jchiu

0-1. I really didn't concern myself with what the overcallers played, but was merely suggesting a general class of notrump defenses that may be employed. After examining the WBF cards from the most recent junior world championship, for almost every one of the defenses, at least one of the pairs used it http://homepage.mac.com/bridgeguys//Conven...fenseto1NT.html This makes me doubt that there is universal advantage in using 2♣ to show both majors and differentiate 5-4 hands from 5-5 hands. In a standard IMP game, I would be hesitant to overcall with a shaded values 5-4 hand. The differentiation in length is much more useful in the Ekrens 2♣ opening, showing at least 4-4 in the majors and less than opening strength. 2. The abovementioned approach is hardly standard. I have only had one hand where this distinction ever mattered. In a recent North American Swiss final, I was playing with a pickup expert partner (who was my teammate originally) due to logistical issues. He suggested playing double as clubs, after which I picked up [hv=d=n&v=e&s=sxxhxxdxxxxcaq98x]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] After my partner opened a strong notrump as dealer, and my RHO overcalled 2♣ showing majors, I was able to double to uncover the profitable sacrifice by doubling. I would expect that playing double at clubs is even more useful in a partscore battle at matchpoints. I play it this way also because if responder denies "biddable" clubs, he still has an opportunity to double 2M at his next turn. Certainly they may escape when partner can cooperatively double 2M opposite your doubleton, but this compensates for all the difficult situations that the abovementioned method leads to when partner doubles 2M opposite a singleton honor. The other scenario where it helps partner judge whether they have a club fit is when advancer attempts to pass out 2♣ with a long suit to play there. He can better judge whether to compete to 2♦ knowing that you don't have a club stack and less than game-forcing values.

[hv=v=n&s=sxxhxxdxxxcak109xx]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Although I don't have 3♣ reserved as some sort of Ghestem or Roman overcall, some partners will not be surprised with my overcall on this hand.

The other claim bug that seems to be common is arises from the timing of the claim dialog box. If the someone claims A of B of the remaining tricks, after playing the third card in any trick, the opponent who plays the fourth card can accidently play and accept the claim which has changed to A of B-1 tricks. This usually results in a harmless overtrick scored, but can be a source of many adjustments in a tournament.

♥J playing partner for a slow trump trick and the surround play. Works when declarer has something like [hv=s=sakqxxxh10xxdxxcxx]133|100|[/hv]\ Maybe optimistic when you have to assume declarer has was trying to improve the partscore. However, I couldn't find any other convincing reasons to do something else, and it is slightly less rosy if you know they play 1♦-2♠ as a non-constructive preemptive jump shift. On the other hand, present count returns seem somewhat more standard here on the East Coast. I am not sure that second-trick present count is that widespread yet, but I definitely like its advantages when the primary signal to the first club trick is attitude.

I'm not so sure that Bromad is so standard. I think there is a general push in the East Coast expert community away from following some of the Bergen theories as they were originally invented. I just returned from a sectional with a fairly strong field in Philadelphia, and noticed several other schemes. I play the first one of these (transfer responses), and noticed a strong pair who plays the second (possibly a modified Bromad). 1♥ (Dbl) - 1♠ Natural, F1, does not deny 10+ HCP 1NT Transfer to ♣, may not have values 2♣ Transfer to ♦, may not have values 2♦ Constructive ♥ raise, may have 3 or 4 pieces 2♥ Non-constructive ♥ raise 2♠+ Invitational or better fit jump, tends to have 5+ in the suit and 4♥ 1♥ (Dbl) - 1♠ Natural, F1, does not deny 10+ HCP 1NT Puppets 2♣ unconditionally if advancer passes 2♣ Constructive raise with 4♥, generally no singletons or voids outside 2♦ Constructive raise with 3♥ 2♥ Non-constructive ♥ raise, may have 4♥ 2♠ Artificial invitational mini-splinter, generally has 4♥ and a singleton 2NT Limit raise or better

Definitely. One simple example that I can deduce is that if the opponents play a direct 2♣ overcall over my notrump opening as both majors, usually 5-5. As far as I know, this is fairly common in France and is part of a defense called Landy or Multi-Landy, depending on the rest of the bids. Here it makes less sense to use double as Staymannic because partner is substantially less likely to have a hand where a 4-4 major suit fit plays better. When I play double as Staymannic and systems on over artificial 2♣ interference over other defenses, I play a double as clubs here, generally having enough to not fear a redouble on my left and without much regard for strength of hand.

