Trumpace

The BPO forum already has 10 pages of topics. Even though it is not currently used, people might be reading old threads. Why wipe those out? But good that you posted, maybe it will revive interest in BPO...

Pass.

The issue I see here is not about knowing when to bid 3NT vs 5m. There is a more fundamental issue lurking I think... On hand 2 your 2NT bid says, "Partner, I don't trust you to make the right decision". Bridge is a partnership game, and half the time your pd will be the one to decide the final contract. On hand2 you should bid 3♦ and then your pd can then choose between 3NT and 5m/6m if there is a decision to be made. You don't have to make all the decisions yourself, you have a partner sitting opposite who will sometimes be in a better position than you to judge the hand. Trying to make all the decisions yourself just shows that your fundamental understanding of bidding (and not just minor suit game bidding) needs improvement.

I think bidding on is ridiculous, even at matchpoints. I am fine with the previous passes.

Assuming ACOL is similar to SAYC... (If not, please ignore) Frankly, I think you are playing in a bad field and got lucky to gain IMPS. On Hand 1, if 2♣ bid is unlimited (like inverted minors), then you either bid 2♥ or 3♣ if 2♥ will be construed a reverse. What was 2♦? If 2♣ is limited, you should pass 2♣. On hand 2, seems like you might have a slam: 6♦. 2♦ by North is an underbid and 2NT by south is just wrong. On hand 3, a direct bash of 3NT is ok and might even work out in your favour, like it actually did for you. On hand 4, what was 3♣? I think North went crazy opposite a limited 2NT bidder. Sorry to have not answered your question...

To me 3♠ looks like a unilateral decision. You don't have a fourth trump and you don't know if pd has some heart values. Playing in 3♥ X is a distinct possibility, which only partner can decide. Sometimes partner will pass 3♥ when 3♠ is making, but I don't think you should bid 3♠ because of that. Also, your entry position is not great (especially if you have to ruff a heart), and your club holding might not be worth much.

No - I am saying that this is a restricted choice situation and, even though I am not using a conventional restricted choice argument to come to my conclusion as to how one should play, my conclusion is the same as that which would fall out of such an argument. In other words, I guess it is accurate when you say I am "ignoring restricted choice", but only in the sense that I am able to come to the same conclusion in a different way. Of course it is possible that I have made a mistake, but I don't think so. Fred Gitelman Bridge Base Inc. www.bridgebase.com Ok. Now I understand. I misread your post as going with a-priori probabilities. In fact, your reasoning looks correct to me now!, the key point (for me) being "does it really matter (make you change your line) if LHO played the J as compared to the T"? Since it does not really matter, you can assume you don't know exactly what it was, and reason assuming that it is one or the other, which is what you seem to have done. (For the more mathematically inclined, I suppose it is same as the claim P(LHO holds King| he played Jack) = P(King|Ten) = P(King | Jack or Ten)) PS: By "you" i didn't mean specifically you, it was just a generic word... Perhaps I should have used "one"...

As a general practical approach, I agree, opponents spots can be ignored, but for this specific case, that reasoning does not apply, IMO. I don't think you will be able to prove this mathematically, as your reasoning seems to ignore restricted choice (or Bayes principle) which (I think) needs to be applied here. If you/someone can mathematically prove what you say, I would be very interested to see it. In the current problem, if LHO is always known to play J from JT, it seems it is a guess whether to play low or Q on the second round (so my earlier statement of always playing Q seems incorrect to me now). In fact, one extra factor for playing low is that RHO _might_ have risen with the K on the second round if he had it...

Yes and yes. Playing the Queen gains only if LHO started with J10 while playing low gains when LHO started with either KJ or K10. If LHO was dealt a singleton J or 10 your play doesn't matter. <snip> The above reasoning seems incorrect to me: you will always play LHO for KJ or KT (irrespective of LHO's habits). Say LHO played the J under the A. Then isn't KT ruled out? of the relevant holdings, he either has KJ or JT. The question is, from which is he more likely to play the J and that would be KJ as from JT, he _could_ have played the T. So against an unknown/good player, playing low instead of Q will be correct. If you knew LHO always plays J from JT, then playing the Q is correct. What am I missing?

When Chuck Norris defends, ice cold contracts vaporize.

Fan13027, Be honest to yourself. Do you really think that knowing whether 3C or 2D is better suited to michaels playing with a random partner will improve your game (not results, but your game)? If that is the _only_ piece of information you are interested in, I am sorry to say this, but it appears that you are hoping to shift the blame of passing 3C onto your partner. If it is not so, I do apologize. btw, your question was answered... hopefully by my earlier post, and pclayton's post after that. Good luck. I do hope you don't leave because of this thread.

