Joe_Old

Unfortunately, for players experienced in playing against robots, it isn't really bridge anymore. From experience they've learned to game the system, knowing that certain lies and deceptions tend to score well. In ACBL-land those deceptions would probably be viewed as systemic psyches and therefore illegal, but there aren't any cops in robot tournaments. So, as long as there aren't any prohibitions against deception, feel free to confuse the computer, because after all it isn't bridge that you're playing.

I love this thread. Americans are addicted to conspiracy theories, the more irrational, the better. Facts are irrelevant, to the deceived they are just part of the conspiracy. No one is ever going to convince someone like the poster that his worldview is skewed. That's why conspiracy theories are central to the American psyche: they are a convenient excuse for failures that plainly can't be our own.

Going over the hands is a great learning tool...but not at the table. I consider it to be rude to criticize or teach partner at the table (unforgivable to do that to an opponent). It tends to embarrass a partner more than it helps. With partnerships I care about, I discuss hands after the session.

The entire concept of opening in 4th seat is to go plus. As you point out, opening at the 2 level makes it more difficult for the opponents to get in the auction, but solid players that I know don't use the bid to rule out game. Rather, a 4th seat two bid is used as a picture bid, with defined parameters (quality of suit, HCP range, shape, vulnerability) that permit a passed partner to re-evaluate and invite, compete or bid game (however rare that might be) with the appropriate hands. Obviously, discussion and agreements are necessary. I've also seen discussion related to the form of scoring. In matchpoints you might want to shoot for a top on +110 or +140 with empty values, where in IMPs you would not care to take a risk. One partnership I often play against (50,000+ masterpoints) adjusts the range and quality of suit depending upon vulnerability (12 - 15 HCP, 2 of 3 top honors when vulnerable, 10 - 14 HCP, any 6 cards when not vulnerable), hoping to identify skinny vulnerable games. Essentially, a 2 bid in 4th seat should be viewed as a constructive bid.

What was the state of the match? If one side was considerably behind they may have been trying to generate a swing, and the other pair was simply trying to maintain parity.

try "redeal" to clear the cards from the table.

That works if there is a Director available, because the concession by one defender could result in unauthorized information to the other. In many of these tournaments, there is no Director. In others, where there are a large number of tables and insufficient help to properly address them, the Director might have to spend too much time untangling the problem.

And even if Ms Jennifer has no intention of using the convention herself, wouldn't be useful to understand the opponent's auction when they are playing XYZ?

Of interest is that GIB has the 3♦ rebid as "6+ ♦, 17 - 20" HCP, which is an approach that I have not seen anywhere else. I wonder where BBO got it from and why they incorporated it into their system. If poster's partner got the idea for his bid from BBO, it certainly changes a lot of the analysis.

I wish that compatibility ratings took into account our own ratings of the other player. When I blacklist someone for rudeness I really don't want to find that BBO still gives that player three stars. Conversely, shouldn't my friends automatically be rated as very compatible?

Disagree. With 2 - suiters of intermediate strength we use up bidding room while defining our own hands. With very strong hands we save space by doubling then cue bidding (or doubling again, depending upon the level of the auction). I agree that your sequence was the usual approach, and is still common, but it is not "standard expert" around here largely because of the rarity of huge NT hands in front of an opening bid..

The general trend over the last 6+ decades is to redefine bids such as double, 1 or 2 NT, and cuebids as picture bids, with one major goal being: disrupt the opponents auction. Example: low level doubles used to be penalty, now they are constructive and descriptive (negative, support, etc.). The whole concept of the unusual NT was to not only give partner a picture of your hand but to use up a lot of the opponents' bidding space (double doesn't use up space and gives the opponents an extra bid to describe their hands, NT forces the auction to the next level). Therefore, all but the first example would be unusual to me, differing only in strength and number of cards in the unbid suits.

A common treatment using inverted minors is to use a jump shift in the other minor to distinguish a limit raise from a game forcing raise. Originally, a 2♦ response was the game force in ♣, and a simple raise a limit raise in ♣. Many experienced players now reverse that - 2♦ is a limit bid in ♣. Therefore, 1♦ P - 3♣ becomes a limit raise in ♦ that has the disadvantage of using a lot of bidding space but also makes it harder for the opponents to interfere. This treatment uses the logic of saving bidding room when you have values and eating up space that the opponents might use when you are limited. You might want to include this treatment in your system so that opener will know from the first response (added to what he knows from his own hand) whether you are going to game or not while still leaving as much room as possible to explore slam.

But he better have those cards, because 4♠ is an easy contract to double, whereas 3♠, at IMP's is not. It's hard to come back to your teammates with -300 or -500 against a partial.

I sympathize with your dilemma. I'd like to see "best methods" taught at every level, but I know that just isn't practical. My complaint with your post isn't that you trashed the Rule of 20, but that you chose this particular forum to do so. I never would have written a word if this was a forum for Advanced players, but this forum for Novice/Beginner isn't the right place. The rule of 20 is, quite simply, appropriate here. For me, the Rule of 20 is something I consider when trying to construct an opponent's hand. Mike, I like to see you post, because your insights are accurate and valuable. Just please remember who is in your audience.

mikeh and miamijd make good points for the serious tournament players. But, most bridge players aren't serious tournament players, so equating Rules to crutches isn't helpful, particularly in a novice and beginner forum. Don't make beginning players ashamed of using tools meant to ease them into the game. If a player never advances to the point where he or she realizes that a particular Rule isn't a perfect tool, then at least it lets that player feel less uncertain about the game. Point out the flaws, okay, but have a little compassion for the non-expert.

