Double !

Sorry Han, nothing sensational in my hypotheses. I strongly agree with Al_U_Card regarding the advent of computer/video games (including Bridge!!!) Perhaps I am just personalizing the situation, but: 1) I stopped playing Bridge for the most part about 13 years ago and I didn't miss it at all. What did I need to prove? There were more important things in life. Then I discovered on-line Bridge at another sight and eventually made my way to BBO (much to chagrin of wife). Dang! Hooked again! 2) One of the reasons that I stopped playing was the times when games began and ended (too late and too late for this working person). I would be exhausted the following day. Bridge also impacted on time with my family. 3) Increased work-related demands and stress has decreased energy and time for live Bridge for me and for a number of my friends. 4) Bridge, especially tournaments but even local games, has become increasingly costly. This includes the price of food/beverage (couldn't bring one's own soda into a hotel?). This might not an issue for someone who might be wealthy, but it was a real issue for someone like me with a family including kids to raise. 5) I stopped playing Bridge because I found myself becoming increasingly annoyed and turned off by the stodginess of many directors, and by the many unpleasant, self-focused, rude, and (in my opinion) poorly socialized individuals that I continually met. And I can't stand those people who yell and scream at their partners and use "unwanted language". What is wrong with such people? (Please don't even try to tell me that this is how someone becomes a better player: by being yelled at). Why are so many people so angry? If the pressure of competition causes people to act uncivilized, then maybe they need to re-assess their priorities and behaviors!!!! Have you ever noticed how many conversations among bridge players begin with something like "let me tell you about what we (meaning "I") did on board whatever? And the person then proceeds to speak about some great play or bid that he/ she made. Have you ever notice how often it has been partner's fault for a bad result or misunderstanding? This is one reason I am uncomfortable with threads that ask people to apportion blame for a result. Need I explain further? IMO, any errors or bad results at the table are either attributable to both players/ this is a partnership. In addition, the opps sometimes do good things against you! The fact that I apparently cost myself and three team-mates free passage to a nationals on the last board of the Flt B. GNT regional Q's several years ago didn't sit well with me, either. (lol, I still say that the article in the newspapers had some the important spot cards wrong!) Who need that kind of grief? 6) I started to have increasing difficulty remembering every rule and procedure (like what is and isn't an alert, an announcement, etc.) and started thinking that some people were more pedantic, captious, and interested in getting a good result due to some technicality rather than their good bidding or play on a hand. Does one need to be an attorney now in order to safely play. 7) Bridge tournaments seem to be getting more segregated and elitist. There are the top or championship players and flights, and then there are the rest of us. They play in one part of the tournament locale and we play in another. I believe this is like "separate but equal?" I remember kibbing a Spingold not too long ago. It was located in the main ballroom of the major hotel, and was physically apart from the other games. It was a good thing that one of the players at the table I was kibbing was an old friend and occasional P (when I was quite young). It just felt uncomfortable being there. Not a single hi or comment from anyone else except if I spoke first. I wasn't one of the elite, part of the in-crowd. Maybe it was me but I wondered if I belonged in that room with all of these "name players". Admittedly, this was not an issue for me when I was playing regularly decades ago and knew/ was friendly with a lot of players and known people. I don't know. The whole atmosphere was just rather stuffy to me and hectic. Maybe things will change for me when I retire some day, but for now what used to be something I loved and cherished is just too much of a hassle. No bridge players aren't "ugly", but some of them need to learn how to grow up and get off of their ego trips. Some of the most wonderful people that I know are superb bridge players. But so many other people...........oh, well. I'm no prize, either! There I've said it. You may all ostricize me now. :( lol, I am writing this instead of writing a report that's due tomorrow morning!

need to double 1H the first time DHL

PASS I assume responder passed 1S hoping the opps would balance. P just made the bid you hoped for. I defend. (OK, so I'm not the classic 1444 8-9 count.) DHL

lol can I bid 4 diamonds over rho's 4 club bid and watch the opps start reaching for my convention card? (Talk about UI). DHL :rolleyes:

3 diamonds Many years ago I decided that ignoring the opps takeout doubles and just bidding as though they had passed worked better for me unless the partnership had done a lot of work on follow-up sequences (is opener's double for takeout, co-operative, or "I gotta a trump stack"?). The frequency of big sets that were achieved just didn't seem to compensate for the disruption to our normal bidding that sticking in a redouble seemed to cause. About the only time I like to redbl is when I have an invitational hand with 3-card support for opener's major, but I can live without it. Personally, using the redbl as a transfer looks more interesting to me than showing 10+ points (obsolete). DHL

