural overcalls) From Hugh Kelseys "How to Improve Your Bridge", p 82

Richard, If pard balances with a double, would 2♠ be a reasonable bid? Or 4 ♥, assuming pard has at least 3, and maybe 4, since he probably has 1-2 spades.

RHO deals and opens 1♠, White on White You hold: [hv=d=n&v=n&s=saq873hkqjtda7c32]133|100|[/hv] Whats your bid. You have to use standard methods (SAYC, ACOL), no ultra modern overcalls with non natural meanings From Hugh Kelseys "How to Improve Your Bridge", p 82

IMPS N-S Vulnerable North deals and opens 1♦ As EAST you hold [hv=d=n&v=n&s=sakhat962dkq63c97]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] You MUST use standard methods, no off beat overcalls like 2 CLubs = Diamonds and Hearts. SAYC, ACOL, etc. No specialized ultra modern calls. Sorry about the 1♥ choice showing up as: 1 [ HE ] From Hugh Kelseys "How to Improve Your Bridge", p 82

Play Safe and Win by Eric Jannersen Good intermediate level book. Covers a range of declarer techniques on how to play a contract properly, for extra safety. Not just simple things like end plays, but card combinations, maintaining trump control, and in general non obvious (to intermediates) ways to play a hand. The material is nothing you wont find in other good books, like Card Play Technique by Mollo. But I liked the selection of hands (no double dummy hands, you only see your hand and dummy). The problems were not very hard, but I got quite a number wrong, and its likely at the table I'd have gotten even more wrong. Worth reading.

>This discussion sounds interesting, however, I think that a study of the "learn to play bridge" Tutorial developed by Fred for te ACBL will not be more difficult than Goren bridge, AND, it also contains the elementary basics for card play. For the record, thats how I learned Bridge! (Thanks Fred!)

I think it would be far easier to get new players if the bidding system were simple. From what I've read 4 card majors are an easier system to get started with, but they require more judgement than 5 card majors. Let a new player get started with a simple system, let them play a little, and if they like the game, then show them something else (or not). I think the plethora of systems and conventions makes bridge less fun to play. At least at below some serious competitive level. You have no idea what bids mean, or what a range is. I find it a necessary pain in the butt to constantly ask opponents what some bid means, because I'm never sure they are using some unusual variation. 1♠ - 3♠ = They weren't using Limit Major Raises, so there could be just 3 spades. What draws new players to Bridge, and what holds them? Some players love the bidding systems and conventions. They are facinating. They are not what interest me though. >SO today MAYBE just MAYBE we ought to simplify the bidding at first and teach the LOVE of the game as Winston so delightfully put it I agree 100%. Some (like me) like the deductive reasoning aspect. This is lessened by destructive bidding. Some may say thats great it makes the game different. For me it makes the game less interesting. I don't want to "win at a game" I want to play a "deductive reasoning game" Some like the beauty of the card play. Like pulling off a Trump Coup or Squeeze or even an End Play. >I've seen beginning classes taught and even participated as a co-instructor in that ACBL led whateveritwas thing called Easy Bridge - a fiasco. Winston, what went wrong? How could it be improved? >If we really want to introduce this game again, I suggest we do what my next door neighbor did: Preach the Gospel according to Goren and make the game for beginners simple again. Sounds good. The only problem would be getting partners. But if 4 card majors is that easy to get up and running, then perhaps a crib sheet would be useful to bring along.

>I discovered the book a few months after I started learning bridge, and found quite a lot of it a struggle. A couple of years later it all became a lot more comprehensible and helpful, and now I use examples from it on my intermediates' declarer play training course. OK, for someone just learning Bridge its ok. But a review should clearly say that. I don't want to buy "great" beginner books. For me, an intermediate it was a complete waste of time. I prefer reading books like Play Safe and Win by Eric Jannersten or Play Bridge with Reese or Card Play Technique by Victor Mollo. Imagine if someone posted about Adventures in Cardplay "A great way to learn the game" a must read. And this causes beginners to buy the book. Guess what, you wasted your money (for now) because that book is so far above you as to be useless. Golden Rule for reviews: Please post the level the book is geared to. Especially if its focused on just one group (Experts, beginners, etc) >I didnt read the book, but i agree with those who claim that learning in depth the simple matters is a great learning technic which will in time get better results then going fast. Its not easy to do since we all want to run rather then walk. Thats not the issue. The issue is that the review said its a MUST BUY. Its not a MUST BUY for anyone above beginners. If someone posts reviews that are misleading they will lose credibility. Plus it will damage the forum/folder as people consider the posts unreliable. (Not that anything should be accepted as 100% fact anyway :P

