Rebound

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=s108hxdqxxxcakqxxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP Pass to you, what do you bid?[/hv] Vulnerable against not, I opened this hand 3♣. My partner (a pick-up for a pairs tourney) wasn't impressed. My feeling is that a preempt at this vulnerability should show such a hand. But I'm curious to hear your opinions. I realize that if I open 1♣, I have a simple 2♣ rebid available over any 1-level response by partner. However, it leaves tons of wiggle room in the majors for the opponents. Your thoughts?

I'm curious: what about the misrepresentation of skill level is it that you don't like? I think it is self-evident. Perhaps not. It is a matter of expectations. I like to win as much as the next guy. If an expert agrees to play with me, I see it as an opportunity to do well. Speaking to the issue of a lesser player recognizing the difference between a perceived error and an advanced play that just happened to not work, I point to a slam in which the "expert" I played with fired off 2 unnecessary finesses right off the crack and down he went in a makeable contract. It's just a shame when a person is unable to be honest with himself and others about his skill level. But it's better than the mayhem that would ensue if BBO instituted some sort of rating system. I'm with the others who said it was the ruination of OKBridge as far as having an enjoyable game there was concerned. Incidentally, my sentiments agree almost completely with those in Mila85's post.

Speaking only for myself, I'm happy with the current self-rating system; I just wish a whole bunch of the so-called experts would take a reality check and adjust their ratings downward. Being no where near an expert myself, I certainly don't mind an error on the part of my partner, (as someone has said here, we're both trying to win) but if one calls himself an expert, I expect him to play like one.

I would take a 3♥ bid here to show values. You should be willing to pass 3♠x I think and I wouldn't with this hand. Partner can always double again over 2♠ if he wishes to push the bidding further and then I'll bid 3♥ gladly. There's too much danger of being down 2 doubled against a part score IMO to bid 3♥ freely and I don't have the first clue about good/bad 2nt. Hearts is the suit you want to play in so bit it if you're going to bid at all in my book. Just my humble opinion of course :-) p.s. I must admit to being old-fashioned. I strongly dislike so-called negative free bids. To me, a free bid should show extras in the same way that one should not "show the same values twice" if you know what I mean. In this case, for example, partner is free to balance with a double after 2♠-p-p...

To me it seems obvious to lead the unbid suit. So the ace is the play.

Dbl seems the only call.

Glad I'm, not the only one thinking of just cracking out 6♥. The alternative, to me, would be 1♥ reasoning that if partner is willing to pass it, I may have probs making anything. After 1♥, I would jump in clubs next. Chances are tho, if partner can take any action at all, Im prolly gonna bid 6♥ anyway, so I think I'll just do it now and get it over with.

I'm inclined to agree with Chamaco. I tend to ignore tempo completely when playing online. Who knows the reason for the delay? The cat may have spilled his coffee, the phone may have rung, could be anything. I just don't event consider it unless it interferes with completion of the round in a timely fashion.

OT: This may have been addressed already (if so, my apologies), but I have not yet read the full thread and Chamaco has mentioned this twice. You've been getting shafted if you have gotten adjustments against you for making bids which don't conform to your system (unless it happens A LOT in which case it is a hidden partnership agreement) since it is legal. You can certainly deviate from systemic agreements provided your partner is as much in the dark as the opponents are. The same thing has happened to me and I think it is rotten. If I make such a bid and the opponents request an explanation, I feel no guilt whatsoever telling them what it is supposed to mean, not what I have (as I have seen so many others do). It really ticks me off to see someone adjust his/her explanation of a call to suit his/her holding. I don't care if it is supposed to help me know what they have, I'd rather play by the rules. Incidentally, Fred, I totally agree with your statements regarding "to play", and frankly I am a little surprised it took so long for other posters to make the same point (I am a little late arriving to the thread I'm afraid.) It seems clear there are two possible definitions of it: partner has limited his/her hand earlier in the auction and is expected to pass under any circumstances, or partner will normally pass but may bid again under certain circumstances. Because of this ambiguity, the explanation should be discarded in favor of a more accurate explanation, as you suggest. However, I think that, in any event, despite your explanation, partner should not be barred from making another call under the rules. Suppose partner has (as i have on occasion) had a brain fart and miscounted the hand somehow or there has been a partnership misunderstanding, and partner elects to call again despite your having described your call as "to play" or "signoff"? It is my understanding that no penalty should attach in this situation.

Ok, so I'm no expert. But I pass. You know, sometimes, you just have to let the opps make game. If your partner has a shapey hand, then I feel it is likely that at least one of the opponents does too. 5♥ could get ugly. Seems like declarer's LHO in 5♥ holds 4 trump and may be tapping declarer right from the opening lead. OTOH, you never know, you may beat 4♠. Of course, I've been known to be wrong about this sort of thing, but pass would be almost automatic for me at the table.