Television is a major contributor to the decrease in numbers of people playing bridge? Bridge is a game my grandparents played? That is like saying that Golf is an old man's game (or old woman's: equal billing). Nonsense, hogwash, GARBAGE! Puleeze. I was playing bridge fervently during 1969 to 1973, games were usually quite well attended (except for sectionals), and there was more television available than one could possibly watch. Sorry, Sharon. But your thesis just doesn't cut it IMO. I think that there are many other reasons for the decrease. I doubt that TV is even a factor. I have some hypothesis, but I doubt that they would be popular with a lot of other people, so I shall keep them hidden (for now). Sharon might have a stronger case for blaming the decrease in numbers on the loss of young lives in Viet Nam, equally nonsensical! Unfortunate waste of space on a Sunday Times. DHL

This is really bad news for someone, but I agree with the 3-spade preference as a default. 3H would show 5+Hts, 4D & 3NT have been discussed. There is a side issue to this problem IMO. Specifically, how do people play a 2NT (and 3NT) rebid by opener after 1S-p-1N-p-? Depending on how that is played, there are inferences that opener has good suits when opener jump-shifts. So, I suspect that the stiff Q in spades will not be that much of a disappointment, and might help opener assess where tricks are coming from. Lol: another case for limited openers. Have a great day all: DHL

add to this "are you suicidal?"

PASS: re question 2: FWIW, I play 13-16 1NT overcalls not vul to help reduce the number of times that I am faced with the dilemma of what to do given a similar auction in the "balancing seat". I have had success with this method. DHL

IF they add up to the same number of tricks, then you are true. Accepting the premise that they usually do, sometimes they don't add up to the same number of tricks: or, at least, there have been times when they haven't for me. That's why I said it depends on where your cards are located. Suppose you have an x opposite Qxxx in clubs in the sample hand. Do you wish to be in spades or in NT (OTBE)? I wasn't asserting that the hands won't yield the same tricks at suit or NT, and I accept the idea that getting to NT will win over time. I'm just suggesting that it's not the distribution alone that determines this. My experience in a past life was that I always seemed to get a bad score and apparently had made an anti-field bid (and in a good field) when I've put the hand in 3NT with 4333. Not a big deal. Just trying to learn a little something more by asking some questions. DHL

I can't resist, but the bidding dinosaur in me is roaring and pressing to emerge. So, just as a side-thought (said with tongue only slightly in cheek): How much easier would the bidding have been playing strong jump-shifts? (Daggone it, stop throwing eggs and stones at me!!) 1S-3C-3H-3S makes life a lot easier for opener, or so it would seem. BTW: I don't agree with the jump to 4S on the original bidding that was given. I agree with hannie that this should shows 4-card trump support. I believe the 2S is sufficient at this point in the bidding. The big difference between an initial 2C response and a 3C J-S is, IMO, that 3C will emphasize a good quality club suit that will be a source of tricks. 2C doesn't quite do this. DHL

Perhaps passing 3NT with 4-trip-3 is "automatic" at imps, but I question how automatic it is at matchpoints. There are many hands that one might play in 3NT where one might need to make a safety or avoidance play to secure 3NT at imps, but would be anti-field at matchpoints. 20 or 30 points is little to pay for safety at imps, but it can result in a big horse collar ( 0 ) at matchpoints. I just don't beieve that one can make a blanket statement about passing 3NT at matchpoints with 4-trip-3. It depends on where your high cards are located (such as tenace holdings) IMO. DHL

I am another who selected 1 spade. I not only wish to show where my cards are, but this uses minimum room and gives P more options (including checkback options). I can also show belated support for hearts without getting too high. LOL In the past I would have rebid the clubs. Not sure if selecting a 1 spade rebid means that I am progressing or regressing. :ph34r: DHL

Jimmy: I don't know the answer regarding the playability of your suggested innovation, However, I suggest that you might wish to look at the impact that interference/ competitive bidding, especially some pre-emptive or jump bidding by the opps might have on your structure, and look at how you might be able to handle it. So many little innovations that I have come up with over time have seemed good until I looked at the impact that the opps bidding would have on them. Good luck. Hope you ideas work. Try them. Go for it. What do you have to lose? DHL

Excellent tip, Free I believe that this is an important tip! Inferences taken based upon "the dog that didn't bark".

