jchiu

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=skq543h---dq62cj7652&w=sajh9872d1074cq1094&e=s6hakqj1043dak93c8&s=s109872h65dj85cak3]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Auction proceeds ... Pass Pass Pass 1♥ Pass 2♥ 2♠ 4♣ 4♠ 5♥ Dbl Rdbl where 4♣ is a splinter and E/W were not playing constructive or Bergen raises by a passed hand. Blame someone.

This is news to me. I have always played 2♥ promising 5+, or a four-card suit that I would open 1♥ third seat with that suit and out; 2♦ and 2♣ promising 4+ except when 3=4=3=3, in which case 2♣. I don't mind bidding 2♦ with four pieces, since opener may bid the catchall 2M, then show support for diamonds. Also, I would never think of bidding 2♣ with a minimum FG hand with 3=4=4=2 shape opposite a 1♠ opener. Bidding where I do not live just hurts partner's evaluation of his hand.

Yes. According to their system notes, the 1♦ opener only includes balanced hands 12+ to 15 NV and 11 to 13 VUL. I don't find this too surprising, since the mini notrump has worked best with a strong club system.

Back to things that people actually play, believing that they have some value. The F list is essentially things that I would never play, and the D list consists of common conventions that are abused so frequently that I benefit when my opponents use them against me. The F List Flannery (or worse, reverse) Mini Roman 2D (10-14, etc.) Stolen Bid Doubles Roman Gerber MUD Leads Coded 10s and 9s The D List Bergen Raises Rosenkranz Doubles Blackwood 4NT always Two-under preempts (not Namyats) Showing more than three controls to 2C To be continued

Whenever partner jump shifts into 3♣, I always consider the very valid possibility that he only has three clubs. Since 1M-1N; 4M shows about a 4M preempt with a side ace, partner must manufacture a bid with any hand too good to simply rebid 3♠. Adam produces a very typical example of such a hand (AKQxxxx Ax x Axx), but my experience has shown that the artificial 3♣ comes from a less pure 20-count with seven spades. I therefore require responder to have 5♣ for the direct raise to 4♣, which is my preferred action. As Josh has already mentioned, if partner continues with 4♠, I pass quickly. Some expert pairs (e.g. Jim Krekorian - John Diamond) have defined 1M-1N!; 3♣ as an artificial bid showing a game forcing hand. This game forcing hand can be a traditional jump shift, or a game-forcing single-suiter. Then, 3♦ asks which and the opener's responses explain further. I'm not entirely sure, but I think there is insufficient room for showing one of these hands (the jump shift into clubs, possibly). If this is indeed the case, I suspect that their system compensates by defining the opening bid with 5♣ and 5♠ rigorously.

Heck, even a spade lead helps :-)

The above posts are relatively close to what an average BBO player regards as "Garbage Stayman". However, the current trends of invite conservatively, accept freely (i.e. bid game because it's there to bid) has definitely modified this structure into a more efficient treatment. Observe that there is no point to telling the opponents about a four-card major, which only helps the opening leader to find the killing lead. Balanced invitational hands go through 2N (1N-2♣; 2♦-2N), while 54 major hands are redefined as signoffs or game-forcing. How often have you held the hand Qxxxx x xx Qxxxx, transferred to ♠, and found that partner held Jx AQx Kxx AKxx as he floundered in 2♠ while all the weak notrumpers are finding 3♣ without sweating? This first modification of garbage stayman defines the sequence 1N-2♣; 2♦-2♠ as spades and a minor, at least 5♠ 4+m, usually 55+. Barring an offshape opener (e.g. 2=4=5=2), partner must bid 2N with less than HH or xxx in spades. The big ramification of this is: in the sequence 1N-2♣; 2♦-2♥, responder can have five spades and four hearts, which means opener must take a false preference to 2♠ with equal length. Contrast this to normal Garbage Stayman where opener passes 2♥ with equal length. Especially at matchpoints, Garbage Stayman is a must for me. Even when I play the above treatment, I have tactically chosen to pass 2♦ with (usually) club shortness and ♦ Axx(x). The tactical advantage comes from allowing your RHO one fewer turn to compete, while the ♦A helps control the indicated trump lead if LHO chooses to defend.

Depends on the number of drinks I've had, I either: bid 5♦, smoothly bid 4♥, or slowly bid 4♥.

Technically, a smother play (not just smother) refers to [hv=n=sqjhdc&w=shdxxc&e=sk10hdc&s=sahxdc]399|300|♠ are trump and West is on lead. The forced return smothers East's ♠K.[/hv] and an intrafinesse refers to the suit combination [hv=n=sq98x&w=s10x&e=skjxx&s=saxx]399|300|Needing two tricks from this suit, South plays low to the eight, then leads the queen on the way back, pinning the ten. The intrafinesse is the first play in the suit.[/hv] I think this position is just called pinning.

