Stefan_O

Weak 2♥ certainly is attractive at this vuln, 3rd hand, MP --- lets opps guess instead..... Immediately tells pd we are going nowhere unless ♥ support. Opening 1♥ and getting 2♦ from pd may be problematic as others pointed out. 3/5 top-honours seems particularly silly in 3rd hand...

Interesting thought, but can this really be the right explanation? A priori, North=Txx is only ~11%, while South=Tx or T is ~39%, and the takeout (0-2 spades) does not exclude any of these...

Yes, I mean the defense, trick one. It was paid, MP.

Short-circuit, indeed.

http://tinyurl.com/robot-meltdown From Daylong yesterday.

1NT might produce a good result now and then, of course. But winning bridge, to me, is primarily about playing with the odds and avoiding bad results, rather than trying create good ones through unusual actions. Opening 1S is therefore the safe way, since it is the normal action, and unlikely to produce a very bad outcome. Only in a situation, desperate to create a swing, 1NT might be an option for me.

Ummm... what do you expect the TD to rule in this situation, other than tell you to place your next bidding card? If you force West to say something, I'd expect "No agreement." :)

The first one, you can neg-X since, if pd has 4♥s, you probably have good playing strength to compensate for you poor hcp's. If opener rebids 3♣, I would Pass, and if opener rebids 2NT, I can bid 3♦ as sign-off. The main issue with the second hand is pd will assume you have 4♠ (at least with minimum strength). It might not be a big issue if he only bids 2♠ to play on a 4-3 fit. But with extras, or if opps compete to 3♦, he might push to 3/4♠, which is likely a poor contract. Switch a small ♦ to a ♠, and neg-X makes more sense.

5-6 I bid as 5-5. 6-5 I bid as 6-5.

5-6 seems to be a matter of religion.... I normally (esp at MP) forget about the 6th club, open 1S and bid as 5-5, since the 5-card major mostly is more important to get across than 6-card minor.

I think there are 100 in the free ones? Or has this been changed?

I'll give you what I consider a much better option: Vulnerable: * 2♦ = 5+major. 8-10hcp. * 2M = 5+major. 5-7hcp. Non vuln: * 2♦ = 5+major. 7-10hcp. * 2M = 5+major. 3-6hcp. When I write '5+major', I mean either a normal 6-card-suit, or a good 5-card-suit playable against a singleton, preferably like: QJT8x, KQT9x, or similar/better. I strongly prefer this method over 5M+4m, etc... Who wants to see pd make preference to these often silly 3m contracts, anyways, and - esp when vuln - just sit hope opps don't find the Double? After 2♦-2NT (forcing invite+) bid, for example: * 3♣ = 6-card major. * 3♦ = 5 hearts. Minimum. * 3♥ = 5 spades. Minimum. * 3♠ = 5 hearts. Maximum. * 3NT = 5 spades. maximum. After 2M-2NT (forcing invite+) you can bid, for example: * 3♣ = 5-card suit. Minimum. * 3♦ = 6-card suit. Minimum. * 3♥ = 5-card suit. Maximum. * 3♠ = 6-card suit. Maximum. * 3NT = AKQxxx. If you still want to open weak-2♦ hands, you can do so, too: 2♣ = * A) Weak-2♦ 7-10hcp. * B) Normal strong 2C-opening. Over this 2♣ opening, responder with 15+hcp or so, can bid a forcing 2NT or 2M with 5+major just like over a natural 2♦ opening. Otherwise, responds 2♦ over which the weak hand will Pass. ps. If you want to maximize the pain for opps, do not include any strong option in your 2♦-multi opening, only the above. It's next to impossible to work out an efficient defense against 2♦, when you can no longer rely on opps to keep bidding over 2♦.

Very flawed conclusion, IMV. Try construct a good defence against Multi-2D, then test it on a series of random deals where opps open 2D and your side has more than half the hcps, and you see how often the defence becomes difficult and requires really good guess-work to come out right. Even trickier the defence becomes, if you have no strong option in 2D (only weak major) so you can no longer trust opps to keep bidding over 2D...

Yes, got it. But I think, when the Ten comes out, the a-priori odds for 4 spades with west also go down considerably. Since with T9xx you usually lead a low card (not the Ten), so it's only from T98x or better you lead the Ten. While with 3 you also lead high from T9x. Or, as mentioned, if the lead is from something like AJTx or AT9x, we dont need the third heart trick. By the way, the book didn't say what lead-conventions? "top-of-nothing" perhaps? :) And which book was it from?

That is actually the main "trick" of this hand (if my line is right :unsure: :) ) East switch to diamonds, you win the Ace first, then try hearts 3-3 before playing diamonds towards your queen (if still needed) -- kind of a "delayed finesse"...

By default, ALL bridge-problems and books are IMPS or total-points, unless otherwise stated :) Very few focus on the much more complex and hard-to-analyse MP-play.

Hi Kaitlyn, Were you assuming west lead from 5-card spade suit? Quite unlikely a-priori, that East should have exactly AJx. Also, it makes it less likely that East (the shorter spade-hand) also has only doubleton hearts (Qx). Or if West lead from S-Ace-something, we are already home, with no need to drop the H-Qx. So, yes, I think the heart-finesse OR hearts 3-3 OR (finally) diam-King on-side is a considerably better line.

