LBengtsson

I love the title of your post "Misplay this slam with me" lol. I think I would misplay it also. Best line? I am still thinking after 5 minutes. ♣A looks a stiff, and given that North has two aces, I do not think he has ♠K. I think sometimes a player can overthink the situation because if the ♠ finesse is right, and if the ♣ suit is breaking 3-2 then the slam is 68%. I cannot see any squeeze possibilities here, the menaces and entries are not divided between the hands. Am I missing something? North might have a stiff ♦ honor, but is he likely to be 2812 shape? Still undecide what is the best line here.

No one has said this, Maris: You picked up a random partner who either does not know how to bid, or, 99.99% more likely, one that has a big personal problem and wants to spoil your, and everyone else's game. Put them on your blacklist, avoid. I have looked at your profile, given your name, and seen that you are from Israel. My guess is that the person who partnered you on this hand is probably anti Israel. It is so bad that this happens. Racism should never happen on BBO, or anywhere. Instead of abusing you with words, that you could report, he has chosen to do it this way. I would still report this to BBO.

It is unlikely to be passed out in 2♣ - there are so many red cards missing - so that is what I am going to bid. Bidding anything else just looks dumb. In the absence of having Gazzilli on board, the hand, even though it is 6-5, is not that strong, so I would introduce the ♣ suit at the two level. If partner now gives preference to ♠, we are then worth another bid, but not before. It could be a horrible misfit with partner having 1♠5♥5♦♣2

More Crappelletti, than Cappelletti :(

Richard Pavlicek's bridge site - thanks - provided the odds of 7-6-0-0 shape as 17970 to 1. I have seen Zia with a 8-5-0-0 hand where the odds are 31947 to 1. But having two 7-6-0-0 hands against you back to back...well I cannot remember that either! The opps. on the second hand cannot have been that good as instead of bidding 6♥ quickly surely a bid of 5NT is better. Partner could have ♥AKx(x) and would not know whether to raise 6♥ to 7♥ but I think I would on that bidding.

I think 4♣ is obvious. Partner has heard you pass twice and still bids 3♣. I guess you were scared of pushing them to 4♠ but that, to me, is thinking one step far ahead. You have to tell partner now that you have support and some values and bid 4♣. If you do not bid 4♣ now, and the opps. bid 4♠ you have lost your chance to show your hand.

LOL :) Without agreements, with a unknown partner, or a regular partner who sometimes makes bids unknown to you, I would take it as a pre-empt, with a couple of honors and seven card suit and out, no interest in your suit. Other than that it is a jump-fit or splinter, spin a coin.

Great hand to post, helene_t. Sure got me thinking. It is too good to pass, but there is a bridge maxim that if you do not have a bid available then you should pass. I like mikeh's suggestion because partner should turn up (on probability) with about 8-9 points here, and as you have the other suits covered, there is a good chance he can cover the ♦ suit. And at red/white you sure do not want miss a vulnerable game. But there is the other probability that partner is more like to have <7 points than 8-11 so game cannot be made. Is anyone a member of bridgewinners, because a poll there and comments might be a stronger base to get opinion? Given that Kit Woolsey, Zia, Larry Cohen and others comment there, I would like to know what they think is best here.

Nope. It's a bit more complicated than that. The robots would have to understand why they are making the bids. Bridge is a far more subtle game than chess, which is effectively number crunching various positions in a linear mode. The Russian and world chess champion Mikhail Tal used to make positions deliberately complicated for his opponents, but if his opponent had been a computer program, the program would just number crunch faster and more accurately than him. His chess method was sometimes psychological, but can computers learn a similar psychology at bridge? I doubt it. There are far too many variables for a bridge computer program to assimilate: chess effectively is a series of patterns, with moves that are conditioned by how a piece moves. Even if a new bridge program could look at the billions of boards that have been played on BBO, or at least a few million played by expert players, it also needs to understand so many factors other than bidding and play. I am not saying it will not happen within the next 20 years or so, but it certainly will will not be happening by 2025 in my opinion.

