ArcLight

Here is a great way to boost bridge playing in the USA. In the USA there are around a million people in jails and prisons (and or half way houses). How about as a pre-condition for parole, all people must learn basic bridge. As part of their parole they must score 60% on a set of Bridge Master level 1 and 2 problems. And be able to make basic bids. In addition, if you show proficiency as a bridge players (scoring 70% on bridge master level 3 hands) you earn a certain degree of protection (from Bubba and Bootie) and/or gain soem privileges like being able to bathe twice a week.

With some additional thought - why is LHO leading dummys suit? It probably is a stiff, so going up with the ace is the only way to make. However , I think our chances are poor, because we will likely have a trump loser. >> Yes, theoretically if the opening leader hand holds a stiff diamond, the AC, AS and 2 or 3 hearts, you can pitch your diamond on the long club. Good point, thank you.

Really? Here is a defensive problem, for you, ♠xxxx ♥xx ♦KJxx ♣Axx ;). You also have a legitimate make whenever LHO has all the entries. If you rise with the dime ace, you have a certain dime, club, and spade loser, and very likley a heart loser. If the dime finesse wins, you will probably make. If it loses you lose a dime any way, or am I misisng something?

IMPS - good pard 1 - White on Red, You hold, LHO deals S: A H: A T 9 x x x D: x x C: T 9 x x p 1C (1D) 1H 2S p p ? What do you do? ============================= 2 - all White, LHO deals S: Q J 9 x x H: K C: A Q x D: Q x x x (4H) - p - p -? What do you do? ================================= 3 - red vs white, you deal S: Q T 9 x x x H: Q x D: x x C: Q x x Do you open 2 Spades? What do you do if you did not bid and the bidding goes: p - 1C - (1D) - 1H ?

Richard, Would you care to offer a defense to Transfer Walsh?

Richard Wiley - >From my own perspective, I don't find declarer play and defense particularly interesting. Is it because you have not studied these techniques enough. Is it possible you lack the skill to appreciate these plays? When I first started reading Bridge books I tried reading Kelseys Killing Defense :) Boy was that over my head. So was Mike Lawrences Dynamic defense (a very good intermedaite level book). As time went on I studied and improved. One day I reread thos ebooks and they made a lot of sense. I could sense waht was goin to happen. I read Martin Hoffmans defens ein depth and could sense taht pard might be subject to a double squeeze unless I broke up declarers communications. In other books I had to take pard off an end play. Or save an exit card. Or ... I found this pretty interesting. I also developed some visualization skills. How will teh play progress? Why is declarer acting in such a way? Why did this defender not do this? Etc. I can't yet do this at the table :( but I can in books (at least sometimes). >Declarer play and defense focus on mastering known and established techniques. Its more than that. Its visualization and gathering clues based on what did and did not happen. Why did LHO not lead his pards suit who overcalled? Maybe he has an unsupported ace. >Yes, these skills involve a significant amount of intellectual rigour, but there are very limited opportunities to find something exciting and new. I don't want to invest 10,000 hours mastering declarer play in the hopes that I might discuss some obscure new squeeze technique in 15+ years. You are unlikely to advance the body of knowledge of card play technique. However, you can discover a lot for your self. How about the thrill of a "simple" trump coup or simple squeeze. How about the thrill of nailing your hyperactive opponents for -1100.

Marty Bergen has a book on Negative Doubles. Mike Lawrence also has a book on doubles.

Problem #1 Favorable You hold S: A H: A T 9 x x x D: x x C: T 9 x x LHO deals and passes Bidding p 1C (1D) 1H 2S p p ? What do you bid? 3C? 3H? X? Pass? ============================= Problem 2: All white (4H) - p - p -? Whats your bid with: S: Q J 9 x x H: K C: A Q x D: Q x x x ? Pass? X? 4 S? ================================= Problem 3: Unfavorable You deal and do what with: S: Q T 9 x x x H: Q x D: x x C: Q x x Do you open 2 Spades? Lets say you pass and teh bididng goes: p - 1C - (1D) - 1H Now what do you bid? ======================= Problem 4: Pard opens 4 hearts, all white. what do you bid with? S: x x x H: x x x D: A T x x C: x x x

>To me this seems a really weird idea. >I can't think of any other sport where when one side thinks up a new offensive play that they have to tell their opponents what a good defense would be - that is the opponents' job. It is different from other sports (though I don't consider bridge a sport - a sport is something you work up a sweat doing, or at least involes some thinge more strenuous that playing cards :) Where the is "fun" (for most people) in devising defenses? I find the fun in the card play and the judgment. Learning conventions (and defenses) is not so interesting to me. Learning conventions that frequently come up are a necessary evil. Learing defenses for a match is really tedious and for me takes a lot of the fun out of it. Put it another way, a lesser team can spend a huge amount of time fidding with different systems to force their opponents to also spend a huge amount of time studying their system. Yuck - this doesn't sound like my idea of fun. And I doubt it does to 90% of Bridge palyers. I dont think yound players are more/less enticed to the game becaus eof more/less complex conventions. I would rather play the same system all the time, and focus on the inferences from the bidding and card play. I think its a great idea of making it manadtory that you provide a defense to a system/convention. You still get to use the convention you wnat, and the opps wont knwo it well enough to use it themselves. But you don't get to win something through study/memorization as opposed to card play judgement. I would not be interested in playing in an anything goes environment. Rather than say the ACBL will die without the 10% who want that, I say it will die if you force out the 90% who dont wnat the complexity. I think deep down quite a few of the people here are unethical. They want to win not through better play/judgment, but because they spent a lot of time studying and feel entitled to a good result. They want to win at any cost, regarless of how enjoyable (or not) it makes the game. Bridge is a game most people play for fun, why ruin it for the vast majority, and cater to the minority? I'll bet if you asked a large number of experts if they like all the complexity, I think most do not. I like the idea of the Buffet Cup. I just want to play against good players who use the same system.

