thepossum

Thx everyone

Hi all I would be interested in people's thoughts on opening with this kind of hand (IMPs) I chose 3C, ended up with 4S+1 by East, not a bad score but 4C-2 or 5C-3 scored much better I also considered opening 1C but thought it was too misleading, despite the number of tricks My chosen (Pavlicek et al ) guidelines for pre-empts are overbid 2 tricks at unfav vul, 3 tricks at equal vul and 4 tricks at fav vul In this case I reckoned I had 6 tricks (+3 for equal vul) -> 3C However I noticed a range of opening bids including also 1C (which I had considered), 5C etc. What are the best options plus if my opening bid was ok should I just keep competing to 5. How do you decide when to stop given no support comes from North at all. regards P [hv=pc=n&s=s74ht96d6ckqjt985&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=pp3cdp3sp4sppp]133|200[/hv]

1. I don't answer any quiz in Bridge that only allows only one right answer 2. I don't answer any quiz in Bridge that doesnt start by describing the bidding system/conventions being used 3. I don't answer any quiz where I feel there is ambiguity and opinion involved 4. I don't answer any quiz set by people who seem to think there is only one correct answer and that they know it Its a good set of questions for discussion, as per above, but please Bridge people don't ever fall into the trap of badly designed and structured multiple choice questions. Too much of that happening in academic assessment these days as it is, let alone in Bridge and other places :)

Thx Felcity and Stephen regards P

So Imagining that the cue bid a correct cue bid by a human that knew what they were doing and that it represented game/slam interest. My understanding then is that with a minimum hand (10- points) I bid 4C and then advancer corrects to 4D if necessary, but with a stronger hand 4D is the correct bid, or some other natural bid. Then we end up in 5 or 6 and go down 1 or two anyway - so just bad luck - mst of us ended in 5 or 6 but my judgement was that a 4 part score would have been my preferred contract, and sure enough that was what made. Those who ended up in the best part score contract did a 2C overcall followed by 3D. I dont know if North was strong enough for the cue. Its not a bad hand with 4 diamonds and two controls and singleton but hardly strong enough to suggest minor game/slam interest. Its not a bad hand but has a lot of losers after an opening bid and an overcall. Maybe its just one of those unfortunate traps [hv=pc=n&s=sq6h6da9753caqjt9&n=saj93ha732djt42c8]133|200[/hv] The other options I understand by advancer are 1- with a weak hand bid 3 of best minor 2- with a game/slam interest cue bid 3- a bid of spades or NT would have been a natural bid and non forcing BTW I'm not learning to play :) you should all know that by now :) , and I was interesting in discussing the unusual 2NT and options rather than having a go at GiB

Thx I think the cuebid wasnt useful. The description was that it promised diamonds - I thought cues were showing game/slam interest and asked opener to show strength with a C or D bid. However the description promised 3+ diamonds so I had no choice really but to bid 4D. I guess I could have bid 4C and then advancer bid 4D but I was rather thrown by the cue bid and its description. I would have thought a 3D advance was better than a cue bid. Maybe its just unlucky that 5D went down and game interest was correct. The other issue is that its hard to reach 3NT with that kind of auction - not that it would be successful in this case

Hi all I recently had this hand, called an unusual 2NT (Im not very experienced using it) and ended in 5 Diamonds rather than a part score which would have been preferable. The reason being that North cue bid hearts rather than simply bidding their best minor - playing IMPs What do you think the pros and cons are given that the 3rd level major cue bid leaves very little room to decide on a part score, possible 3NT or possible minor game I didnt really want to bid to game, although it only went one down, and certainly didnt want to bid 3NT (I thought about it). 3NT goes down a few tricks I felt on reflection that both the 2NT and the 3H cue bid used up far too much space before we even knew we had a likely part score or minor game, and no room to be sure of chancing a 3NT game P [hv=pc=n&s=sq6h6da9753caqjt9&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=1h2n(Unusual%202NT%20-%20minors)p3h(3%2B%20Diamonds%209%2B%20Points)p4dp5dppp]133|200[/hv]