I think he means after a member of our partnership has limited his strength using a notrump bid. This is most commonly a 1NT response to 1m, but generally does not include a (semi) forcing 1NT in response to 1M. At least this is the use of "notrump" in the set of rules I use, adopted from Ken Gee and Barry Harper.

1. Pass. Having hid my four spades last turn, I will not come in with 2♠ here. 2. ♣K. Aggressive fearing the spade suit. 3. 4♥. Q for spades, cannot possibly be to play. 4. Pass. Partner may not necessarily be bidding to make. There is little chance of finding out about the four missing keycards below 5♥, which can even be too high.

Could someone explain pass-double inversion? I recently read about it in an application to game-forcing strong club auctions when the enemies interfere with 3♠ or higher. Where else does it apply (here maybe?) and what are its advantages?

I was one of the teammates mentioned in the above post regarding quitted tricks, but not the one who noticed. I ran into a couple pair whom I am 90% certain that they are the pair in question in Gatlinburg (he wears a quite tacky hat with a string tied to the back of his glasses, she is a somewhat submissive redhead). Indeed they turned their quitted tricks as stated, but it sure didn't help them. They proceeded to butcher the defense and lose both boards by the trick surrendered. One board was a fairly obvious error, while the other may be irrelevant noise. I highly doubt it even occured to their teammates to run the two-loser minor-tenace stripsqueeze that my partner executed. Of course, a proper shift evaporates the squeeze. After this round, I drop any possible accusations made.

I would think players would hate to lose 13 IMPs every time they are in 4M+2 when everything is working. For instance, the following hand I watched today in the Cayne vs. Garozzo match [hv=n=sxxhq10xxdj10xcqjxx&w=saqxhkxxdakxxxcxx&e=sj10xxxhxxdqxxcaxx&s=skxxhajxxdxxck10xx]399|300|Scoring: IMP Possibly modified.[/hv] It takes a 3-2 ♦ break, a 3-2 ♠ break (approximately), and the ♥A onsides to make twelve tricks. I would hate to find this "lucky" position to lose 13 IMPs against some kind of pseudo-par.

Looks like a trivial lateral thinking exercise. Theoretically, if I asked this question to my fellow mathematics graduate students, I expect almost all to make the epiphany within seconds as I did.

How do you determine whether a grand slam that needs a 3-2 trump break is par? Even if you assign a weighted average to each case, the distortions from an unbiddable contract that happens to make on a lucky lie will outweigh the gain in fairness. I would rather compare duplicate style against four GiBs, although this is really computationally intensive.

Some very interesting points, Uday. 1. Won't the winners mind that their "prize" has been diluted? I have played in about a dozen MBTs seriously (i.e. not for the sake of experimenting on the limits of GiB through psyching), and have used my numbers for player A above. I think that even if the prize is diluted, it will be more satisfying to win little chunks more often, rather than finish "out of the money" about 70% of the time. 2. Won't longer tourneys ( I will probably try some 45 min tourneys sometime this week, once some new machines come online) be better for the stronger player? Or a duplicate-style scoring , either using old boards from the MBC or wherever, or russian scoring all increase the impact of skill ? I think so. In the model above I am figuring a positive bias of about 50 points per hand, which would increase skill almost to the point that a top player could usually scratch over a course of 32 hands (if it pays 33% to 40%). This is assuming that playing one board every ninety seconds does not wear the player's efficiency down. I would like to see duplicate scoring, but from (very) old hands. I still have a hand memory that spans about six months. If I see an especially notable hand, then I may remember it in the tournament. That would be an unfair advantage. OTOH, you could probably filter the hands so no entrant has either played or kibitzed them ever. 3. I'm not sure what we're looking for, exactly. Neither do I, or for that matter any of the forum posters. We are just happy it exists :P Remark: The sample is still too small to conclusively conclude that the distribution is anything close to Gaussian. In reality, I think it is a convolution of a flat distribution between -1000 and +1000 and a slightly positive-skewed Gaussian depending on my actual play with standard deviation about 300, shifted over by the 900 point bias. Too hard to model on the back of an envelope here.

Luis's post reminds me of a similar hand ... [hv=d=s&v=e&s=saqxxhxdt9xxxcxxx]133|100|2♠, what's the problem?[/hv] I did this in a midnight game in Denver. I had about a half bottle of wine prior to the "event", to which Rich Mueller may be able to still attest. The auction continued (Dbl) 3♠! (4♥) All Pass Three spades was McCabe (see other thread for fun uses of this convention), which promised either the ace or king of spades. Of course, the opponents' spades were 3-3 and the expression on RHO's face was priceless when the first trick went Queen-Low-Low-Low ... B)

Unfortunately, compared to the general bridge-playing population, you are underage Don. On the other hand, in this comparison, I haven't been born yet; and won't be conceived for a very long time. B)

Apparently you haven't experienced how bad these robots could possibly be in fielding psychs. Not only do they fail to field the psych, they also bid some high and crazy contract based on their distribution and your presumed values. I doubt they play McCabe, so my psych would be dangerous bordering on insane playing with such a robot. On the other hand, that Smolen psych ...