makes sense to me I have soft values, many losers p is a passed hand p took a big risk, and this included playing me for certain values (fortunately, I have them, but no more). we have maybe 1/2 the deck, but not a really good fit.

best wishes for happy b-day. live long and prosper. dhl

wonder what you need to drink when i am your partner. ;) I admit nothing in public forum, especially when someone is within striking distance!!!!!!!! DHL :)

and what, might I ask, is the problem with having read or been read "Fox in Sox"? I guess that, instead, one could have been read "Fox on Knox", or "Fox on Sox on Knox",.................certainly better than "when tweedle beetles battle in a puddle in a bottle........" You are right, sad to say. Get a drink (strength dependent on partner), do work, answer IMs, do honey-do's, pet the cat (try to get the cat into the house): I can relate to that.

Pass! Seems like a choice between homocide and suicide. The hand just became random. Where did you come up with this bidding structure? DHL

Stiff K with RHO ... I guess since you are never going for 5 tricks (which requires KJ onside, but RHO will falsecard the K), you might as well cash the ace & not lose the extra trick to stiff K offside. Just for the sake of clarification, are you saying that cashing the ace and then, assuming that both opps play x, leading low to the queen is the percentage play in this suit? If so, that's been my instinctive way of playing the suit, but always willing to learn a better way. tx DHL

actually, IMO, the holding of xxx in diamonds is a hopeful sign in the south hand. Reduces likelihood of opener/partner having many diamond (although Kx wouldn't surprise me). I have been under the impression that, when you hold a good invitational hand with trump support, responder needs be the aggressor, the one to take the push and bid the game to 1) permit 3M to be competitive, not necessarily a limit raise, and 2) to take the pressure off of partner who won't know if you're trying for game or just competing. JTx of trumps is a nice holding for 3-card support (honor combination), and you also have two bullets. DHL

Hate 1NT: it wrong-sides the hand I see nothing wrong with a simple 2-club raise (even playing 5542). If nothing else, it tells partner that you have support and, if you're very lucky, P might even now lead a club should P be on lead. If the hand belongs in 1NT from P side, well, stop playing strong NTs (lol). I would respond 1 diamond before I would bid 1NT with this hand. In fact, i feel that this is the only other viable option, especially if you play that the 1NT bid shows 8-10 or something like this. Bottom line: you don't want the opening lead coming through partner, you really don't have scattered values and tenaces, and you want partner to lead a club if on lead. DHL

Nice thread. I would like to add the following topic to this discussion: what card to play when leading a suit up to dummy, particularly from various combinations that include an honor ( or two, or three) midway through the play of the hand. This is an area where I have experienced and observed many partnership defensive "accidents" for a long time. My approach: Play the higher of touching honors, coded 9s & 10s, and attitude (some say "bad attitude", except for opening lead) when leading from behind declarer. However, when leading through declarer and up to dummy, I have always felt that it might be more advisable to lead lower of touching honors and attitude (maybe a remnant from my old journalist up-bringing). It's seemed to me that playing lower of touching honors might help distinguish between leads from honor sequences and leads from Hx. I believe that it is important to be able to make this distinction. Not everyone (understatement) has agreed with my approach regarding leading the lower of touching honors when leading through declarer. n.b.: It is a "given" ahead of time with some partners that I am wrong. So. Assume that dummy has xxx of the suit you plan to shift to and that it is logical to shift to the suit. If you were to publish a list of the correct cards to play from various holdings when leading up to dummy, which card would you recommend, and why? (It is understood that there are many other factors in the play of the hand to consider.) Yes, I know that this is Basic Card Play 101. However, I have an important exam on this coming up soon, these are the pratice test study items, I don't know some of the answers, and might fail the exam. (please note: The Professor is highly respected as a leader in the field, and is quite firm or specific in his/her grading of exams.) Versus suit contract Versus NT 1. JTx 2. JT9 3. Jx 4. KQx 5. Kxx 6. Kx 7. Qxx 8. QTx 9. QJx 10. Qx 11. xxx DHL

Double ! UNLESS YOU ARE PLAYING WITH SOMEONE WHO CONTINUES TO ASCRIBE TO THE OBSOLETE METHOD of playing DOUBLE of 4 Spades = PENALTY, and 4NT is for TAKEOUT (not minors). Somehow I get the feeling that someone doubled with this hand and this person's partner interpreted it as being for business. TGIF DHL