I know I was shouted down and attacked last time I mentioned an issue like this so I refer the readers to other threads for the unfounded abuse I am likely to get here However it is ridiculous for anyone (including GiB) to bid 5NT (even number of keycards and void) when you (or GiB) have zero keycards. The whole point of Blackwood is to avoid unmakeable slams Excuse me for expecting the occasional bit of common sense bidding Fortunately this time it occurred on Hand 1 of a Free MP tournament so it didnt waste my precious time and dollars, unlike other occasions PS the modification to the code would be quite easy In psuedo code its something like If (currentbidder=ME) then If ( partner.previousbid()=="4NT" and Not(isQuantitative(partner.previousbid())) and me.myhand.numberofkeycards()==0) then case (ME.biddingsystem().blackwoodtype) 1430: ME.mycandidatebids={"5D"} else: ME.mycandidatebids={"5C"} end case ME.bypass_simulation_algorithm/thinking_to_save_processor_time/brain_and_partners_good_mood_time_and_money() ME.bid(select best candidate bid from(ME.mycandidatebids)) return else ME.run_all_the_rest_of_your_code_or_bidding_system() return end if else ME.waitformyturntobid() end if

New suit after Texas was an Ace showing cue bid in system I was playing

I think Jacoby followed by 4C was a splinter and not a cue in the system (GiB 2/1) I was playing. I think I checked all cue bid options after Jacoby and they were not available Cue bids (4S etc) were available after Texas 4H Note also, I checked that if you do a quantitative 4NT after Jacoby 2H, then North bid to 6H but that seems a rather ill defined sequence There was also a quantitative 5NT available, inviting to 7NT which resulted in 6H also A few players also bid a second suit after the Jacoby transfer to force the auction

Thankyou for everyone's comments Here are the four hands with my auction. Sadly as has been pointed out the 4H wasnt a strong enough bid and was passed by North in this case. North had a very nice fit for everything, despite the 4-0 heart break regards P [hv=pc=n&s=sa32hakt943d82ca7&w=skqhj652dq3cq9542&n=sj64hq87dakj54ckj&e=st9875hdt976ct863&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1n(15-17)p2d(Transfer)p2hp4h(Mild%20slam%20try)ppp]399|300[/hv]

Thx everyone :) Matthias is corrent that Blackwood over transfer did not exist - it was quantitative - I have deleted it Regarding Texas I alays thought that it showed only game, not slam interest - but to be honest I forgot about it as always - it was a nice option since you could initiate the slam discussion The interesting thing about Gerber is that in this case is acted as a transfer too since the response was 4H :) PS I will post the hands later and it does potentially make 7H (with smart trump play and finesse) and 6NT - despite having a bad trump break. No idea what the correct odds are but I certainly did not want to be in 4H :(

Sadly I took the wrong approach and was left in 4 [hv=pc=n&s=sa32hakt943d82ca7&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1n(15-17)p]133|200[/hv] regards P

Thankyou Hrothgar Very interesting analysis! I'm sure I will have many questions once I've read it. I guess my first question is how much you can conclude about individual behaviour by looking at distributions across all instances and players in a tournament. I imagine you would need much more data on individuals and more complex analysis of the variances. It seems that those torunament/instance level average distributions are relatively stable distributions/profiles Just by way of example, in my own hands I havent noticed any real significant difference in variance between different types of tournaments, my means vary but not my overall variance (althogh there is some difference). However you would need thousands of hands for many individuals to see if there was a difference across player behaviour on average. Note my personal hand sigma is around 30-31% :) EDIT (not that it matters to anyone but me), but my sigmas on different tourneys are closer to 22-28 (small samples and time periods). I overstated my variance by making calulcations on mixed up tournament types. I would hate to think that anyone who knows me read these threads :) However I am seriously interested if anyone actually thinks its possible to separate individual variances from all the others in such complex tournament and game as bridge