If I remember correctly, the ACBL Bulletin recently published a good discussion of the Rule of 20. Being only two pages long, it was hardly complete. The Rule of 20 is meant for first and second seat only. In fourth seat use the Rule of 15 and third seat you open with anything you think you can get away with, depending upon vulnerability. The second example hand I'd open in third seat at any vulnerability. Take away the queen and I'd still open 1♥ white (with a partner who is clued in to aggressive calls; that's why Drury was invented). I know top experts who will open any hand in third seat that they would overcall with, particularly if they hold 5+ ♠ because of the pre-emptive value. Many players open 5 card suits at the two level in third seat. When using the Rule of 20 (or 19), one aim is to get in the opponents way, but the major goal is to identify distributional hands with a potential game (or slam) bonus in mind. Obviously, the bonus possibility rarely applies when opening light in third or fourth seat. Therefore, when opening light in first or second seat prime cards (A or K) and short suits are extra valuable. AQxxx Axxx xxx x is a far more potent hand than Kxx Kxxxx KQx xx, Kxx Qxxxx KQx Jx, or QJx Qxxx KQ Kxxx. That is, prime cards concentrated in your long suits are a big plus. Balanced hands (any 4432 or 5332) usually don't rate an upgrade unless subsequent bidding identifies something positive, like a double fit.

If four players reach three different results on a hand, that's very strong evidence that a guiding hand is needed. More important - if the players at your club are so afraid of the Director, or otherwise unwilling to seek his/her assistance, then that is a situation that must be brought to the Director's attention. One of the major duties of a Director is to ensure that all the players understand that the Director is there to sort out all irregularities, that there is no stigma attached to calling the Director, and that the best way to ensure a fair and friendly game is to have a friendly, non-partisan individual resolve any issues. In your case, failure to call the Director (and Dummy's failure to be alert to the quitted tricks) have left you with a bad experience. Your friendly club needs to become more friendly by accepting that calling the Director is just proper procedure.

If you can only come up with one dubious exception, doesn't that prove my point? There are a hell of a lot more rich people than talented bridge players. Your odds of becoming rich from traditional, non-entertainment careers are vastly better than the odds of making a living from playing bridge (or football, baseball, basketball, music, acting, etc.). Pursue your dreams if you have to, but know the challenges

If you want to get an idea of how many pros earn a good living from just playing bridge, check the rosters for the last few Spingolds and Vanderbilts - NABC premier events that attract international fields possibly equal in quality to top world championship events. There are easily 200 pros in each event every year, and that doesn't include a probably equal number of pros playing in simultaneous lesser events. Worldwide, the number of pros who earn their living exclusively from bridge certainly exceeds 1,000, and probably by a very wide margin. Total the number of people who earn a living from bridge related activities, including: employees of BBO, OKbridge and other bridge sites; publishing (writing, producing and selling bridge material); club management; cruises and other social events; teaching; employees, including directors, of national and international bridge organizations; bridge themed clothing and jewelry design and sales; and probably other categories. I would be shocked if less than another 10,000 people were involved. Yes, it is certainly possible to earn a good living from playing bridge, but remember that it is dependent upon both your bridge skills and people skills. However, go back to the rosters of the major events mentioned above. You won't find many, and probably no, bridge pros who have anything like the assets of the team sponsors. If I had the drive and smarts necessary to be a top player, I'd prefer to be someone like Jimmy Cayne or Frank Nickell.

Once the opponents have bid 3 of a minor and neither of you can double for penalty, you are scrambling for a plus. Pass. Responder needs 7+ to take this delayed action, and certainly isn't going to take a rash action at unfavorable vulnerability. Responder is also telling Opener that they have the majority of the high cards, so Opener can leave the double in when it looks appropriate and expect to beat the contract on power (picture Axx Kxx KQx Kxxx).

Think in terms of an "impossible double." Pass at your first opportunity. This says that you do not have a penalty double of either minor. If partner can't double the continuation bid by Advancer, then a double by you (Responder) asks for a four card major and promises values sufficient to play at the 3 level (you can raise partner's bid to game at your next opportunity). I don't know how widespread this treatment is, but I play it in my regular partnerships as part of a number of "impossible bid" situations.

On BBO I always watch declarer and opps, because I'm taking notes on them for future reference (it's very convenient and easy to make notes - thanks BBO). In live competition I'm watching for the (very rare) irregularity. When I'm mentoring someone I watch carefully for issues to discuss later. In a purely social game - brain turns off.

Sorry all - was in a hurry. The hand I meant to suggest was AKQxxx AKxx x Kx - 13 cards. This hand would bid 3♠. I also intended to suggest that the choice presented by PhilG (a ♠ suit of AKQJ987) would be described by a call of Pass or 2♠. A call of 4♠ should show a NAMYATS hand type; 8 good trump and some outside honors that is slightly too weak to open a strong 2♣. You might also ask, "why not double, then bid ♠?" with the hand I suggested. IMO X is best reserved for more balanced hands that can stand a penalty pass (or truly huge hands where you're hoping for slam), as opposed to unbalanced hands where you have a suit that can play comfortably opposite two small cards.

No, the correct call would be a choice between pass and 3♠. You don't pre-empt over a pre-empt. 4♠ shows a strong hand. Something like AKQxxx AKxx x Kxx. Edit - in a hurry, many errors. See correction below.