I add this option to my post to estimate the number of monkeys who randomly vote. The expectation for this random variable should be close to the number of choices times one fewer than the number of votes. One fewer? Because I am the first monkey who makes that choice the leading one for awhile. Seriously though, we (gnome and I) are playing an EHAA system in which the opening one-level bids are almost forcing on responder. For the Americans who know about it, the system is designed to be a quick-in-quick-out system where the retarded GCC disallows some critical aspects of our Gnome club system, like relays. For all others, just be glad that your NBO has at least one brain cell of one person dedicated to system regulation.

3♦ makes because west has no entry to give east a spade ruff. North simply loses 1♥, 2♠ and 1♣. North can set up spades for ♥ discards. OK, so the opening lead is a diamond...let's say you draw two rounds of trump and start on the spades. East wins and leads a low heart. Doesn't matter where you win it (West will contribute the ten to force the King if necessary). If you draw the third trump and lead spades, West will win and give East two heart tricks. If you don't draw the last trump, West wins, gives East a spade ruff, and East takes the heart ace. I may be peeking, but I don't see how it can make with best defense. Without the stated defense to tricks 2-4, the contract is ice cold if declarer takes the finesse against the ♥9. Unfortunately, I have not been paying close attention to the thread. The agreement on the immediate double of 2♣ is "penalty oriented, acknowledging the stopper implied by 1N". However, it seems more prudent in light of the above comments to change doubles of suit raises (namely (1X) 1N (2X) Dbl) to negative. What do you think, Matt (this will be the only exception to the two-level penalty-double type Lebensohl structure we have in effect right now)?

You are playing four-card majors, unlimited 1-level openings, and a weak notrump (13-15 HCP). The auction goes Pass Pass Pass 1♥ 1♠ 1NT 2♠ Dbl <------------------

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=sk9764hq4dak9ckj9]133|100|Scoring: IMP West North East You Pass Pass 1♣ 1N 2♣ 2♦ 3♣ Pass Pass Double Pass ??[/hv] 2♦ is Lebensohl, showing a less-than-invitational hand with at least five diamonds.

There are two ways to play. In New England, I was accustomed to a split-range unusual notrump. Although the unusual 2NT is much more a preemptive gadget than the Michaels cuebid, there should be a minimum for using a call that commits the intervening side to the three-level. I am used to a split range notrump, that separated an 8+ to 11 from a 16+ hand. However, I have recently encountered a hand that caused a serious discussion with my regular partner echognome. I held [hv=d=w&v=n&s=skq10xhxdakxxck109x]133|100|Scoring: Rubber[/hv] in a pickup rubber bridge game against friends. The acution had proceeded 1♥ 2NT 4♥ and I bid a futile 4NT, hoping optimistically that LHO would not bid 5♥. After he bid the obvious and expected 5♥, the auction passed back to me, at which point I bid 6♣, expecting to make. I redoubled quickly after LHO doubled with both black aces. Matt obviously thought i was seeing the world through a rosy-tinted pair of glasses, and offered a different alternative to the Unusual 2NT. He suggested that it should be a continuous-range bid that includes pure 6-counts, which is the choice that I voted for here. He believes that it is much more useful to play the Unusual 2NT as a preemptive bid, although he regards [hv=d=w&v=n&s=skq10xhxdakxxck109x]133|100|Scoring: Rubber[/hv] as less than a "maximum" two-suited overcall. Another of my regular partners, Warren Foss (warrenf on BBO) overcalled this hand with Michaels over 1♥, and rebid 4♣ over 2NT. Matt thought this was not quite worth a maximum. Although I am starting to see his "wide-minimum" view, I really have to be careful to not regard a 5-5 minors 13-count as a two-bid overcall hand. Maybe because I should unlearn old habits, maybe because there is no accepted standard for the unusual overcall.