bcalc by Piotr Beling has double and single dummy solvers. I believe it is impossible to calculate single dummy probabilities well but his software includes a number of simulation options and programmable constraints and a script language. It also includes bdeal which allows you to run simulations of many hands Of course single dummy simulation uses double dummy with random samples of hands much like GiB I imagine http://bcalc.w8.pl/ I also think there needs to be a better approach to double dummy simulations. I think most calculate a mean number of tricks when in fact the distributions are more complex and different statistics and distributions may be more appropriate. However you can write scripts to do the more sophisticated analysis - eg probability of each number of tricks and work out strategies for different situations For example MPs and IMPs would have different goals etc Its quite run experimenting with simulations and scripts. But you would need a lot of time to produce a really good simulator and player and its never going match good humans. Also real bridge is not double dummy. But its worth a look Also you need to consider that 1) most contracts are unreachable using most sensible bidding systems - so there is only a subset of candidates and 2) everything from bidding, leads, play etc depends on different players knowledge, competence, style, mood, error distributions. Its impossible to say that there is a 75% chance of making 3NT, say. You can get a rough idea on a distribution with certain assumptions and playing a certain way. But the level of uncertainty and lack of information and how real players deal with information is just massively complex.....

Come on Gordon. You cant use that argument to defend obnoxiousness from people. Bridge is essentially a bridge club. Bridge base hosts this site and is responsible for its content. If senior memmbers of the club keep abusing other paying members of that club then that does not reflect well on the club, the companny or the site. All I'm asking for is an end to the incessnt rudeness from some characters. It seems to have an unpleasant culture, clearly built up over time without any attempt at moderation. You get the sme behaviour at the tables, from kibitzers, on the forums from some people. I made a perfectly reasonable friendly post, as always and was treated rudely again. I for one am not prepared to put up with that level of obnoxious attitude

Typical responses. Exactly what I expect from some of the characters around here Who has been told this before. Certainly not me. If that is the case then the bid descriptions should be changed. Its certainly not common practice i my experience to lie during Blackwood Sorry you cant resort to usual attack mode when there is an error or lack of clarity :) I know it makes sense to not be concerned about the Q with a 10 trump fit but there was really no need for the attitude. I think some of you are just so used to being rude to each other all the time you even attack people who post a perfectly reasonable and friendly query. God only knows where some of you lot learned your manners and behaviour From personal experience and in my own business I have generally found that when a paying client makes a polite request I don't treat them like *****, be rude them and show obnoxious attitude. But seemingly this place is different. Amazing you are still in business BBO

Hi all Recently I was very lucky in a tournament. Well I could have been very unlucky and upset being told partner had the Queen on this hand but was relieved that GiB did not make the winning lead. It has happened a few times - showing the Queen in RKCB Maybe GiB felt bad and balanced it up with the lead :) regards P PS I've also had a few bad occasions when GiB showed even keycards and a void with 0 keycards. I think it is generally preferable to show zero keycards in the case of zero [hv=https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?lin=st||pn|thepossum,~~M7815,~~M7813,~~M7814|md|2SA3HJ854DAQJ84CKT,SQJ984HQT6D76CAJ4,SK72HAK9732DKC765,ST65HDT9532CQ9832|sv|o|rh||ah|Board%208|mb|P|mb|1H|an|Major%20suit%20opening%20--%205+%20!H;%2011-21%20HCP;%2012-22%20total%20points%20|mb|P|mb|2N!|an|Jacoby%20-%3E%20support;%20balanced%20--%204+%20!H;%2013+%20total%20points|mb|P|mb|3D|an|Shortness%20--%201-%20!D;%205+%20!H;%2011-21%20HCP;%2012-22%20total%20points%20|mb|P|mb|4N|an|Blackwood%20(H)%20--%204+%20!H;%2020+%20total%20points|mb|P|mb|5S|an|Two%20or%20five%20key%20cards;%20queen%20--%201-%20!D;%205+%20!H;%2011-21%20HCP;%20!HQ;%2012-22%20total%20points%20|mb|P|mb|6H|an|4+%20!H;%2020+%20total%20points|mb|P|mb|P|mb|P|pc|DT|pc|D4|pc|D6|pc|DK|pc|S2|pc|S5|pc|SA|pc|S4|pc|HJ|pc|HQ|pc|HK|pc|C2|pc|SK|pc|S6|pc|S3|pc|S8|pc|S7|pc|ST|pc|H4|pc|SQ|pc|DA|pc|D7|pc|C5|pc|D5|pc|DQ|pc|C4|pc|C6|pc|D3|pc|H5|pc|H6|pc|H9|pc|C3|pc|HA|pc|C9|pc|H8|pc|HT|mc|12|]600|400[/hv]

