Echognome

Partner won't necessarily have to come to life again. What would you call if the bidding came back around: (P) - P - (1♠) - Dbl (2♥) - P - (2♠) - P (P) - ? Here I think we would want to bid 3♥ having already passed initially and passed again over 2♥. However, I do agree with yours (and everyone else's) general point of limiting our hand even further before taking any action.

You're beginning to sound like Vizzini.

I learned them as LSPA (which was neat since at the time I was living in Leamington Spa, UK). Lousy (BH, BS) Suit (BH, GS) Points (GH, BS) All (GH, GS) Don't forget the 3NT bid showing a solid suit.

I pretty much agree with you. I actually feel it's close between pass and double given I think our pass is forcing. I just hate doubling with xx in trumps, but agree that our singleton ♥ is a nice feature on defense. Supposing our pass was not forcing, would we still want to double? With a singleton in partner's suit, two aces, another possible quick trick and empty suits I think double is 120% clear when pass is forcing. I would puke if partner goes to the 5-level after I invited him to do. If pass wasn't forcing, I would still double. I also would have bid 3♣. I don't like double with a singleton heart and a 6-card suit that I probably can show now or never. Well, I'm pretty sure it's ok that I respectfully disagree. I mean I know we are discussing on several fronts, so let me separate them. If pass is forcing, and we are looking at no wasted values in their suit, then why wouldn't I want to encourage partner to bid to the 5-level? Partner has bid 4♥ without any guarantee of support. He's probably looking at a great suit or a good club fit with us and a reasonable amount of hearts. We have no wastage in their suit! Since partner has already bid 4♥, is he going to show his hand again if we pass? He will make a decision based on his own holdings now and the most likely action he will take is double. I will obviously have no problem sitting for it. If partner does go on over 4♠ are we really that unhappy? You may puke, but apparently I have a tougher stomach. Really the only reason I might try to double is because of the vulnerability, so sorry if it's not 120% clear to me. If pass is not forcing, then again it comes down to whether we want partner bidding again with the appropriate hands. Really, you and I both should consider what hands partner will bid on with and what hands he will pass or double with (or in the case of a FP, the hands he will double with). That is the judgment required of us. I find that partner will rarely bid hearts a 3rd time here. We have a flexible hand on both offense and defense, and I do find the decision close. On the plus side, you can feel good that the decision is crystal clear to you.

I don't think so. Not opposite a hand that could not bid 1♥ over 1♦.

I think that given partner could not muster up anything more than a 1♥ response when forced to bid, the strength is somewhat wider ranging. We might have a hand that would have bid 3♣ if partner had responded with 1♥, but now that we have dredged up partner to bid, we might decide it is prudent to rebid only 2♣. Of course, the auction itself would tend to imply that we probably have more than minimum strength (why else have the opponents only been able to bid 1♦ and then remain quiet thereafter?), but I guess it's possible to construct an auction where that is the case. Regardless, I don't think we will have game aspirations on this auction, so am not sure what the issue is here about deciding what the actual strength the bid shows and what the actual strength the 2♣ bidder is likely to have.

I pretty much agree with you. I actually feel it's close between pass and double given I think our pass is forcing. I just hate doubling with xx in trumps, but agree that our singleton ♥ is a nice feature on defense. Supposing our pass was not forcing, would we still want to double?

I personally think that 3♣ was an overbid as I would play it as game forcing. I would have started with a negative double. Having evaluated the hand as a GF, I guess to pass now and accept whatever partner decides to do, but admit it's a guess. Suppose the auction had started with a 1♠ overcall, where I agree we would have a 2♣ bid and would not be in a forcing pass situation. Suppose the rest of the auction had remained the same, then I would pass now as I don't mind if partner bids on, doubles, or passes. Finally, suppose I had started with a negative double, then I would also pass now, with the same reasoning as above. I don't mind if partner passes, doubles, or bids on, as I have already shown my strength with my negative double. The problem I have in the actual auction is that I'm light for my 3♣ call. Partner will make a decision based on me having more values than I actually have.

I think you should add another requirement for a positive that you will have a certain number of controls along with your high cards. We define a positive as 9+ hcp and 2+ controls. Thus if we held: QJx QTx QJxx Qxx we would actually start with a 1♦ response (we can always drive to game after this start) and partner will get the idea of our hand type. We do make an exception holding two bare aces as being "9+", but otherwise stick to our requirements. I think it's ok to fudge a little with good shape, but then you and your partner need to agree this is a possibility and take this into consideration in further bidding after learning partner's shape. For the semi-positive, we require that responder holds at least one control, so a hand with one or two Kings or a hand with one Ace might fall here.

I could see it deteriorating to something like happens on Yahoo Spades. "Don't play against these two, they are a partnership and have played before." "Yeah. They must be cheating." As far as I understood it, Spades *is* a partnership game. But apparently, people that play together a lot are considered cheats. Basically, I can imagine something like it in person, but think it would be awful online.

Also note that at some tables they will not get a spade lead and depending on the location of the ♦A, they might not be able to take the spade finesse as they have no route to dummy. Here I think I would take my 10 sure tricks and run. They might error later when I set up my spades by trying to cash two clubs and leaving me an entry to cash them. Who knows?

