Elianna

Ok, I was A. My hand was ♠AKx ♥KQx ♦KT9xxx ♣x Yes, my diamond suit was not the strength that it should be, but a funny thing, even if I had the QJ it would have made no difference in the results. My thoughts at the table (as the auction happened): 1♦ - 1♠ "Well, I have support for spades, and would REALLY like to be in game, but i'm uncomfortable forcing to game on this hand. Maybe she can find a bid over 3♦, then we're heading to game if not slam" 3♦ - 3♥ "Wow! Is she 5-4? Is she showing her stopper (A of ♥?) Either way my hand just got WAY better, i'll bid 3♠ and let her know about our potential fit." 3♠ - 4♦ "WOW! We have a double fit? I'm really interested in slam, but i'm a total coward. Plus she could just be cuebidding, or not believe that I have three REALLY GOOD spades. I'll just bid 4♠ (because really, i'm a wimp) and assume that she's going on from there" [4s]-5♦ "Hmm, this is somewhat confusing. Was she cuing before? Now I think that she was trying to sign-off, but that seems ridiculous. Granted, my hand is ridiculous for my 3♦ bid, but I think that we could still have a slam, I just don't know what in, but I hope that she will": 6♦ - pass And the winner of the guessing game (but for different reasons): Yes, I thought it was slam interest, but I was ok playing 4♠. <sheepish grin> Partner's hand was J9xx Jxx Kxxx xx Partner basically was hoping that I would have a club stopper, and was trying to get to (a very greedy) 3NT. She didn't want to play 4♠ in a 4-3 fit with bad trump, when a 6-4 or better fit was available. I think that it was understandable, if illadvised. :lol:

I would like some input about a not so difficult auction. Your partner is a very experienced player. We had a slight disagreement about what went on here: Opponents all pass: A.......B 1♦ - 1♠ 3♦ - 3♥ 3♠ - 4♦ 1) What would you expect each player to have here now? Specifically, how many Spades does A have? What is B's shape (and what leeway do you have in your answer)? 2) Has a trump suit been set? If so, what? 3) I think that it's pretty clear by now that you're heading to a game. When were you game forcing? (If you disagree with my first statement, feel free to say "nowhere.") 4) For fun, if you had to make a guess at the likely outcome (without seeing the hands) what would you guess that it was? (contract and result?)

this would be singularly unfair to couples. Sure, we have more of a chance of cheating, since we could sit next to each other, but people can accomplish the same thing with phones or IMs. Why should couples be banned from playing together in tournaments when they haven't done anything wrong?

Actually, many places give 7 minutes a board, which can really add up when playing long matches. 5 minutes a board is considered "fast". Seriously, though, the more thinking that is done EARLIER in the play, the less will need to be done later.

In person, you can solve part of the problem by playing to the current trick in tempo, but leaving that card turned up, and think about the next trick. This way you can, say, think about what you're planning to play to different possibilities of what declarer might do (because some of them might cause problems, and some might not) rather than start thinking right after declarer plays. What I mean is, you can form a battle plan: "If declarer plays a spade, I'll discard a heart", "If declarer plays the Jack, I'll duck", "If declarer plays this suit, I'll give true count, if he plays another suit, I'll give false count", and do all this without sending a message to declarer or partner that you have a problem in a SPECIFIC place. One of the main problems with playing online is that you can't prevent opponents from playing to the next trick while you're thinking about the last trick. So you can only form a "battleplan" when it's your turn to play, hence it's imperative that you think on the first trick, or not at all in some cases.

You have left out one very important skill: g. Being a good partner. There are many threads discussing what makes a good partner. Some of it is which combination of the above set of skills one holds, but a lot of being a good partner is being able to sense what the person across the table from you is thinking, and being able to react to that. And no, I don't mean in play or bidding, but in between hands. For example, if your partner tells you to stop carping on some point, being ABLE to stop, without turning the very fact of stopping against them, too. Just knowing how to treat partners is a very good skill. At one club I direct, there is usually a gentleman who comes in without a partner, and whenever I call people to try to find him one, they say that they'll play, but not with him. And not because he's such a poor player (goodness knows, there are MUCH worse players that I can find partners for), it's because that guy can not shut his mouth!

I think that DrTodd was not suggesting that you treat 1st/2nd seat the same, rather that you consider whether your side gets to BID (which includes pass) first or second. So if you're NS, you play the same system when N or S is dealer, and different when E or W is dealer (and you vary those systems by the four different vulnerability combos). So 8 combinations.

Maybe the opponents should articulate this, but when asked for further explanation, maybe you should specify what kind of hands you can have for this forcing spade raise. For example, does it specify a certain length in spades? Does it eliminate certain shapes (no singletons or voids)? Is it game forcing or one round forcing? You see, "forcing spade raise" is not quite a full answer. If I were defending (likely after the auction, I wouldn't need the info before) I would definitely ask for more info than that.

If you REALLY want something US-centric you could do it by Platinum points: Beginner: "Points have colors?" Novice: "What are platinum points?" Intermediate: "The Red Ribbons give Platinum points, right?" Advanced: "I'm so good, I have 4.15 platinum points!" Expert: "I'm too busy playing in KOs with clients to bother with NABC+ events" World Class: "Points have colors? :angry:" Anyway, on a more serious note, I like the idea of a series of questions, but it would be better if it were run by the program, rather than make a user follow which number they should go to (considering the level of intelligence of many people...).