Great that you restarted blogging, however I still don't see any new posts... :) This is a wow BBF topic .... it resurfaced after slightly more than one year of hibernation :-P

I was cleaning my desk today, and found a few bridge problems on one yellowed sheet of paper 1. [hv=d=s&s=sakq10hdak98xxxcxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP 1♦ - 1♥ 1♠ - 2♣ 3♦ - 4♣ 4♦ - 4♠ ??? [/hv] 2. [hv=d=s&v=b&n=sahxxxdak107xcj107x&w=s?h?d?c?&e=s?h?d?c?&s=sqj8xxxhxdj8cakqx]399|300|Scoring: IMP 1♠ 2♥ 3♦ Pass 3♠ Pass 4♣ Pass 4♥ Pass 4♠ Pass 5♣ All Pass West leads the ♥ A, on which East encourages. West continues with the ♥ K, plan the play.[/hv] 3. [hv=d=s&v=b&n=sahxxxdak107xcj107x&w=s?h?d?c?&e=s?h?d?c?&s=sqj8xxxhxdj8cakqx]399|300|Scoring: IMP 1♠ 2♥ 3♦ Pass 3♠ Pass 4♣ Pass 4♥ Pass 4♠ Pass 5♣ All Pass West leads the ♥ A, on which East encourages. West continues with the ♥ K, plan the play.[/hv] 4. [hv=d=s&s=sakq10hdak98xxxcxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP 1♦ - 1♥ 1♠ - 2♣ 3♦ - 4♣ 4♦ - 4♠ ??? [/hv] 5. [hv=d=s&s=sakq10hdak98xxxcxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP 1♦ - 1♥ 1♠ - 2♣ 3♦ - 4♣ 4♦ - 4♠ ??? [/hv]

Auto double.

Though the laws are inconclusive, i'm sure there are some "no dumping" clauses like the following, at least in ACBL land 5. Players are expected to play each hand to win at all times. No dumping is permitted even if such dumping may be in the contestant's best long-term interest. And clearly, not playing for the beer is considered dumping :)

I will arrive Wednesday morning, and will be there until after all Spingold teams exit. Give me a buzz if you want to meet.

Scratch that. I read the question too fast. Since partner necessarily has a four-card club suit, 4♣ seems clearer (barring misreading it again).

DELETED

I think I killed it by posting what Paca [perhaps jokingly] thought Sheepman symbolised. Besides, Bush was ahead 9-8 in the polls when it died.

I'm glad to know that you don't overcall 2♥ on this type of garbage. Of the three choices, I find that one the most risky. Double is fine, and I may do it depending on my mood, but I side with the passers here.

Yes, this was a trick question. Someone is starting to figure me out, so I will admit that North was none other than the illustrious GiB. I am not sure whether I could find a human who would make that double. Had I let this secret out of the bag, I surely would have received more than two votes to blame me instead. However, I was playing two-cent rubber bridge, and after looking at the robot's idiocy, finally came to the conclusion that GiB doubles on supposed points, rather than tricks. It does not do the simulation that it is so famous for, but rather relies on me (with a hand that passed directly over 1♥) to have 12 points for my 4♠ call. I believe that this is a consistent bug in GiB, and almost pulled to 5♠ myself due to lack of trust, something that I would never do with a human partner.

If partner did have both minors, then he has at most a singleton spade. Since it is rather obvious to show ♣ support with 0=4=5=4 distribution, a weak hand, and some concentration in diamonds, a 3♦ bid that shows both minors is quite unnecessary. The original responders (Roland and Frances) hit this nail on the head.

4♥, unless you and your partner have explicitly agreed that it is something other than a semi-natural slam try (e.g. 4♠ and 6♥ P/C, keycard for ♠, or even some sillier things). Why not give partner a chance to evaluate his control structure?

1NT. WTP? Sure, you occasionally run into trouble with Garbage Stayman, but this is a matter of freqency. No other bid has a smaller frequency of substantial detriments (like partner floating 2♣ when you are in fact cold for 3N, or carrying to 3N when you can't make much, or giving a detrimental false preference). Playing two-way garbage stayman (see post in another thread) where partner is encouraged to pass 2♦ with four diamonds, or (43)=4=2 shape, this problem becomes even less noticable.

DBL then ♦. I think it is close, but this hand is simply too pure to just bid 2♦. While I am an advocate of the sound overcall school, there are simply too many hands for partner with a diamond honor and nearly out with which we can make 3N. Also, if it sounds like I am trying to make 3N with a single ♥ stopper and a one-loser long ♦ suit, I will attract the favorable ♥ lead. This is precisely the reason overcalling 1N is ludicrous. It will almost certainly ensure that they will find the killing lead.