Or perhaps a simpler solution is to have a restriction on kibitzers to "Friends only" of the table host. It wouldn't necessarily be the ideal solution, but I imagine it would be a heckuva lot easier to implement.

Agree with Ken, except the play of the Q at trick 1 was a (very slight) mistake. Just play low, win the A and draw trumps. Easy game. :o

Congrats to Andy. Well done mate.

And perhaps in that scenario, the point is to go up with the ♦A, cash the ♣A playing the ♣J from hand and then lead the ♣9 from dummy, trying to persuade South that you had a singleton ♣ and so not rise with his K on the second round. ;) Why not first try winning the ♦A and playing back the ♦8? A lazy south might not cover and you can throw a club. ;)

Well, my answer to that is that they tried it and discarded it. Once upon a time psychs were made a lot more often and forcing pass systems were allowed (e.g. Walpurgis Club). They decided that wasn't for the best. You think it is. Maybe that's because it's more enjoyable for you and is less enjoyable for others. Whoever gets to decide what's right, decided. So you are unhappy. Not much I can say to help you, other than try to consider that there are plenty of other people that play the game. Maybe you can take home the satisfaction that you are willing to play "all out bridge" and feel others are protected. Maybe other people actually care that some people should be able to follow the game at the highest levels. Who knows?

Then you dont need to worry at all. The masses are playing social bridge bridge in small clubs. Most of them never heard of tournaments with curious names like Bermuda, Spingold, Vanderbilt, White House etc. And they are not interested in systems. They dont even know the name of what they are doing themselves and never heard the word 'convention card'. The masses plays WHIST. Explain why you believe that the game should be fundamentally different for the world class players than the rank and file. It seems like your argument is "they wouldn't understand anyway, so who cares if we alienate them?" My argument is as follows: 1. If we make the understanding of the game at the highest levels accessible to the masses, they will find more interest in following the game. Of course, what is the norm may vary by country, but I think there is a strong case for making it understandable to the largest group of people. So, allowing Precision for say the large group of players in Asia seems sensible. Allowing a forcing pass does not. 2. Suppose we take your route of having broad allowance of systems. Where do we stop? Do we simply allow anything under the sun? If not, who should decide? Haven't they already decided? If so, would if be any fun to have a race to the most unusual randomizing conventions? 3. The "right" way to regulate is a tautology. It has come about through a long process of discussion and trial-and-error by a lot of smart people. So here you are saying you have a "better way". Who are you to say it's better? Don't you think a more lax system has been tried before? Why did they change it to the current system? 4. The rank and file should get enjoyment out of watching the world championships. Look at all the armchair sports fan that get enjoyment out of watching the same game that they play on the football pitch, the cricket pitch, the baseball field, etc.

I've been told in the past that the first bid in a potential canape sequence is not alertable so long as it is natural (ie 3+ in a minor, 4+ in a major). Regulations may have changed, or I may have been misinformed, but I don't think it is "insane" to think it unalertable. I guess that answers my questions. I find that bizarre, to say the least.

Ok. So if you don't think opening 1m with your shorter minor is not "highly unusual", what about: 1. Opening 1♥ with 5-5 in the majors 2. Opening 1♥ with 5♠ and 4♥ playing 4-card majors 3. Opening 1♥ with 4♥ and 5♣ 4. Opening 1♦ with 3♦ and 5♣ 5. Opening 1♦ with 4♦ and 6♣ I mention these, because they all seem a "bit unusual" and I would consider them all alertable.

With Phil, we routinely open minimum balanced hands 1♣ and do alert. We consider it a multi-way 1♣ system, but it is not Polish club. I think if you are routinely opening a shorter minor, it would fall under the "highly unusual and unexpected" category. I don't think you need anything more than that. Of course if they opened 1♣ on Kxxx Qxx xxxx AKQ, I would just consider they used "judgment".

I don't think this is a fair analogy. Suppose one NFL team decided to try a play where they made two forward passes or made a forward pass beyond the line of scrimmage and said "why can't you be prepared for this? this is the NFL." I mean everything is down to the set up of the rules and the rules may change as is the whim of powers that be. (e.g. the forward pass was only made legal in football in 1906) What should really matter is what is best for the sport overall and in my view that means what is best for the masses.

Yeah. What Csaba said. Comparing say x Kxxxx AQx Kxxx with say x AQT9x Kxx Kxxx.

I think an interesting question would be how much of a weaker hand before we determine it's a one-bid hand and we double versus 2♥.

Maybe it wasn't that special, but it seemed nicely played to me at the time. The diamond is indeed singleton. If you ruff the ♥Q though, you will get style points, but go down. Here's the full deal: [hv=d=e&v=n&n=skj9863h64daj6c72&w=st74hj32d9742cqt5&e=sa52hat987d3caj98&s=sqhkq5dkqt85ck643]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] If you ruff the ♥Q and play a top spade, East can win the A and exit a low club. You hop K, but now have no way to get back to dummy to draw trumps without getting a ruff. You can also take the alternative line suggested of playing a club to the K and then discarding on the ♥s to go for an overtrick.

Seems an almost textbook double according to your definition.