Echognome

Can't think of anything other than 2♥ and then 3♦. 2♠ sounds like we do not have a heart fit, but why not try to find a fit in diamonds? By the way, if we were a tad stronger (with the same shape), I would have bid 2NT the round before. I just don't think our hand is good enough to game force with the misfit.

When I used to have connection problems, the easiest way to recognize them is to look at the lobby count. If it's ticking up and down, then you know your connection is good. If it remains the same number, then you know your connection isn't working.

Ken - If you think LHO is 5332 shape, isn't there a good chance that clubs are 3-3?

So over a 1♣ opening you have 4 ways to raise clubs. I think many pairs have only 2 ways to raise clubs (2♣ and 3♣). So given you have 4 ways to raise clubs, I can imagine not needing a "mixed raise". However, I also bet what others might consider to be a mixed raise fits nicely into one of your categories. For what it's worth, I would categorize raises as: Weak/Preemptive Mixed Limit/Invitational Strong/Game Forcing I normally play 3 raises of a minor, by combining the Limit/GF raises into an inverted minor structure played as Limit+. As per "needing" a mixed raise to win, I think you obviously "need" a way to show the hand, as you aren't passing it. My guess is for you that you will either show a mixed raise hand as a weak hand or a limit raise, depending on whether you upgrade it. As per the tournaments won, it is a silly little debate. Suppose you ask a question on bbo "what should this bid look like?" and someone replies "you don't need that bid. Is that why you lose?" How would you react?

Now I bid 2♠.

I agree with Phil. I think the key to the hand is to try to set up clubs without LHO getting in. So I lead a club towards dummy and try to duck one into RHO. If LHO plays a middling club then I rise with the K and play a club back towards hand. If RHO plays low then I rise again and hope RHO has Qxx. On some layouts I can accomplish ducking to RHO and on others they may make a defensive error. I don't really see anything else I can do.

Of course by that argument, why doesn't opener just bid 6♠ over 2♠?

A possible auction: P - 1♠; 2♠ - 3♦; 4♦ - 5NT; 6♦ - 7♦ I think if responder is going to accept the invite, why not show why he is accepting by bidding 4♦? 4♠ can be bid on a variety of accepts and does not show the nature of the hand. Another possible auction: P - 1♠; 2♠ - 3♦; 3♠ - 4♦; 5♦ - 5NT; 6♦ - Pass If responder takes a less rosy view, you can at least get to the better strain.

2♣ seems obvious to me. I'm not even sure Marshall Miles would bid 1♠ here with such a disparity in the black suits.

1. How do you bid over your partner's 1♣ opening holding: a. ♠ Axx ♥ Kx ♦xx ♣AQTxxx b. ♠ xxx ♥ Qx ♦xx ♣AQTxxx c. ♠ xxx ♥ xx ♦xx ♣KJTxxx 2. Was your edit really necessary? Maybe you can list all of the great tournaments you have won?

Some of you aren't thinking outside the box. What if Ant is playing that all weak NT hands open 1♣, so that 1♦ is unbalanced?

Am so disappointed. I thought this topic was about something else...

The initial description is inadequate, but heck, the opponents are pre-alerting. So let's ask for their system card and try to find out a bit more information. I wouldn't think of calling the director, unless the opponents were unwilling to answer the questions I asked them. It may end up not being as complicated as they are making it out to be. If they were friends of mine, I might talk to them afterwards and help them come up with a better way to describe their system. If not, then I wouldn't broach the subject with them. I have some sympathy for making the pre-alert description brief. Back when I played transfer openings that could be canape, I would try to explain all the important bids to the opponents before we started. For example, I thought they would want to know that 1♠ is one or both minors, no 4cM and unbalanced (else open 1NT). Many times I would get eyerolls and the opponents wouldn't want to know. So I tried to unveil the system like an onion, depending on how many layers the opponents wanted to go into. It certainly doesn't mean I was successful at explaining my system. So maybe this pair just needs a little help in explaining things clearly. However, maybe they think they are doing an adequate job of disclosure and need a bit more than that.