Got it! Very cool :) Thanks a lot!

Aahh... thanks Diana! I found it now -- I had certainly missed that feature :) I figured out how to move the cards around, which is most important. But I cannot change the contract/declarer/bidding in the editor.... just checking, is that correct?

When reviewing BBO hand-records in the handviewer, I often use the DD-analyzer (Play/Gib buttons) to examine the play, or alternative plays. Sometimes, also, you would like to move a few cards around, or perhaps change the contract, or change the declarer, etc, then replay the deal.... Just wondering if there is a good GUI-tool/website for this? I'm looking for a simple tool where you can just copy a full handviewer-URL, paste it into the tool and it will display the deal. Then you can do those changes you want, and when done the tool can generate a new handviewer link to replay it. Or if there is some better solution.... Do you know of any such?

Good idea, but I don't think that particular approach will work in practice. Many "bid-hoggers", obviously, will not answer honestly (or they find no partners at all) and I think people, generally, will have difficulties self-assessing correctly and honestly. On the other hand, those traits you mention, plus many others, could definitely be assessed automatically from your play-history by software-algorithms. That would sure generate useful information to potential partners. I guess not all players would be too happy to have such "profiles" made public, though B-)

Given the vuln, club suit-quality, and passed pd, I like 2C. Takeout-X would also be reasonable, of course. I PASS 2DX and lead a small spade If we can't set 2D with this hand, I have a too ambitious pard (or we mis-defended).

yes, it is a plain ridiculous and destructive practice by BBO to just count total-points on random-hands --- like they even did in the red/blue survivor a while ago. and without even clearly stating how completely silly and lottery-like this scoring practice is. it will, of course, confuse less experienced players and turn them away from the game in disappointment without even understanding the circumstances. even with random-hands, it is so easy and simple to come up with something better. for example, you could IMP against the par-result on each deal, or something similar. still not ideal, of course, when people compete against each other on different random-deals, but at least not as bad as just adding up total-points which means absolutely nothing.

[hv=http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?lin=pn%7CHumanOppo%2Cstefan_o%2CRobotN%2CRobotE%7Cst%7C%7Cmd%7C1S28TQKH2TKAD4TC67%2CS37H569QD68KC2JKA%2CS459H78D2379QC89Q%2C%7Crh%7C%7Cah%7CBoard+15%7Csv%7Cn%7Cmb%7C1S%7Can%7CMajor+suit+opening+--+5%2B+%21S%3B+11-21+HCP%3B+%7Cmb%7Cd%7Can%7CTakeout+double+--+3-5+%21C%3B+3-5+%21D%3B+3-4+%21H%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C2N%7Can%7CTwo+NT+to+double+--+1-3+%21H%3B+3%2B+%21S%3B+11-12+HCP%3B+stop+in+%21S+%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C3N%7Can%7C3-5+%21C%3B+3-5+%21D%3B+3-4+%21H%3B+2-+%21S%3B+14-21+HCP%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cpg%7C%7Cpc%7CSK%7Cpc%7CS7%7Cpc%7CS4%7Cpc%7CS6%7Cpg%7C%7Cpc%7CH2%7Cpc%7CH6%7Cpc%7CH7%7Cpc%7CHJ%7Cpg%7C%7Cpc%7CC4%7Cpc%7CC7%7Cpc%7CCA%7Cpc%7CC8%7Cpg%7C%7Cpc%7CHQ%7Cpc%7CH8%7Cpc%7CH3%7Cpc%7CHK%7Cpg%7C%7Cpc%7CHA%7Cpc%7CH9%7Cpc%7CS9%7Cpc%7CH4%7Cpg%7C%7Cpc%7CHT%7Cpc%7CH5%7Cpc%7CD2%7Cpc%7CC5%7Cpg%7C%7Cpc%7CDT%7Cpc%7CD6%7Cpc%7CDQ%7Cpc%7CDA%7Cpg%7C%7Cpc%7CDJ%7Cpc%7CD4%7Cpc%7CD8%7Cpc%7CD3%7Cpg%7C%7Cpc%7CC3%7Cpc%7CC6%7Cpc%7CCK%7Cpc%7CC9%7Cpg%7C%7Cpc%7CC2%7Cpc%7CCQ%7Cpc%7CCT%7Cpc%7CS2%7Cpg%7C%7Cpc%7CS5%7Cpc%7CSA%7Cpc%7CS8%7Cpc%7CS3%7Cpg%7C%7Cpc%7CD5%7Cpc%7CST%7Cpc%7CDK%7Cpc%7CD9%7Cpg%7C%7Cpc%7CCJ%7Cpc%7CD7%7Cpc%7CSJ%7Cpc%7CSQ%7Cpg%7C%7C%0A%0A]800|600[/hv] Moneybridge, robot declaring. Anyone can figure out a reason for the lead of ♥Q to trick 4?

Thanks, Scarlet & Paul! Seems like useful info --- will try it out! :)