Double !

Bid 3 Spades? asking for spade stopper, implying a running suit (no guarantee on this hand) hoping P can bid 3NT & gamble out the heart suit. 3 clubs just seems like such an underbid, and hand is wrong shape for Dbl of 2S. You don't need much from partner to make 3NT and P might not be able to bid over 3Clubs (I play 4-clubs as leaping michael's) when you can bring in 9 tricks (xxx or Jx, or even J of clubs from P likely ensures 6 club tricks + 2 diamond tricks) As usual, probably wrong again...

I am curious to know what a 5 heart bid would mean overall at this point. I would interpret it as indicating a heart control, and it should imply a club control. Otherwise, why ask P for something that he/she already implied not having (assuming 5D denied a club control). Do I have more, the same, or less than I showed by bidding 4H? Does P's 5D bid improve or worsen my hand. My diamond cards don't appear to be much given the diamond bid on my right, but a heart control might be the information P needs to bid or not bid 6. I hope the rewind of 4HX shows 1st round control. Key cards alone apparently aren't partner's concern- had another bid for that. lol I never get these situations right.

I do not feel that North's bid of 1S is stupid. This is Matchpoints, you have a 6-loser hand (plus or minus), you hold the master suit (spades), and if necessary, you have a 6 card suit to rebid. IMO, at matchpoints, one should try get the major in, especially spades, if it can be done relatively safely (like at the 1-level). If opps now elect to bid, it will be at the 2-level, and partner (another partner, not this one) will be in a better situation to collaborate on the bidding process. Who could possibly know why partner sat for 1S. Was partner/ passer a relatively inexperienced player? Perhaps partner said to self, "no double, no trouble"? Who knows? Bet partner said "glp" when dummy was tabled.

Just a suggestion. If you decide to play Capp., you might want to consider reversing the meanings of 2C and 2 of a major. This is referred to in some places as "modified cappelletti" or "reverse cappelletti". 2C becomes the unspecified 2-suiter and 2 of major becomes natural. IMO, the advantage to this is that partner will at least know what your suit is if the opps bid over 2C, and partner can then be in a better position to co-operate in competitive bidding/ decision-making.

Great set of hands, Free. 1) Can I depend on partner's pre-empts? Anyway, I bid 5 spades! No, not a misprint. I am committing to 6Hts, I might steal their suit, and I want a spade lead against a club contract, likely 7 clubs! (Could lho have a black 5-6 hand?) 2) (Why am I not playing Precision? lololol) I am wondering what partner can possibly have given this bidding: What dogs didn't bark? (P didn't give a simple spade raise or any kind of raise, P didn't have enough, given likely heart shortage, to make neg dbl, P didn't bid a decent suit at 3-level.) I anticipate P having a minimum hand 0-7 +/-, with 9+ cards in minors, or else 0-4/5 with 3 spades unworthy of an immediate raise. I need a magic hand including heart blockage for 3NT, 4 of minor seems possible given all of my controls, and 3S seems makable if P has 3-card spade support. While risky, Dbl seems to be the most communicative bid but it risks a 4D response (unlikely 3Hts will make: then P has a pull to 3S). Pass could be the winning bid, but someone once said to me that "You can't play scared bridge." My vote for DBL ! 3). Double !: not crazy about bid with club void, 3H could be right (and miss spade or diamond suit) Hopefully I haven't hit P with the good old 3334 3hcp hand and nowhere to go (3D which I can correct to 3H?) 4) I do not, repeat, I DO NOT open this hand 1 club for exactly the reason that appears to be the theme of this problem. Specifically, is 2 diamonds by me now a reverse? Matter for discussion. In most of my partnerships 2D is a reverse, so I'm stuck. To bid 1NT might be the least lie, and P is unlikely to believe that I have 3 hearts (and then to ne able to make an informed competitive decision) should I rebid 2H. Hand seems like a nice weak notrump---pass in 1st seat is also not out of the question despite the 5 controls: all minor suit-oriented, easier for opps to compete in major. 5) The more I think about it, bashing 4NT RKC with SPEC K's seems least likely to cause bidding confusion. The issue is what P needs to bid 3D, at worst 6NT might be on a club hook although P might well be short in clubs. RHO didn't bid 4H pass or correct, so where are the major cards? Tough hand.

