HeavyDluxe

Today, I downloaded a couple old bulletins from a past EBL Youth championship. One hand in an article showed a 6-card position from which south could take all the remaining tricks. The article made the position's solution seem obvious, but it took me a while to figure it out. Are there any good books of single or double dummy problems out there that you'd recommend a int+ player consider working through? I'd be particularly interested in any that have some 'exposition' of the right solution and some pointers a to why alternatives are incorrect. Thanks....

Ok, your original comment was funny enough when I thought you were just being cheeky. Now that I see you were serious... ROFLCOPTER etc

Happy Bday, Adam...

Agree with what's been said.

I learned the real basics at the table with my folks and grandparents when I was 12 or so. I played maybe a 20 hands between then (late 80s) and 2005. I joined the forums in '05, around when I started to get 'serious-er' about the game.

I absolutely think it's forcing.

Spades, though I think it's definitely not crystal clear.

*trying to keep a straight face* Sorry, 4♣ is obviously gerber. Ok, ok... In all seriousness: 4♣ is showing shortness, and trashes my hand. I bid 4♥.

Easy pass.

I'm with y66, now... 3NT was the alternative before, and I wish I had bid that. 5♦ with a wince.

I don't play leb here, but over 2NT* I think 3♦ looks about right. IIRC, that's a little extra and likely a 6 card suit. Seems to fit.

1♦

2♥. I'm interested to hear/see part two.

1NT, I suppose. When I get creative, bad things happen.

1♦, 2♣ understandable but inferior methinks.

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=s52hk7dt9caqj8752&s=saq963haq53dakqck]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Where does your auction get you?

Thanks all... On this hand, it was actually a moot point... we were, between the two hands, missing only 2 jacks and landed in 7NT. Pard expressed a strong opinion that I should've reversed. I never considered it. If I had another H in ♥s, perhaps. For the record, I bid 2♦. I when I raise on three cards in 1m - 1M auctions, bad things always seem to happen.

♠Q94 ♥A652 ♦AKJ83 ♣J Are you planning to reverse with this hand? 1♦ - 1♠ ??

As has been stated, I think 2♣ is not the best bid for this hand. That said - and risking a threadjack - would any of the 1♥ openers instead open 2♣, intending to bull-in-a-china-shop their way to 4M, if partner was a passed hand?

re: the ♦ stuff... yes, we're boned if they don't rise with the Ace. I thought I could ruff a spade and still get in, but then I'm short one. Mea culpa.

I started with lose a ♠, win a ♠, ♦ towards dummy, ruff the expected return, ♥A, then ♥ ruffs and diamonds for pitches. Eventually ruffing the last ♠ in dummy unless ♦s break 3/3. But, being at the office, I can't really check this. :o

"As Keeper of the Sanctity of ACBL-Land, I will not allow your vile 'ferts' to pass!"

Yea Saith Fred: *nods* In celebration of the 'new depression', we started have card night with another couple. They decided - much to my shock and joy - that they want to try bridge for a while. So, we started with Minibridge this past time... It was a blast. It makes sense out of what the auction is trying to accomplish ("If we have more than our average share of 'power', we rate to take the 7th trick or even better!") and makes the game readily playable. While I'll grant this isn't "Bridge", we ended the night with people who were interested in playing again - including my wife who (in an effort to be kind to me) has tried to learn before and always got turned off by the 'incomprehensible' auctions. Keep 'open' tourneys open, but start a couple events that enforce mostly natural methods and I think you'll see interest in the game boom.

Let's start by asking what the goal of putting bridge on TV would be... So? Well, I imagine the biggest one would be to generate interest in the game, money for businesses that profit from bridge, and put more fish in the pond for good players to fleece for cash. If that's the case, why do we insist on grousing that simplifying the bidding system for that purpose is 'something other than bridge'? If a 2♦ opener means "I have weak hand but think we can take the majority of tricks with ♦s as trump or we can at least break up our opponents bidding", I think that's profoundly easier to grasp for the audience. If, on the other hand, 2♦ is multi.... If the goal is to market bridge, then we should create platforms to market the game simply so people get hooked. THEN expand their horizons. JMNSHO.

THIS. By the way... Chess on TV by kids @ http://www.worldchessnews.com/ For the record, I think bridge on TV could work. Simplify the scoring, simplify the bidding (so it's reasonable for the viewer), get good commentators, add a big enough prize purse, and I think it could fly.