I have always played attitude leads to mean that I have a long suit and a honor against a NT contract (although other partnerships may play it differently). The more I look at this hand, the more difficult it gets. It will be interesting to see what the right line was.

Interesting discussion, and having looked at this a few times, I am now appreciating how difficult this is +1 to lamford. If the ♣3 is attitude, then that should mean LHO has the ♣Q. I am tempted to play the ♣J here and then take the ♥ finesse. The problem with this hand is declarer can end up squeezing dummy and get endplayed himself. It is indeed a tough hand.

ROFL :) So North turns up with a 11 count and two useful ♥s :that happens every day of the week - not! I know, I know, East/West are unlikely to end up in a major suit contract, and 1NT-2 might give them a top, but bidding off the cuff like this is dangerous. There's a case for North raising vulnerable, or suggesting game surely? Oh, the commentator did not suggest that. Bidding 2♥ might be right sometimes, but it is not the percentage call. I am with you, AL78: suit quality matters.

Agree. A "grit teeth" X at whatever form of scoring and vulnerability. You could have a worse hand than this, and whilst it is not the ideal shape it does have a (poor) four card ♠ suit, and when you X any weak two [major, Multi] bid I would hope that my partner would have four of the other major. Bidding 2NT instead here automatically prevents partner bidding 2♠ which could be the only making contract. I do not like 5422 hand for doubling generally, but you have an extra honor card to make up for the shape so not bidding and expecting partner to balance makes life difficult for him. Better to X and apologize after if it is the wrong decision.

Nice hand, poor suit, I would not even make a direct overcall at white/white, let alone red/white. If you had a conventional bid available showing two/(three) suits in one bid then I would be using it, but with caution. The dreaded -200/-500 at MPs comes to mind. So as it stands with no conventional bid available, I would pass here.

It's a slow burn scan, similar to fraudsters who scam people on online dating sites. The scammer builds up a level of trust between the client and scammer by asking the client to do certain things, and the scammer does other things that build a level of trust for the client. A two way dialogue is started. The big hit comes later, maybe days or weeks, or even months down the line. Anyone who is not gullible would have disappeared off the radar quick. It is similar to gambling, and the gambler who cannot stop putting bets on, because that is what they hope to find: someone with a addictive personality who is not quick on the uptake. I cannot work out in total how this scam is operating - I admit - other than starting the dialogue, but that is all the scammer needs. It is no different to sales methods employed by car salesmen, who once they get a client interested, start to negotiate the price, give away add-ons such as a free warranty, gasoline, etc. The bigger picture is the sale of the already overpriced car whatever it takes, the big hit.

That is easy to say seeing all the cards, but I agree with this principle +1. What does 2♠ then 3♠ after 2♣/3♣ actually tell us? Nothing much other than North is possibly minimum with a 6(+) ♠ suit. I think if you are at least 5+♠4+♥ shape, you should be able to mention the ♥ suit at the two level. I doubt if any 2/1 books - well I had look through a couple - cover this topic adequately. The problem with this principle though is that when you then mention the ♠ suit again is it looked upon as length or could be taken for some other conventional bid such as a cue. It is a good hand to post, jillybean, so +1 to you also.

Totally agree. I think with 2/1 the only time you do not want to GF is with a poor 12 (perhaps with a misfit also), not a good 12 with aces, and a good suit. The 1NT forcing/semi-forcing response should only be used where you have a poor(ish) hand imo, except if you have something conventional going on. To me this is not even a "almost" GF: if my partner did not GF here I would be upset, even if we cannot make game when the cards are down. The one thing with 2/1 is that while a two over one response forces a game auction, players do have the option not to go to game. I watched one expert partnership land on a dime and stop in a 4♦ contract - the only contract that made using a 2/1 auction.