You got ripped. Plain and simple. The ruling was contrary to the Laws. It just shows the overall poor understanding of the laws by the directors I have seen.

That seems like the way to go to me.

Fred: Clearly, since the solution has been posted, what I am about to suggest is not the best line, but I've been wondering why. To wit: I was thinking about low to the 9 (presuming it loses), then leading the Q, hoping to pick up the K and crush the remaining honor since KJx or K10x offside is a losing situation anyway. Your thoughts?

I guess I should apologize for my long post since it turned out to be mostly irrelevant and fundamentally flawed. It is indicative of the main problem I have with bridge... the ability to discard the irrelevancies without going thru the complete line of reasoning. Sorry folks.

Opps, I dismissed the case where LHO goes up A right away too quickly. Fortunately, my reasoning still holds. The only possible remaining holdings are Jx - x and x - Jx, the others having already been eliminated. So again it's a 50-50 shot whether to play the Q the next time. Oh, and one other, hopefully minor, error. You can succeed with stiff A offside, but again you have to lead low to the 10 then low to the 9. That still doesn't make it worth it I don't think. So I believe I am still correct in essence.

Well Fred, here's my 2 cents: First, it doesn't matter what you do in the following cases, 5-0 break, AJx or AJxx offside, singleton A either side. If the J is singleton onside then you know what to do. Now, low to the 10 right away loses anytime the J is offside but it's not as silly as you may think since most of those cases are already covered above. So, the only relevant ones that fail are AJ, J(x)(x) - 4 cases. Still seems like a bad idea, just not as dumb as it first appears. Note the following: if LHO AJxx you must lead low to the 10 and then low to the 9 but that's only 1 case so we'll assume the first lead is to the king. If the first lead loses to the A on the right, all other holdings having been eliminated above, the opps holdings will be Jx opposite x or xx opposite J so you must guess. Likewise, you have no problem if LHO goes up A. If the K is allowed to win here's what ya got in the opps hands: Jx - A, Ax - J, AJ - x. Obviously the last holding is trivial since you will know what to do once LHO plays. So it really comes down to a guess: which one has the J and which one has the A? So, another 50-50 shot. I hope I have this right. Incidentally, it took me a long time to work this out. Really interesting problem, Fred, thanks.

So, pass with 9 or bid with 9, or maybe 8. Interesting. Bunch o crap if you ask me. People who bid like that irritate me.

The only place I have seen any anomolies is on this site. In the example above they all show up, but ♦ show up as small orange rectangles.

I agree with Hannie and Free. It can be frustrating. I had a similar experience to the one you describe. Partner should have passed my original opening bid, holding a q and 2 j in his hand but found 3 free bids on the hand, leading me to double the opponents in 5♠ when they were cold for 6 :lol: But I definitely agree with Free in that you must continue to play on the assumption your partner knows what he is doing and just bid your hand. Otherwise, when you do meet a good partner you may continue to bid erraticly and then you are the one making the foolish/strange calls. It's a very bad habit to get into, one that I have struggled with myself. It is far better to get a poor result with a poor partner than find yourself masterminding a hand with a good partner.

i admit i only scanned the first few hands, but in each case, it seemed the jump to 5 left partner with a pretty damned ugly decision, as hannie pointed out. Many of them provide examples of why I like to play RONF.

#1. 3♠ assuming partner will not take this as natural given the double #2. Double #3. Double or 4♣ if not playing micheals #4. Scratch, as above #5. 3NT - partner should pass with the majors so 3♦ is nat, but how good is his hand? no way to know. anything may be right so i'm going for the 9 trick game.

I take it that it doesn't matter what W returns when he is in with the A of clubs? Or perhaps that is a dumb question. I was thinking of eliminating the clubs and coming down to ♥xx ♦Q10 opposite ♥AQ ♦ Ax but I see it is also possible to use the K of clubs. I'm a bit lost on this hand though, I will admit.

Beat me to it. To me, in that situation, pass shows equal length in the unbid suits and a poor hand and redouble will show the opposite, a good hand with cards in the enemy suit(s).

I'm surprised no one has pointed out the decision by West to open this hand 2 ♦ holding a 4-card ♥ suit and a void. I dislike that a great deal. In any event, I agree with an immediate jump to 5♦ by East and would pass thereafter. The 5-level is a perfect place to dump opponents who have no idea if they're in a makeable contract. As it happens, 2♦-x-5♦ could make things very tough for South, but if I held the south hand on that auction I would bid 6♠ with no regrets. Be that as it may, from the E/W perspective South could have a very different hand and be in a real quandry over 5♦.

I can easily see why no one is in the grand. You may have a club or spade loser. Swap the north/south hands and the grand has no play.