My vote is for a Dbl ("partner please bid something or convert"). Makes for more co-operative bidding, P has already shown possession of at least a few cards, P has inference that I have tolerance for hearts, P can convert etc, etc. Given this interpretation, then what does one do with a sound penalty double? Partner still has an opportunity to speak again. Otherwise, a plus score can't be all that bad. But this just emphasizes the importance of discussion and partnership work: what is standard for one mioght not be standard for the next person. This hand reminds me of another sequence where partnership agreement (or use of Ben's rule) would be necessary. 1D-p-p-1S 2D-Dbl ! (?) What is the double? Is it penalty because it's under the suit bidder? (And partner only balanced with a suit bid?) Or could it be responsive for the 2 unbid suits? FWIW, my interpretation is responsive (takeout). What's yours?

It would be helpful to know what system my P and I are playing: I shall assume 2/1. I disagree with using a splinter here for two reasons. 1) other things being equal, the splinter makes bidding out my shape more difficult. I'm not even sure where this hand is going yet (spades, clubs, NT?, minus). By rebidding spades I permitted partner to clarify his/her initial 2C response including setting up situation where P might later be able to show honor-x or better support on spades. 2)I can then support clubs, cue hearts if need be, and have exclusion RKC or cue of diamonds available in back pocket if I need it. There are so many hands that P can have to respond 2C/1S that it seems more beneficial for me to bid out my shape and give P more time to clarify the 2C response. It would seem to be that this would lead to a more co-operative auction with either partner potentially being in a better situation to determine how high we should be, where tricks are coming from, and take control at the appropriate point. IMO, a splinter would tend to deny 6 spades (or at least 6 decent spades: I like to bid where my values are. In any event: Happy New Year to all Be well, be safe

follow-up If we look hard enough, we might find that there are other people out there in BBO land who are also going through difficult times and who might benefit from warm fuzzies and support. Don't expect that anyone is about to come forward and announce to the world about some personal life issue. Just know that there are an awful lot of us here who are behind you. PEACE to all. Oops, growing up in the 60s is starting to show!!! And I meant "conventions that I can't use given ACBL GCC rules". There is a lot more to that issue than meets they eye.

My candidate for the 2004 "post" of the year has little to do with bridge per se, but a lot to do with people. It is Tritri's December 12th "GRAZIE" letter including to various members of BBO who were there for her when she needed them. Somehow this seems to be more important than learning the intricacies of some convention or bidding system that I couldn't use anyway given the ACBL GCC regs...let's not go there now. To me, that letter reinforced the awareness that we don't and can't live in isolation or in a vacuum, and that we all need each other. I only hope that tritri (Elana) continues to be well and that the people who were there for her know how important they were.

This is a very interesting discussion since the only bidding sequence of concern (given that you don't have a moth-eaten 5-card major) is 1H-1S-1NT. If playing weak NT, then the purpose for including 5 card majors might be to imply some balance to the hand and to keep 1NT rebids consistent (15-17 or whatever). It might make responder's task with a 5-card major easier. But is that really necessary? Is rebidding a 3-card minor by opener with extra values to be followed by 2NT if necessary such a bad thing? Using the proposed response structures (Keri, etc.) are all nice assuming that the opps shut up and give you a chance to clarify. IMO, this approach loses when you don't quickly find your 8-card major fit and start to guess in competitive situations. There are 4 people sitting at the table, and you might be going anti-field when responder has to pass your 1NT opener and the fit is lost. Also, having a 5-card suit that might set up might result in underbidding when the 5-card suit can be set up and run, increasing trick-taking potential. Just a matter of style.........I could be missing something (besides me marbles).

OOPS- some might say that Gladiator can be used in response to 2NT openers. Matter of opinion---what else is new?

GLADIATOR is a structure of response to 1NT opening bids (probably could be used in response to 1NT overcalls) where a response of 2 clubs asks opener to bid 2 diamonds at which point responder passes, bids another suit to play, or makes some other 3+ level bid, the meaning of which to be determined by the partnership. A response of 2 diamonds asks for a 4-card major and is supposed to promise at least game invitational values. Opener denies a 4-card major by bidding 2NT with a minimum, by jumping to 3NT with a hand that accepts the game invitation, or by making some 3-level response, agains the nature of which is a matter of partnership agreement. It is important to establish what follow-up sequences are and are not forcing. What has not been mentioned so far is that this approach means that responses of 2 of a major are also game invitational (otherwise puppet with 2C and correct over 2D). LIke many conventions, this approach has its strengths and its limitations such as showing 2-suited hands. I played it many, many moons ago- we did OK with it.