Thx Hrothgar. That is definitely the auction I was hoping for. Many of us reached as far as 2NT like that, but partner (in this case GiB) was reluctant to bid 3NT and bid 3S forcing South to either bid 3NT (passed) or blackwood and transition to NT with the right controls. Unfortunately since we had all the controls Blackwood didnt help identifying the other weaknesses in the hand, as you suggest regards P

Hi all I (South) recently had this hand (North dealer) and was trying to get to a 4NT quantitative but couldn't manouvere the auction in that direction and ended up having a punt on 6NT via suit Blackwood exploration. The hand does make 6NT on some leads (and defensive plays) but is really only a 4NT which would have been how the quantitative worked out (3 points short). Any tips on how to bid this and get to quantitatives. Note that North opened bidding with 1D and the NT responses I considered didnt seem to fit right, so I continued with a 2C force and we ended up exploring a heart slam which I converted to 6NT. But I was trying to get to 4NT. 1NT and 3NT responses were passed by North. The 2NT range wasnt correct either and 4NT response is Blackwood. Should you bid 2NT anyway and risk being passed or should North continue after 3NT. It seems the point ranges are missing something regards P [hv=pc=n&s=sjt2hak9dat3caj73&n=sak97hqjt8dk754c4]133|200[/hv]

Thx Stephen regards P

Hi everyone Minor suit transfers and stayman are fairly new to me (since I started playing BBO tourneys and all the conventions "thrown in" to GiBs convention card) and of course don't occur very frequently due to their different requirements and approach to major suit stayman and transfers. However on a few occasions after a minor transfer I have missed an excellent chance of 3NT due to either 1) underestimation by responder of potential of their hand or 2) a decision by me not to ignore the transfer and bid 3NT with a good fitting NT opener. Following recent discussions on alternatives to regular accepts of Jacoby transfers, is there more latitude in minor transfers for opener to push for game if they have a top 17pt NT and a good looking fit for the 6 clubs Here are two example openeing hands (one of which I played and was unfortunately passed by responder). I considered a 3NT bid which would have made easily in this case (I will show responders hand later). I know this one is risky in spades and it really requires responder to decide but I have given a second slightly modified hand The first only has 16 points with vulnerable spades so I believe it was right to accept the 3C transfer despite the excellent club fit [hv=pc=n&s=sj2hak98dkt92ckq2&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=ppp1n(15-17)p2n(Transfer%206%2B%20C)p3cppp]133|200[/hv] The second I have given 17 points, the same club fit and better stops in spades. I cant find any guidelines on the concept of a 3NT superaccept for minor transfers [hv=pc=n&s=sa2haq98dqt92ckq2]133|100[/hv] Or ... is it always up to responder and you have to live with missing out. Also how many people actually play minor suit stayman and transfers. As I say they are fairly new to me and dont occur very often. or..... with the second hand would you consider not opening 1NT regards P

Thx Wuudturner regards P

Hi Tram Thanks for the response. I did originally post it as a play problem but thought it simpler to post the hand and the way I had played it rather than trying to explain the leads, plays and discards. I felt the original post was very untidy and unclear and thought better to put up a clearer post Thanks for the response I figured it was probably impossible or unlikely to work out a play. I assume the person who made 13 tricks isnt used to playing probabilities with drops and finesses. :) regards P

Thanks :)