Echognome

Good point on 5♣. I missed it in the poll options (although other is available). Our auction was different, since we had a bidding misunderstanding, but was just trying to get a feel for how it may have gone.

[hv=d=s&v=b&n=skxxhxxdacakqt8xx&s=saq9xxhkxxxdkjxxc]133|200|Scoring: IMP 1♠ - 2♣*; 2♥ - 2♠; 3♦ - 3♠; 3NT - 4♦; 4♥ - 4NT; 5♣ - 5♦; 6♦ - 6♠; All Pass[/hv] *Game Forcing I'm not sure if the hand is too easy, but the declarer at the other table went down, so I thought I would post it here. As usual, Adv+ please let BIL answer first before posting (hidden preferably). Lead: ♦5 Plan the play

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=sxhakqt9xxxdaqjcx]133|100|Scoring: IMP 1♣ - 1♥; 2♣ - 2♦*; 3♦ - 3♥; 3NT - ?[/hv] *ART, Forcing --> 3♥ forcing For this problem, you do not play jump shifts over partner's 1m openings. You pick up this monster and are pleasantly surprised to hear partner open the bidding. You are a couple of bids in and may or may not agree with your earlier calls. But here you are. What now?

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=sxhxdat8xxxcaqj9x]133|100|Scoring: IMP P - (1♦) - ?[/hv] What's your call here?

[hv=d=w&v=e&s=sjtxhqdjxxxxxckjt]133|100|Scoring: IMP (P) - 1♥ - (1♠) - ?; (2♠) - 3♥ - (P) - ?[/hv] What are your calls on each of the rounds of bidding? Of course your action on the first round will affect everyone else's action. However, to keep things simple, I'm holding everyone else's actions constant.

Since I only have 10 tricks off the top (2♠, 2♥, 2♦, 4♣), I need to develop 3 more. Guessing the heart suit is not enough, so would need both the heart suit and one of the pointed suit finesses to work. If diamonds are Qxx in the slot, I can claim. Therefore, I will start there. Assuming I don't go down immediately, but the ♦Q doesn't fall, then I will go after guessing hearts. I won't play on spades, since the extra trick still isn't enough. I guess I'd have to see which way the cards fell to decide who to play for the ♥Q.

Happy birthday!

As a suggestion, perhaps the laws would be better suited to have a section that the players are required to know (such as the suits, ranks, order of play, scoring, etc.) and the rest they are not required to know. I would venture a natural divide being normal play versus the treatment of irregularities.

I think this is the important question. On the given auction it started 2♣ - 2♦. Many play 2♦ as negative and many play a 2♥ double negative, so that 2♦ is game forcing. But wait, Han mentioned that there auction was entirely different and the 2♣ - 2♦ start was a translation of their actual auction. So I think we need to figure out what the meaning of our bidding is here before we can make an intelligent decision on what to do now.

1. 3♣ 2. 3♦ 3. Depends on what I have shown. My likely answer is 6♦, but if I have already shown a modicum of values, then I will change my answer to 5♦.

This seems to be exactly what I, and others are against: the UI to partner, even though he should know your system ---that if you bid something other than 3C you have a strong hand. Of course that is bridge logic, but any explanation which says what your rebid will mean is wrong, IMHO. Fair comment. I think it's helpful to add that it's a request not a demand and leave it at that.

For the Lebensohl situation, my solution has been to say, "2NT is a request for me to bid 3♣, and shows various hand types. I am not required to bid 3♣ if I have a very strong hand. The hand types partner can have are a sign-off in a suit, invitational hands, or certain game forcing hands. Would you like me to elaborate further on the specific hand types?" That seems to have worked well for me in the past. I don't know what others think.

I wonder if this is something researchable in bridge browser (or whatever the name of the database is).

My application for the IQMB is above.