Artificial Intelligence will never beat Common Sense. Period.

4♥ must show a control in ♥ and slam interest imo. If you had 4♥4♦ and game values, you would have bid X on the first round, not 2♠. 4♦ would be forcing also as both hands have shown extras with their cuebids, but you are telling partner nothing doing this so 4♥ looks a better bid.

In support of ♦s this hand is huge. Extra trump, ♠K probably right, ♥K very useful, first round control in ♣. I am not sure that the 2♠ bid is right here, but that is what you have used. Partner must have extras for his 3♥ bid (otherwise he would have bid 3♦, I guess.) Imo there must be play for 6♦ and partner is going to have a 5 card ♦ suit and be unbalanced on this bidding. I will just bid RCKB here, and when partner shows 2 aces (and Q♦) which surely he must have, bid 6♦. If the opps. lead the ♠Q and we lose the first two tricks then it is a case of **** happens, but there does not seem enough points in the pack for East to overcall 1♠ at red, and for West to have the ♠ ace. If partner surprises us and shows three aces then I am not sure about the grand as we could have reverse mirror distribution such as ♠Ax ♥AQJx ♦AQxxx ♣xx where it is just about possible for East to overcall 1♠. Another case of **** happens lol :(

I think the other question that needs to be asked is what system are you playing in the first instance? I am all for splinters having a tight range and shape because of the amount of bidding space that is lost. Having a tool in your toolkit is all well and good, but knowing how to use the tool is absolutely essential. We see players bid stiffs immediately when a 2/1 two level response is more better, and players bidding splinters on voids, breaking the 'splinter stiff' rules.

I do not see the value of supressing a solid seven card suit here. Bidding 3♥ just seems the sensible option. If you X and the opps. raise to 4♣ and partner bids 4♠, then where do you go from there? I know, I know bidding 3♥ does not allow partner to rebid a ♦ suit at the three level, but even if he did what would you bidding any number of ♥s after that say? Solid seven card suit? I doubt it. I think you have reasonable play for 6♥ with many hands that partner may hold. Obviously, there are hands where slam will not make but you have have to take the reins in this auction with your good hand.

It is a difficult hand to either defend or play, and a 1NT contract, especially doubled (redoubled), is interesting for both sets of players as it can be on a knife edge. I feel your partner's lead of the ♥K does not feel right with 4414 shape, but that is easy to say seeing all four hands. I would be leading a ♠ to try to set up (extra) tricks in the four card suit that is not well covered. Leading the ♥K "to have a look at dummy" is not sitting well with me, but what I would do at the table I cannot say. As I say, a tough hand to defend. If west had found the inspired play of the ♦Q pinning the ♦J at trick 2 that would have made it more interesting :) Lots of endplay possibilities given the opps. shape.

When I looked earlier, there were 31 players reading this including us. I find it a bit crazy why BBO has put my forum comment on its "News" page. How are the forum comments picked for this page? AI? I would have thought that forum posts containing bidding, play and defensive problems would be the best to post on its "News" page, engaging players beyond the actual Forum pages in possible discussion. Anyway... Many thanks for stating that you would vote for forum posts to be included on the main BBO site. I have learnt so much myself from the forum pages, and there seems a small hardcore of forum posters who contribute regularly with the occasional comment made by players outside the forum structure. A few new faces would be welcome, that is for sure!

I guess I am not the only one to notice this, but there was always a link to some posts on BBO Forums on the main BBO page as "News". Over the last few days this has seem to have disappeared. I know, I know, most players and commentators login or look at the forum pages by accessing the BBO Forums icon on the opening BBO page. However, by having one or two entries on the "News" page seems to generate a lot more interest in topics as sometimes I have seen 20-25 players online reading the forum entries, instead of the usual 2 or 3. Has BBO ditched interesting BBO Forum posts on the "News" page, and if they have what, if any, is the reason(s) behind it? Or is it a temporary thing, and they will return soon?