First and most importantly of all: Warmest wishes to all of you as the end of 2004 rapidly approaches. May the new year bring peace, harmony, love, family, friends, togetherness, safety and security, warm fuzzies, and happiness to all of you. My name is Don. I am 50 something, (the top of the head is getting grayer but, so far, it is still covered), married for 33 years, and have been working as a school psychologist in the South Bronx, New York City, USA for a long time. I started to play bridge in my teens (aka: the 60's) in the greater Boston area, earned my gold card when in my 20's, continued to play for a while, then then stopped due to a combination of factors including time, work, and family priorities. BBO is the vehicle that permitted me with the opportunity to resume playing against after having successfully gotten out of the rat race (aka: chasing masterpoints) many years ago. I think I have played in 4 or 5 tournaments in past 5 years or so. I never really "learned" Std. Am. something that doesn't truly exist in the first place. I started out playing (if i might be so bold) Kaplan-Sheinwold, learned Schenken, played a card that combined the two systems, and then learned Precision around 1970. I can sometimes count to 13, more often to 14, occasionally not even to 10. My benchmark for what truly constitutes being an expert is a family member who, IMO, is a superior player when he has time to play. I am not an expert nor do I anticipate ever becoming one according to my criteria or BBO's in the near future (I don't play live bridge), but I love this game and have some of my own opinions or approaches to bidding. I dislike strong NT systems because I feel bored ('outta my mind'- sorry Ben, couldn't resist) when playing them: much too easy to compete against. I strongly believe that people should select a system with a purpose in mind as different bidding (and defensive) systems function differently and accomplish different things. I don't believe that there are right and wrong bids per se, but Instead I believe that the partnership needs to establish what is or is not the correct bid for the partnership. Barring that, then one can fall back on "default agreements". I also strongly believe that, for a partnership to be successful, both members need to be willing to work at it and to have a similar degree of commitment to the partnership. I am notorious for being able to go down 1 or 2 tricks at times when the field is making overtricks, but I can usually hold up my end of the partnership reasonably well when awake. I gave up hero worship at the bridge table a long time ago. My goal when playing online is to be involved in a game that is competent but, more importantly, where everyone involved enjoys the game and feels that they have played well. I love to play against "stars" especially with one of my two regular partners on BBO. Please don't reject me because I advertise my skill level as advanced. There are some who think it should be higher, and there are some nights when terms such as novice or moron enter one's mind. I also love to play with people from certain countries where I know some words in their language and try with limited success to speak their language. I might even learn a word or two. The people on BBO, especially the members of this Forum, are a special group, Where else can people from every corner of this planet come together, meet, form friendships (if not more), say good morning/ good day, say "I care", goodnight, etc. flash little red Hearts to each other (or diamonds, clubs or spades), and share life and enjoyment with people half a world away? I am impressed with the levels of knowledge, information and bridge skills that so many members of this Forum appear to have. More importantly, I am very impressed with the fact that so many people have shared so much information, and have discussed so many issues and expressed differing opinions without denigrating, minimizing, or disrespecting the opinions, viewpoints, and questions of others regardless of skill level. Thank you all for showing me how much I need to learn: all of the new (to me) information has sent me flying to as many web sites as I can find. Forgive this prattle. Maybe some day I'll actually start a thread of my own. I have a couple of topics in mind. Usually, when I have something to contribute, someone else has already said it. Anyway, I have often been told that, when someone wants my opinion on something, that person will tell it to me! BBO Rules! There is none higher. "Be excellent to each other, and party on dude!" Or, if you prefer, "live long and prosper."

One book that hasn't yet been mentioned is "All Fifty-Two Cards" by Marshall Miles, 1963 ($1.20---talk about inflation). An excellent book for learning how to think for those of us for who need it. Kelsey"s Advanced Play at Bridge and Killing Defense at Bridge, as well as Reese/Jourdain's "Squeeze Play Made Easy" are also excellent IMO--add in Master Play. Now, if I could just remember what cards have been played............

Would a truly World Class player play and obtain results consistent with those reported in the initial posting in this thread? I doubt it. Most World Class players that I have known have focused on playing strong, consistent, Partnership bridge. Methinks Aba has it right: "world class what?"

Three simple questions: 1) what is the point of saying anything, what are you trying to accomplish? 2) what do you anticipate will be the outcome or your partner's reactions to any comments that you make? (How would you feel/ react?) 3) How will this help the PARTNERSHIP? (even if temporary).