>In discussing these hands, he says hand A is not worth near the 26 ZAR points while hand B is worth a lot more. I wonder, do you know what he says about concentration of hcp in suits and how to evaluate singleton and doubleton honors. I ask only because I am certain Zar would never call the hand you showed an "opener". In ZARs latest paper he does suggest down grading for wasted honors. I dont think that was originally in his article. I think his original article didnt address where the HCP were (just like Bergen doesn't mention them in his Rule of 20). It was strictly (L1 + L2) + HCP + (L1 - S1) In the 2 hands presented below the "bad hand" also has fewer intermediates (10s 9s) so no surprise its weaker! ;)

Mikeh, Why is xx x KQxxx KQxxx not an opener? At least the HCP are concentrated in 2 suits, and you can bid 1D - (1S or 1H) - 2C to describe your hand. Using traditional methods 10 HCP + 2 lenghth points = 12 points,. 1 shy of a "full opening bid" It may be a bit light, but I dont think it's very light. >Jxxxx Jxxxx KQ K is not remotely close to an opening bid I agree, the HCP are not working, though this is a ZAR opening bid.

>REVERSE = rebid of a new suit higher than the first one AND which has been *denied* by partner. Would that be valid in competition? In an uncontested auction, with 4 hearts and 4 diamonds, I'd respond 4 hearts, knowing that 2 Diamonds was also a fit. In competition, what will happen if pard doesn't like hearts? Rebid 3 Diamonds with a 4-2 fit? >Partner has not denied hearts, so it's not a reverse. Regardless of what you label it, it obviously shows extra values, as opener has forced the auction higher. Pard raised in competition, he/she may be weak. I think its clearly a reverse (meaning its got extra strength, and/or extra distribution)

I pass their 4♦. Will 4♦ make? What tricks will they take, especially if we take a few hearts? Maybe pard can ruff a Spade, after discarding on hearts? Maybe they will get 2 Spades, and maybe some ruffs in the short hand/cross ruffs. 4♦ isn't worth that much, I'd let them have it. I wouldn't double. I wouldn't bid 5♣. 5♣ probably = -100. 4♦ = -130. At IMPs there isn't much difference.

>So, yes, I think that perhaps, in my enthusiasm for this book, I got carried away with my chess background , sorry for the wasted money, let's say I owe you couple of beers ? Next time I'm in Italy I will gladly take you up on this! :) (I went for my Honeymoon, for 2 weeks, had a great time, Florence was my favorite city, but the Tuscany countyside was beautiful too). [my only thought on your review is next time, please emphasize that its a beginner book, and not for intermediates. Your sentence "Overall, a must-read, IMO. " made me buy it. Perhaps "A must read for beginner players" would have been better.] >I like it a lot, but probably it is a consequence of my chess background: in studing chess, often the key to the solution of difficult position is foreseeing simple basic position, throught the intricacy of a position. Somehow, it seems when I'm doing some difficult Kelsey problem, or a difficult hand from Reeses "Play these hands with me"/"Play Bridge with Reese" the solution isn't a simple endplay or finesse at the end. The hard part (99% of the challenge) is getting to that point and figuring out whats going on at the start. Using some reasoning and technique that is above my level. I just read "Sharpen Your Bridge Technique" by Hugh Kelsey. I found the section on asking yourself "Why did my opponent present me with a gift/make that mistake?" of greatest interest. But most of the hands were too hard for me, and I'd never solve them at the table. I think a beginner would be better off with a book teaching decalrer play technique. Such as the 12 volume "Bridge Technique" series by David Bird/Marc Smith. And Bird also has a companion 12 volume "Test your Bridge Technique" series. But that would cost a lot ($6 * 12 = $72, $10 * 12 = $120, total $192!!!) Dorothy Haydens "Winning Declarer Play" is a great book for beginners, as are the Knlinger Card Play Made easy books (4 of them)