Joe_Old

duplicate

duplicate

Good luck with that. No Director will ever let you unethically game the system like that.

Double. I'm not bidding 7NT. The odds of a 13 card ♠ suit are over 635 billion to one; if East has 13♠, then I'm wrong and plan to marvel at the deal. East probably has a long ♠ suit: the question is whether West has any ♠, and that is hard to calculate because you have to guess how long East's suit is. But, the odds are short enough that I'd genuinely fear bidding 7NT here. I'm also not certain about East's hesitation. Even with a 13 card suit, she might have been wondering about how best to draw a double. Note that a double would backfire only East has 13♠, or if East is two suited, and West has the rest of the ♠ and a void in East's second suit. That is very long odds. Finally, there's always the chance that East made a very bad decision with a weak 8 - 5 hand (or some such), is going down 5 or 6, and West has enough to beat your slam.

Sorry, Kenberg, wasn't meaning to focus on you unduly. Actually, one major reason that experts are bidding differently now than 60 years ago is that tournament hands are different than they were 60 years ago. Those of us who were playing when computer dealt hands first started appearing were shocked by the "wild" distributions. There were numerous complaints. The reason was that humans don't (usually) shuffle effectively, and human dealt hands tend to be flatter. Don't think that people didn't notice. Early in the 1970's, many better players were already devising ways to evaluate and bid distributional hands. Work's HCP counting was discarded first. Losing trick count and other systems were devised. Basically, the experts learned that bidding systems then in vogue worked much better in club games (human dealt) than tournaments, and moved toward big club systems that left room for weakish one level bids. It's no coincidence that Precision was such a success. Therefore, one major reason for the proliferation of weak calls by experts is that they've found that they work, and one major reason that they work is that hands actually played in tournaments are more distributional. Now that clubs are using computer dealt hands (not to mention online clubs) players who want to compete most effectively have to move to methods that best address the hands.

This thread is addressing the fact that expert pairs don't usually land in hopeless contracts. Studying their techniques, and trying to sort out their reasoning can help any advancing player. It's not for players who "play down the middle". It has advantages: for instance, you might be surprised to find how often light openers (or the inferences associated with not bidding) can aid the defense. If that style wasn't so effective, experts wouldn't use it. If you're "picking your spots" now, that's good. If you've had success, maybe you'll find more "spots".

There are two major reasons experts jump into as many auctions as possible, and disrupting the opposition is by far the lesser of the two. Bridge is an information game, and your (legal) options for exchanging information are limited. Therefore, well established expert partnerships (with months of discussion and many pages of system notes) grab every and any opportunity to describe their hands. Note that it isn't only the first bid that's meaningful: the hand is further described by succeeding bids (and passes), and everything must be judged in context. A one level opener followed by a series of passes or non-forcing, minimum bids might be defined as a sub-minimum hand, with the intent to be lead directional or showing a concentration of values. A new suit by opener at the second round might show that he has serious interest in declaring. Similarly, expert partnerships build in systems to separate garbage opening pre-empts from those that are sound. None of this can be taught in a few lessons or incorporated into a casual partnership. Expert partnerships also recognize the powerful potential of distributional hands, shortness, double fits, etc. that can transform a HCP challenged hand. Therefore, players who jump into every possible auction simply to disrupt are largely missing the point. True, it can be very effective against weak players, but unless partner is clued in, strong opponents who have experience and methods to deal with interference will be the ultimate winners. Solution? Advanced players should focus on partnership agreements, handling interference, how to identify fits and double fits, and most important: use the bidding to construct mental pictures of the other players hands. Learning a lot of conventions isn't nearly as useful.

If BBO wants to add a new level of frustration, try a "Just Defend" format.

Hard to picture a hand where partner would make a sane raise of a 2♠ call. He might X a three level bid that you can reasonably leave in. I don't like my options, but agree that 2♠ is least bad.

Just make sure that you aren't playing with an old-timer who plays a jump to 4♣ in a NT auction as Gerber. There are still a lot of us around.

Agree with the trump lead. However, the "RULE" is to never lead a singleton trump. East may be a believer, so that may explain the ♦A. So much for rules. I couldn't find any thread about the opening lead of a singleton trump. Did I miss one?

Since you're playing MPs, South is obviously shooting for a top by passing rather than playing safely in their 8 card fit. Meaning: North/South has taken an anti-field position. This means that beating the contract one (+200) will net you a very good score. You can see that South isn't about to supply many tricks (one), and partner has announced that he's sitting over declarer in three suits, so whether you set it 1, 2, or 3 probably isn't going to affect your score much. Play safe by playing the ♦2.

