jdeegan

You can perform a number of screens. 1. How do they rate themselves. 2. Sometimes BBOskill.com can give you a guide. 3. You can examine the past two months of any BBO player's results. 4. Make notes for BBO players you encounter. 5. Are they a BBO star. Most of them can play at the very least OK.

With no gadget to show this hand, I think a quiet 3♣ is a little better than 2♠ or double. Unless LHO bids something like 5♦ or 3nt, I plan to bid ♠ next time.

OK, I am onboard for 4♠, but what would double have to mean for it to be the correct bid? I would be worried about partner bidding 5♣ with something like J fifth and a bad hand. I really think one has to more or less give up on slam even though it makes on this hand. It takes almost the magic hand with a stiff heart plus some other key high cards.

I am a bit confused. Why is this a problem? The hand presented looks like the most obvious 5♣ opener I can imagine. Granted, there might be some table feel to suggest something else, but I can't picture what that might be.

It's OK Mike. Tomorrow will be a better day.

After the publication of The Silent Spring in 1962, major institutions with so very much at stake and such amazing resources were determined to be at the forefront, right, wrong or indifferent. You really had to be there to appreciate the emotional climate. Even in 1970 Exxon was funding MIT research on global warming. They simply wanted to be the first to know. Exxon and their allies write the regs.

Working in the corporate planning department of Exxon in the late 1960's, the only thing we knew for sure was that lead in petrol fouled catalytic converters (CC's). Without CC's the automakers would have been unable to meet already mandated exhaust emission standards. Everything else was just for public relations purposes. We promoted it as long as it supported the basic idea to 'get the lead out'. This is not to say most of this stuff wasn't true. Even then, it seemed pretty clear that getting lead in your system was not healthy. The whole thing worked out fairly well in a muddling through sort of way. Curiously, most of today's small, turbocharged, high rpm, auto engines using computer chips for control purposes don't need CC's to meet exhaust emission standards.

Nobody can properly analyze 9000 bridge hands. Madam, you are a fakir and a fraud. You are an idiot turned loose with a computer and a first year grad student's knowledge of statistics. You present a double dummy playing analysis based on a potentially very biased sample.

I recall stopper asking as coming in sometime in the early 1990's. It has been more or less standard amongst good bridge players in North America ever since. Not that I can defend this treatment, but in the absence of discussion it should be the default.

I think LOTT can be a useful guide at any form of scoring. Lotsa trumps GOOD. Not so many trumps BAD.

1NT, wtp?

You are describing what I rather cavalierly dismissed as the WRONG way. No offense, but I don't know anybody who has had success with that approach playing 5 card majors (SAYC or 2/1). It is an interesting idea - "bid spades if you have 'em even a little, double if you don't to show cards". I can see trying it out, but teaching it to intermediate or advancing players, maybe not a good idea. Arguing in print about various merits and demerits is, imo, not very useful. Players everywhere seem to hate the idea of bidding ♠ w/o five or more, hence the Army way has become the accepted norm.

Addendum to my initial posting. If you do choose to play a system that allows a negative double w/o 4♠, it is incumbent to be selective. The following is an actual hand from this afternoon. Your partner is one of the best bridge players in the history of the game. You hold: [hv=pc=n&s=sajth763dk98ca853&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=p1d1h]133|200[/hv] This is not a negative double because the ♥ ruff is in the wrong hand with an almost certain 4-3 fit. Also, you have enough strength to make the correct bid of 2♣. The South player did make a negative double. LHO bid 3♥. Partner bid 3♠ (a slight stretch). RHO passed. South had extras, so he bid 4♠. Down one despite a generally favorable lie of the cards, and a good guess of the trump queen by the best dummy player alive.

Thanks for a really good lesson on the merits and demerits of rebidding 1nt with 4♥ or 4♠ or even both. I have noticed top level players doing this, at IMPs, for some time and wondered. In essence, the idea is that defining your hand as a weak NT opener (both a limit bid and showing shape) is more important than showing your major suit(s). Makes sense to me, I think. Hard to break old habits, though. Usually, responder will not bid 1♦ holding a 4 card major with less than 10 HCP. Consequently, the window for 1NT getting passed out when a 4-4 major suit fit is available is small. On the other hand, a fair percentage of such hands will offer good plays for game. So, maybe I am becoming a Walshite at last. Never bid 1♦ over 1♣ holding a 4 card major unless you have at least a game try opposite a weak NT opener.

As the old saying goes: "There is a right way. There is a wrong way, and there is the Army way." In this case bidding 1♠ on four small is the WRONG way playing SAYC or 2/1. Try it for a while, and you will soon see. Using a negative double to show exactly four ♠ with no mind as to other suit lengths is the ARMY way. It works quite well if combined with the support double. It is easy to teach to beginners. The RIGHT way is to bid 1♠ on a spade suit playable opposite honor third or, in a pinch, three small (Q108x or better). You can now afford to make a negative double with three good ♠ playable opposite partner's ♠ Qxxx. In this case you are fishing for an almost certain 4-3 fit. The whole point is to make use of the rank of the ♠ suit to occasionally preempt the opponents who won't know if your side has nine ♠ or only seven, something your side will usually be much better informed about. If the hand belongs in game for your side, you have bidding room to sort out between (usually) 3NT and 4♠. Mainly, though, you get to play most 4-3 fits that are playable and avoid most of the hopeless ones. Do keep in mind the first rule with 4-3's. The ruffing value belongs in the three card hand. Bidding is partly mental play.