>On a personal level, I got sick and tired of beating my head against a brick wall. >Do you want to see all the crap that your husband contributed to the process? (it sure doesn't make him look good) One can always count on Richard to make a well thought out response, that is sure to sway peoples minds. :rolleyes:

>Isn't that one of the aims of bridge - to create problems for your opponents. But is it still Bridge, or does it become a bluffing game? Does it make the game better overall? Does it change the nature of the game? Is it really fun (for most people) to have to study lots of defenses against various systems? Spending lots of time learning different bidding systems? I have a gut feeling that many who favor destructive bidding are not all that good as card players. They like beatiung up on people who don't spend hours devising counter measures. But they are not all that good at defense or declarer play. (I am not accusing anyone here in particular, this is an overall impression)

One thing I've seen players do who are not experienced with 2/1 is make unnecessary jumps, after a 2/1. You are already in a GF auction, and further jumps have very specififc meanings (at least they do in Mike Lawrences 2/1 notes). Playing 2/1 with a pick up pard, what does this mean: 1. 1♠ - 3♣ Is it Bergen, or an invitational jump shift. 2. 1♦ - 2♣ Is this 100% GF or just until 4 of a minor? 3. 1♠ - 2♣ 2♦ - 3♣ Is this passable? 4. 1♠ - 2♦ 2♠ How many spades does opener have?

From Mike Lawrneces 2/1 notes: Jump shift to new suit – 2 treatments (both good) Discuss with pard which treatment to use. 1. Two GOOD suits. 8 – AQJ87 – Q8 – KQJT5, but NOT AK – Q9763-J-AKQ87 (hearts are weak, even with 19 HCP). Bid 2D with the later, despite the HCP. 2. Splinter. Keeps the bidding lower than a double jump to the 4 level. You can play that a double jump then shows a void. Note: Jump to the 4 level ALWAYS is a splinter (assume 1 card, not a void).

According to the Mike Lawrence version of 2/1 the bid to make is not 1NT but 3♣ and invitational jump shift showing this hand. (This assumes you are not using Bergen raises). In Mikes version of 2/1 if you bid 3♣ now pard will assume you are weak and pass. Bidding 2NT shows 11-12 or a great 10. Maybe you have a great 10 because of the club length and quality. And you have the heart stopper. We have misbid, so are stuck, I will guess to bid 2NT

SAYC means differnet things to different people (i.e. its not as well known as you would think) >11. Grand slam force I would not be surprised if this gets confused with Pick a Slam. >8. D0P1 Without discussion you are playing with fire. >b. Strong jump shift response (1D-p-2H) probably the majority use Weak Jump shifts, so I would be scared to use SJS without discussion. >12. Do we have stopper? (1D-1H-1S-P. then 2H asking for stopper) Is it a stopper ask, or showing a big hand? Or both? Since pard has bid a major, not a minor. Maybe you have 3 card spade support? I wouldn't want to assume this. You don't have Blackwood listed. Is it regular? 0314? 1430? >6. Last Train convention I would never assume this. In general I am extremely wary of conventions with pick up pards, even "advanced" ones. One "advanced" pard didnt play negative doubles :D Probably a big clue is if some lists in their profile any of the following: - stayman - 2 Clubs strong - transfers they are not advanced

This is a nice problem. This theme does come up occasionally. Victor Mollo has a whole book of similar problems titled "Victor Mollo's Bridge Quiz Book"

Why is 3♦ so bad? You have 16-18 HCP, and a good 6+ card ♦ suit. Is the danger that you miss slam? Game, which strain? What would a bid of 4♦ (instead of 3♦) mean in this sequence, not ace asking I assume? What will bidding 2♠ (reverse 17+ pard will expect 4 spades) or 3♣ (19 HCP for the jump shift, pard will expect 4 clubs) accomplish? You will tell pard you are strong, but what will aprd tell you that you want to know? What do you want to know? -Aces. -King of hearts. RKCBW 1430 could work out, though pard will think hearts are trum and may bid over your 6♦ if confused. And if pard has 0 key cards you wont be so happy. You probably dont wnat to be in NT with this ahnd. How about 4♦? Pard may pass with quacks and a diem void, but he probably has a bit more and will bid 5♦. With a great hand (the black aces) he can cue bid.

>When would you rather bid a 3 card side suit instead of your 6 card major ? 1. I need new glasses 2. I am drunk 3. I am senile. =================== In standard 2/1 (not that there is such a thing) 1H-------1S 2H Can be a 5 card suit 1H-------1Nt 2H Guarantees a 6 card suit 1S-------1Nt 2S Guarantees a 6 card suit Maybe Steven Robinson (Washington Standard) or Frances play differently, but this is the more common agreement.

Dont forget to unblock the 8! So you can later lead the 6

trick 2 - why take the ace of clubs? Instead duck and let RHO have his club honor. You can now finesse in clubs, hopefully netting 3 tricks. (I realize this wont work on this hand, but I think its the line I would take - I haev no reason to think RHO has both club honors, since LHO overcalled) If you can lead a heart to the Q then back to the ace, you have a club loser, a heart loser and a spade loser. Making 2 dimes, 3 clubs, 4 hearts and a spade ruff. As for a cross ruff - you have 3 winners outside trumps, 8 total trumps, and not especially good spots. I would not expect to have success.

Using Deal Master Pro, with 15-17 balanced and 4-5 hearts, 250 simulations: 4H makes 48% 3NT makes 37%

Wouldn't pard bid with that?

What is wrong with responder bidding 3C instead of 3S?

What would be wrong with bidding 3NT rather than X for the first bid?

Correct.