I'd say that play is most important, because improved declarer play usually leads to improved defense. And defense is fully 50% of the game.

For Diana: Would registration be through the ACBL website, BBO, or both? Thanks. The tournament sounds like a good idea, and a natural progression in the ACBL/BBO partnership. I hope it works out. In the future, I assume consideration will be given to "stratification" like the ABCL currently does for national events. That is, separate events for 0-1500, 0-10,000, unlimited.

Ever hear about Occam's Razor? It states that the simplest answer is probably correct. Overcaller/advancer have voluntarily bid to the 5 level. It is far more likely that they have a 10+ card fit than 8, and therefore bridge logic requires responder to "know" that opener is short. In fact, the accepted meaning of a double by a bidder "known" to be short in a suit is that the double is control showing, most often a singleton or void rather than A or K. Remember that advancer can't have much in HCP, most likely 0-2, yet he jumped to the 5 level at equal vulnerability. We are told that advancer is not a hopeless lunatic, so we assume that he has his bid. That means that he must be distributional, increasing the odds that opener is void. All bridge logic. The double is therefore not exactly conventional, but an extension of bridge logic and convention. Note also that most of the commenters are salivating at the prospect of playing 5♣X, expecting to make. They all assume that advancer has 4-5♣. I'm waiting for the Poster to reveal the other hands to see if the 6♣ sacrifice is worthwhile.

The double is control showing and takeout. You have 6♣, partner has 4-5♣, responder has 2-3♣. That doesn't leave any, and opener's double therefore tells responder that he has first round control (almost certainly a void). Opener has zero interest in defending a ♣ contract. He has 10-13 major suit cards (not necessarily balanced) and visions of slam. Opener is asking responder to help set the strain and level of their major suit contract.

Short sighted. You are never playing 5♣X, because as M1cha correctly pointed out, the double is take out. Responder, who originally bid 3NT, can't have enough to guarantee more than a one trick set opposite a major suit game or slam, and so would cuebid minor suit aces (obviously not possible here) with the appropriate hand, or pick a major. Meanwhile, you've given up a chance to clue in partner and make him part of the auction. After your XX, responder's pass indicates that he expects to set 5♣, and is expressing doubt about making 11 tricks in a major. Therefore, partner's bid has pushed the opponents a level higher than may be safe, and isn't that the goal? And, partner knows that you have a lot of minor suit tricks, that responder has ♣ behind you, and that opener has a lot of major suit cards. Let him make the final decision.

Redouble of 5♣ is mandatory: you don't have extras, you have lots of extras. As noted above, partner can't have many HCPs, but does have distribution; now that he knows that you're serious about making 5♣, it should be up to him to decide whether to move over 5♥. Opener probably has a hand like yours, except with length/strength in the majors, so your partner should judge whether his major suit holdings can cause opener trouble (picture 5432 Q1092 2 5432). If not, he should bid 6♣. Bidding 6♣ over 5 hearts is a sin. You've already described your hand. Don't bid the same values twice.

I see darn few players with 100% completion rates; if you insist upon certainty, you'll have very small games.

There are reasons other than running for less than perfect completion rates, disconnection being a major factor. The last I looked, my rate was 96%, the result of two disconnections, and an average of less than one tournament entry per day. In some parts of the world, even in major industrialized nations, maintaining internet connections can be dicey (my rural district in the US depends upon less than optimum supplier service). So please, a little understanding. BBO depends upon an internet that is far from perfectly reliable.

I basically agree. Remember that the 3♥ bid is in the balancing seat. Your 2♥ bid already told partner that your side has the majority of the HCPs, but partner has punted the auction back to you. You have to have a way to compete, but stop short of game with limited values.

duplicate

Actually, picking up the ♥ suit is over 50%. If you just play a straight "8 ever, 9 never" your odds are just under 52% (as Cyberyeti noted). But you can improve those odds with the principle of restricted choice. The downside to the slam is the small possibility of a black suit ruff. No argument about your bidding.

You list yourself as an intermediate. No, I don't "expose" or insult people who are learning. I do, however, suggest that you study the posts. You don't learn by getting all huffy and arguing. For instance, you would have done better by asking why Meckstroth would overcall with the described hand at IMPs, but not matchpoints. The answer might reveal an aspect of why Meckwell is one of the toughest partnerships that ever existed. Curiosity is a much better road to improvement than confrontation.

I'll ask Jeff and/or Eric when I see them at the NABC in July. Who ever made that bizarre distinction? Haven't you read the many posts on this thread about how pre-empts are getting weaker? The vugraph on this site is a tremendous asset. Watch it and learn from the best.