Did it show clubs? If so, it probably would have been better to not alert or call it anything unless Opener must make a specified set of rebids to show min or max. Or maybe we should alert our passed hand 2C response to 1M as "natural and forcing for one round, with no artificial follow-up structure". It certainly is highly unusual and unexpected, since the vast majority use some form of the "D" word. no, it had nothing to do with clubs, it was just limit raise values and they would continue bidding to find the right strain. You are confusing me somewhat with your use of the term "limit raise". To me "limit raise" means you are showing a fit, since you are "raising" my suit. The "limit" aspect of it is that you are showing invitational values. Compare that with "weak" or "preemptive" or "mixed" or "game forcing" raises, all of which show a fit, but imply different strengths. Perhaps what you mean to say is "invitational values", which may or may not have a fit?

I cannot imagine Bill Gates ever buying an ipad, an iphone, an ipod, or any other apple product.

The statistics seem to show that your partners are better than you. (Sit > Dec and Def >> Lead) I don't understand why you're declaring over twice as many hands as your partners (843 vs 347). Anyway, to answer your question, I would think reading and practicing. There are plenty of books about opening leads. They will talk a lot about listening to the auction and visualizing the layouts of the hands. Practice the visualization. Before you lead imagine what the opposing hands look like. Then after you lead don't just ignore all you thought about. Does dummy look like you expect it? If not is it because you don't agree with dummy's bidding? or is it because you hadn't considered dummy's hand as a possibility? What about after the play is done? Try to make a little note on what you thought declarer's hand looked like when you lead. You don't want to spend time right after the board finished analyzing it, but if you can study the hand records afterwards, then you have an opportunity to analyze your thought process versus the actual hands.

I think we are somewhat missing the point. No single bidding sequence is sufficient without further details. You can take any bid that works out and if at the table, the person looks sheepish and says "I thought I pulled out bid X, but then saw Y on the table after partner had already passed." However, there is the other extreme where you investigate and they really don't have a good answer or even admit to something. Clearly one case is enough if they admit to it. Right folks? The number of cases is irrelevant in my view. However, Josh has provided us with an example where it would be pretty tough to explain one's actions if they didn't misbid. It doesn't mean they can't be explained, it's just harder. In my view, the bidding is just one part of the evidence. The critical remaining pieces of evidence have to be explored by the TD after being called to the table.

Unfortunately, some of the worst ethics perpetrated at the club I frequented while I lived in England, was by a person that taught beginner bridge classes.

Somewhat of an aside here. I have heard a lot more when I lived in England that when anyone insinuated "cheating" that "you will hear from my solicitor". It seemed such an idle threat to me. I don't know that much about defamation (slander or libel) of character in law (in the U.S. or in England), but I never hear about any cases in the media. To me it just seems like gusto and bravado that you will hear from my lawyer. Also, aren't there defenses of the statement being true or that the statement is just an opinion? I'd be interested in hearing from our legal experts on the board if they actually deal with any defamation lawsuits. I understand that sanctions from the acbl are quite another story. Note that I do understand that the acbl accusing someone of cheating is quite different in that they are an organization that can be sued. I recall reading that settlements have been made in such cases in the past. I just haven't heard of any lawsuits involving individuals. However, they may be out there.

Or open 1♣ depending on the system.

I always found it funny that we use the word "finesse", which seems of French origin (I'm sure Mr. Burn can help us confirm), when the French use the term "impasse". I also like in French how "impasse" and "expasse" seem to express related concepts, whereas in English we use "finesse" and "play for card x to be onside" or something else equally awkward.

I'll stick it out.

I played in Ireland once with three members of the university team. After some poor performances in the morning session, we mixed things up in the afternoon. We played "lucky dip" for partners and "lucky dip" for bidding systems. So you drew for your partner that session along with a baseline system. The systems were pretty wild. One of them we played psycho suction openings with psycho suction responses. The little old ladies (and men) there weren't bothered in the slightest. For just plain bad system, I remember that a common convention at the first club I joined in England played that over their weak NT, 2♠ = 11hcp and 2NT = 12 hcp.

Hope you have a great day celebrating with your family. Give them my best.