For many people around me, the number of years playing should be worth MINUS points! ;)

I have definitely overcalled worse hands 2!d, so I see no reason why not, now.

Icch. Count me out! Maybe, but I don't. If there's something that relies on just rote memorization (learning the basics of a new system, what bids mean, history, science, etc.) my memorization process is two steps: 1)Reading whatever I need to know and if that's not enough (it used to be, but I've gotten older and my brain has gotten deader): 2) Re-writing things. I should note that my brain is very fussy. When I said read, I meant READ, and not hear (I can't remember a single thing that only comes to me verbally), and by write, I mean handwrite rather than type (I guess my hand remembers what my fingers don't?)

Speaking of short minor openings, Adam and I had a national-rated (ACBL) director try to rule 1♦ which could be as short as 0 is a natural bid. <_<

No, I'm still logged in. I have only ever had to log into BBO twice: The first time, and when I used Adam's computer.

My point is that 6♣ was a very UNLUCKY guess, and your only luck was that the opponents didn't bid 6♠. What I mean is, you were still beating everyone by defending 5♠x+1, so giving them the opportunity to bid again was not a good thing, they just made a wrong choice.

It's not just when you log out, it's when you leave your computer for some time. My theory is that when the forums detect your presence, it "keeps detecting" your presence for fifteen minutes (or so), and everytime you do something, it renews that fifteen minutes (making a complete session). Once the forums no longer detects your presence, it marks everything as read (probably on the theory that if you haven't read it, you don't want to, and resets the setting). I don't really think that this is a good thing, but I think that it's what Invision (the makers of the forum software, I think) seems to have set in. And logging out ends your session, I guess.

Well, if you're just looking at results then 6♣ was awful, it lets the opponents bid a making 6♠! (since 5♠x+6 < 6♠). Now, if your opponents didn't figure it out, you got lucky in another way!

For curiosity's sake, what does RHO's pass mean? Did you ask? (If it means "nothing", I'd try asking what inferences they get from RHO not finding a bid.) Also, I can't believe that I'm playing some system and haven't discussed how to make a good raise. Also what kind of hand does partner need? Any hand with 5+ ♠'s? A certain number of points? Less than a certain number? anyway, I want to know what I've discussed with partner.

Not to mention Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, Culver City, and (I believe) Torrance, which all have their own school district, and are within a twenty/thirty minute drive of each other. If we wanted to do something in LA, we'd have to get people willing to teach, not just lists of people who could possibly teach. Frankly, I don't see that happening soon. I'm willing to teach, but I'm not willing to do any of the organization (contacting schools, etc.), and while teaching bridge in schools has been discussed frequently, I have yet to see anyone volunteering to run this and contact schools. A local person would be much more likely to be successful talking to schools than out-of-town billionaires. The other problem with getting younger people to teach bridge is that most of us work during the school day. I can only think of one youngish person who is free anytime during the school day, one who is free in the afternoons, and several who are not very adept bridge players who may be free once or twice a week. But all of the strong young bridge players (including Donn and yourself, I might add) work during the school day.

There is a slight problem in this, as it seems that one place's "Could be short" is another place's natural. (The main difference was how to treat one that could be 3.) So a person might end up having to go through their FD file to change all these checks depending on whose tournament they're playing in.

you could have a list of questions in advance, and have several other people to act as mentors (thus duplicating yourself). I don't know how useful this advice is, as I don't really know where you're going to find these volunteers. I know that I wouldn't want to. I also don't really understand this emphasis on showing count signals. Yes, it's really important to count out and visualize a hand, but count signals aren't the only way to do that. You get a lot of inferences from the bidding (and lack of bidding), the opening lead and attitude towards that, any returns by the defending side, and from what declarer tries to do in the hand. Adam and I have a somewhat experienced partnership, and we don't place much emphasis on count signals per se. Our primary signal is attitude, and then many following signals are suit preference, because we can usually work out approximate count on the hand. This is not to say that we don't signal count, it's just that it has a low priority. Anyway, sorry for the digression in your thread, but I think that it might be useful to have a discussion on what a useful primary signal is (ie, what helps partner figure out what to do most?).

Adam and I play a version of gazilli, and I agree with you that this hand is not quite there to rebid 2c, but it almost is. I think that if you transformed the ♣QJ into ♣Kx that would be enough. Adam might even rebid 2c, I don't know (I've seen him bid 2c with hands that it wouldn't have occurred to me to rebid that with those hands). Anyway, I'm bidding 3s with this hand, whether I'm playing gazilli or not.

Happy Birthday. Sorry for being late. I got to say happy birthday on time in person, though, so hopefully that'll count.

I'd pass throughout (I find that usually when I make a take out double, my hand looks a bit different). If I chose to double (not an impossibility) I'd definitely pass partner's double. Sure, they may have half the points, but I usually tend to respect partner's pen dbls.

I find it curious that many people think that the main mistake was not doubling 2s. For those people: When you put most of the blame on the person not doubling a cold contract, I think that you're just a little off base.