Were you playing standard count or upside-down count? In the former case partner returns the two and you have to decide based on the bidding whether to cash your other high honor (either preparing the suit to run, or setting up two slow tricks for declarer) or switch (either letting the suit go to the rats, or keeping declarer from obtaining two length tricks for the moment). The bidding should make it obvious whether declarer holds three or five cards in the particular suit. And notice how your doubts about Jxxx will be erased by a proper count signal.

5♣ also looks kind of obvious to me. Unless they are playing a limited opening system, in which case I'll chicken out and put a green one down. When 5♥ comes back, I'll let them take the last guess.

PASS The opponents have strongly implied that I have substantial wastage in spades. Even if I optimistically thought this was a 15-count to begin with, it is slightly worse than a minimum opener now. Partner rates to have a doubleton spade too, and can make a competitive double with offensively-oriented values in the minors. Then, I will take out to 4♣ hoping to make it, since my aceless wonder will need too much from partner to make 3NT on a single stopper.

I agree with Mike and the other posters who have answered the question. However, there are instances where an advancer should avoid pushing the opponents into a contract they would not have bid otherwise. This statement generally applies when partner has made a limited bid (e.g. preempt, intermediate jump overcall), and is just a guideline when partner has made a wide-ranging overcall. [Obvious] Maxim: Applying maximum pressure when you expect the opponents to outbid you at the cheapest level and make exactly is bad bridge. 1. Matchpoints, NV vs Vul, I held ♠Kxxxx ♥xxx ♦10xxx ♣x (1♣) 2♠ (3♠) We were having a bad session, and I made the lazy law-abiding bid of 5♠, over which my LHO shrugged and obligingly tabled 6♣. Partner's ♠A survived, but we were soon writing down minus 1370 on our scorecards. This was good for 9.5 matchpoints ..... on a 77 top! Bidding 6♠ either directly or delayed would have salvaged 33.5 matchpoints for minus 800, but I now feel that it is much better to either apply maximum pressure (6♠) or take it slow and only save after a confident auction (generally the former). Some of the other pairs with the opponents' cards had trouble going beyond 5♣ with x-opposite-xx in spades. 2. IMPs, NV vs NV, Dany held Kxxxx of diamonds, a half a defensive trick outside. (1♠) 3♦ (Dbl) She chose to bid 4♦, which drew some criticism from the other commentators at the German Open Teams Semifinals vugraph show. The second nicest comment was "4♦ is a bit wet". Her LHO bid a heavy 4♥, which became the final contract. I don't remember the full hand, but her RHO had a prime 1=5=2=5 10-count with which some players would bid 3♥. I mentioned at the time, and still believe strongly, that if she had bid a more mundane 5♦, her LHO would have bid 5♥ and arrive in slam quickly. Her teammates had a different auction, but wound up in 4♥+2 for a tense push. 3. IMPs, NV vs Vul, I held ♠KJTx ♥--- ♦Txxxx ♣xxxx (1♥) 2NT (4NT) Having read an article about Zia doing a similar thing in the previous day's bulletin, I chose to go for the gusto and bid 7♦. My LHO passed with his diamond void, and my RHO balanced with 7NT. Fortunately or not, the clubs and spades didn't lay onside to be squeezed, and he ended up down two trying to make. A nice pickup when our teammates brought home 6♥. As it turned out, 7♦x would only have been 1100, and maybe even 800 if they were not careful.

Despite the actual hand, I still think that double is the percentage call at BAM. This particular hand makes 2♠ because declarer had enough top tricks to execute a trump endplay on you or a stripsqueeze on partner depending on his line. On the other hand, I showed the West hand to several players and they reacted "Pass, WTP?". With this subminimum 2♥ overcall, declarer still has to struggle to make 2♠. I posted a risk-reward analysis of double in the case I thought it was our hand (and it would be so with all of my partners and correspondents above). For cases where the hand is evenly split, the following analysis is similar. Risk-reward is in our favor if our teammates are playing 2/1 and have the auction 1♠-1NT!; 2X-2♠; Pass. Also, if they are not having this auction, then the downside of letting them make 2♠ doubled is minimal. Doubling loses a half board if they can stop in 2♠ making or 3m making, and [really, the following is negligible] a full board if they can either make 2NT or make overtricks in 2♠ or 3m. If our teammate passes in second chair, or if my partner's counterpart opens 2♥, I doubt our teammates can effectively stop on a dime in 2♠ or 3m more than half the time. They will either have sold out to 1NT/2♥/3♥, or have come in the auction on shaded values and ended up too high. I certainly would have holding variants of the North-South cards at BAM.