Ah well. I should probably give a non sarcastic answer. Win the Ace. Cash two rounds of hearts. Does the J fall? Yes. Then playing for the overtrick. No. Then cash my spade winners and ♣A. Finally cash the ♥Q and see where I'm at. I have options in both minors as well as the ♥ throw in possibility.

I win the Ace.

Was 4N intended as natural or RKC? With Jason, would clearly be RKCB. Note that both hands pushed in the auction. For what it's worth I was opener. Although responder hasn't shown any real strength, he hasn't limited his hand either. I just would imagine after responder bid 4♦, I would exuberant with my hand. Hard to know for sure. The final bump of 5♦ to 6♦ was speculative, but I couldn't imagine responder bidding 4♦ without the Q!

I bid it with Ch00 on IM. 1♥ - 1♠; 3♣ - 3♦; 3♥ - 4♦; 4N - 5♦; 6♦ - Pass

Somewhat a loaded question. If we are playing "standard signals" then you have to tell us what "standard" means. If you mean "High encourages, low discourages" then we can send only two signals. There may be some "standard exceptions", such as playing the Queen with QJTxx. However, if you extend to the question of what an expert partnership might agree, playing standard signals otherwise, you might have a little more bite to your question. If partner knows I have a five card suit (e.g. I overcalled), then we play after the lead of an A or K that high means shift to the highest non trump suit. Low means shift to the lowest non trump suit. And finally a middle card says to continue the suit. However, I wouldn't consider that "standard signals", but I also wouldn't think it an uncommon treatment.

The idea that I'm espousing is to have a separate calculation done for TopTricks in addition to whatever calculations/simulations GIB does for its normal play. I have no idea that Matt Ginsberg is a brilliant person. That does not me he has (or has not) thought about running a separate calculation in parallel. Of course this separate calculation will be additional to any processing time GIB needs. If it was given an order to run this separate calculation first, I think it might be able to offset the processing time, because it wouldn't need to get to the point of simulations whenever the top tricks function kicked in. As Helene mentioned, Jack allows you to claim, but it does not allow you to claim any number of tricks. So I don't believe this is reinventing the wheel (except perhaps that the code for Jack is intellectual property, so I'm sure is not readily available). I personally think it would be an improvement for GIB, especially if it means GIB can claim and accept claims. However, it's easy for me to say, since I won't bear any of the direct costs needed to make any such upgrades. So I just file it under something that would be nice.

Isn't that what WCP (Well Claimed Partner) is for?

Blocked suits. What to discard on the winners. Making sure AK opposite QJ is not 4 tricks. The extra time it would take to run when it won't even matter on over 99% of the hands. Back to the drawing board... I don't think it would take very long to run it if it were limited in what it calculated. I believe it would be more than offset by the fact that it could now claim. In fact, I would think that a GIB claim should not be able to be disputed. However, it's not me that has to program it, so I could easily be over simplifying what it would take.

Definitely the cajun place. I guar-un-tay it's mo-nay.

Agree. Just wanted to point out that Josh's exception here is when you are deliberately treating your 6 card suit as a 5 card suit not to rebid it. It is a shape distortion you make, because of the distortion in honor location.

I have heard of people playing 1M - 2x - 2M as both 5+ (my preferred) and 6+. But I have not heard of anyone playing 1M - 1N - 2M as showing 5. I don't really understand how that even makes sense. If you play a nonforcing NT, then with a 5M332 hand or a 4=5=2=2 or even a 4=5=(13) hand (e.g. Kxxx AJxxx K Qxx), you can pass with a minimum. If you have extras, then you can agree to open 1NT with a 5cM, play a forcing NT (see below), or rebid 2NT (depending on how much extra). If you play a forcing NT, then you cannot pass, so you agree to play 2m can be 3 cards. You can then have the further agreement that diamonds is 4+ and clubs may be 2+ (if you play, e.g., BART). You can discuss with your partner what you do with 4=5=2=2 hands (likely 2♣). But I have yet to hear of a 5cM system where you would rebid your major after 1NT with only 5 cards.

I wonder if there were odds on betfair for any (or all) of Josh's events.