If it was me with a random partner and no agreements, I would take 2D as natural and 3C as some sort of a cue-bid (and so not passable) and not natural. 2C was a natural bid. It could be bid with a 5 carder, or even 6 carder suit. Do you really want to play in clubs? Considering that 2C shows length while 1D need not, with a random pickup I would take 3C as a cue-bid. So in my opinion, given the situation, your partner was correct. People might come up with reasons for the opposite though, but I don't think it really matters playing with pick-ups. If you are looking for a "based on general principles" kind of approach to answer this question... I don't know, the best answer I could come up with is above. Perhaps some experts can answer that more clearly.

JustaDummy, Sometimes ppl go overboard and post hands which are beyond beg/int, do not be discouraged by that. There is plenty of useful material in this forum. Also, If you do not understand something, please do not dismiss it as gobbledygook or advanced material, just ask, and someone will surely help you understand it. If you don't ask, you might actually be dismissing some material as advanced while it is actually not. If it is actually advanced material, usually some will say so and you will know to come back to it later.

One common mistake IMO, beg/int make is to immediately bid NT with a void in partner's suit, with the reasoning that "we have all suits covered" and it might be safer to play in NT. Think about how the hands will play in NT vs the trump contract. On Hand 1) I think your partner should have passed 2♣ and you should pass 2♥. On Hand 2) You should pass 2♥. Bidding NT on both the above hands really does not gain any safety as compared to playing a 6-0 trump fit (IMO). If both are minimum and discover you are in a misfit, it pays to get out early rather than trying to find a safe spot.

If you can use the windows client, but prefer using the flash UI, there is a way... Create a dummy account, say furiop1. Log on as furiop using the windows client, create the table and reserve a seat for 3 gibs and furiop1. Log on using the flash as furiop1...

Maybe. The issue here seems to be whether to take the anti-percentage action during bidding or not, for which the information we have is insufficient, IMO. Who knows, this might have been the last board and an absolute top was required. Bidding 4H likely won't get you that. I don't understand why people are being so harsh and calling it a basic mistake/bad bridge/masterminding etc. You do need to take the state of match/goal into consideration before deciding whether an action was reasonable or not, and especially so if that is what the original poster seems to have in mind.

I think we should program BBO to censor out (v)wdp and (v)wdo if the profile does not say "Expert" or "World Class"... lol :rolleyes: About wdp/wdo, it is annoying because they expect a typ/tyo in response and think it rude otherwise. I don't care whether they think the hand was played/defended well or not and frankly I don't see why people are _so_ offended by such comments.

FWIW, I have sympathy for North. If they don't have a heart fit, there is no option but to play in 3NT and not bidding stayman might come in useful during the play (might lead to a spade lead, though). If they do have a heart fit, in 3NT they would be in an "anti-field" contract, which is probably the right place to be given the state of the match. All this talk about basic error etc seems pointless.

What about the dire situation of the match... why doesn't anyone mention that?

This is an old International Math Olympiad problem, and if I recall correctly, the answer is ....

Maybe we should move this to the WaterCooler right away... You are kidding right?

IMO, determing if a player is good or bad depends on 1) Their bidding judgement 2) Their play and defense. What conventions they do play or don't play, is irrelevant. There might be a correlation, but I think it is a very weak one. It all depends on how well the convention is used, not how good you think the convention is. (Note: the above applies to amateur players. Not sure about pros) I find it strange that people actually seem to ridicule others based on the conventions they play...

Happy Birthday :) and keep up the honesty, a rare quality these days.

Belated. :)

Recently, I came across an interesting deceptive play involving both defenders in the trump suit. South was in 4H after 1H - 3H - 4H (E/W passing). [hv=d=s&v=n&n=skh542dkt985ca985&w=sq542hqt3d7cq7432&e=sj9863hj8daq64cjt&s=sat7hak976dj32ck6]399|300|Scoring: Rubber Lead ♦7.[/hv] West led the ♦7. East took the AQ and gave West a ruff in D (ruffed with the ♥3). West now returned a spade to K. South now played a heart from dummy and East played the J (!) from J8, South the K, and West dropped the Q from QT. South ruffed a spade in dummy, and then finessed the ♥9 losing to the T for -1. East has to play the J to bring about the deceptive play. If he plays the 8, declarer is forced to play for the drop. Was this brilliant defense by E? or just lucky? or is this well known?