jdeegan

:P I think this commentator said it all. Rules are to bidding as grammar is to literature.

:P I am trying to get my almost senile mind around this controversy. I give up the relatively frequent penalty double when I am 5-4 in the majors for a 'takeout' double when the opps are almost certain to have a nine card (or better) ♥ fit and I have pretty much the same values I promised to begin with plus a heart shortage????? Yes, I suppose it does define a hand that can stand three of a minor if pard has the right 5 or 6 bagger holding, but it does issue an ingraved invitation to the opps to bid 3♥, just in case they have a memory lapse. Please help me Rhonda, am I losing my mind?

:P You can easily visualize six given your hand. The problem is how to invite. Pard should have no ace, so you have to intice him to cooperate with the right hand composed of kings and queens. I think maybe 5♥ is best. That's where the trouble may lie. Two black kings or one black king queen combo covers your black suit losers. A fifth ♥ would be gold. I would rather bid 6♥ than pass.

:P Bridge is supposed to be fun, but the duplicate game does impose a bit of rigor. Recognizing a 12 card hand that is placed face up right in front of you is not an unreasonable demand.

:P I am 100% with you on the exploitation of college athletes. Believe me, it has cost me plenty. I think realignment will alleviate the situation, at least a little, to SEC standards at any rate.

:P Things here in the heart of America are starting to get serious. We presently have an unfortunate situation where no less than three college and university athletic conferences are named 'Big' - the Big 10, the Big 12 and the Big East. This is just WRONG in so many different ways I can't even begin to comment. At long last the situation is starting to resolve itself. The 'Big' East and the 'Big' 12 are self-destructing. What are YOUR thoughts on conference realignment? Where do YOU think THE UNIVERSITY (of texas), ZERO U and ZERO State, Texas Christian University, Brigham Young University, Notre Dame University, Texas Technological University, Southern Methodist University, the University of Nebraska, the University of Missouri, and others unmentioned should end up after the realignment?

:P When Al Roth invented the negative double 50 years ago it was said to be for hands where you felt like you needed to bid but didn't have a proper call. When I innocently asked what the rules were, everyone laughed and said: "don't worry kid, you'll know one when you see one". They later added that you had to have at least 4♥ when you double one ♠, and a ♠ tolerance or better when you double 1♥. The south hand is far from a perfect negative double, but a double is, imho., the lesser of evils. South's subsequent 3♦ call is ?????????????? I guess it shows eight diamonds and out as other commentors have said. Having passed the first time, South should pass again. It gets him to the par contract on the hand as bringing in the club suit is below 50%.

:P Oops! Misread your post. I have no idea what to do now. Maybe pass over 3♣ and try to go plus with half the deck in front of me. Wtf was your double about? You don't have ANY ♦. There is only one unbid suit. Are you just showing off? You pose an idiot's problem.

:P The old fashioned SAYC system was itself once a 'modern' development that proved well adapted to matchpoint duplicate. It was easy to learn, and it got you to most small slams (except for 6D which was most often played in 3NT). A significant benefit of strong club systems that you see from some of the USA2 pairs as well as Meckwell, Hamman et. al. is that it enables weak opening bids in the other suits. This remains, so far, one few ways to swindle elite players out of their God given games.

:P Same here. Oswald Jacoby played it this way.

:P I stand corrected. With enough bells and whistles 2/1 seems to be a match for anything. Personally, I am glad since it makes top level bridge easier to kibitz. Plus, you can play it almost anywhere with almost anyone.

:P I don't like this at all. Either my partner hates his hand, or else we lack both red aces. Given that, pard needs the magic hand: ♠ KQ, ♥ QJ, and ♣ KQ with some wasted ♦ cards on the side. I pass 4♠.

:P I, personally, would open the hand, but it is right on the cusp. Opps seem to have more problems when our side gets in the first bid. I have an easy rebid of 1NT at MP's or 2C at IMP's. I just can't visualize how we can comfortably get back into the auction if I pass. This is certainly not my favorite hand to open, and it could easily go wrong. Bridge is a game of percentages.

:P That auction is sort of the quintessential non-forcing bid in SAYC. It is why 2/1 was invented for IMP games in order to get that extra level of bidding to facilitate slam auctions. Good bidders will outbid mediocre and bad bidders almost regardless of the systems used. I actually prefer SAYC for matchpoints. Indeed ACOL with weak NT and 4 card major openings is not a bad way to go at MP's here in the colonies. Even experienced opps sometimes have trouble coping with what to them are unfamiliar competitive bidding sequences. If you want to max out your IMP scoring capabilities, then most of the top players use a strong, artificial club opener. 2/1 is a sort of a second rate compromise.

:P 6♣ Great problem. RHO's preempt has done its job. I'm not going to double because it is not clear what it might accomplish, and with five clubs, I don't want to chance that pard might leave it in. We might go down or miss a grand, but the small slam in clubs seems to me to be a happy medium.

:P Even the lesser: Q10x Axx QJx 10xxx works because you can win the ♥ opening lead, knock out the ♦ ace, the discard two ♣ on the next two hearts. Also, don't forget that opps are marked with at least nine hearts. The odds of their having ten ain't too bad. In that case, all sorts of hands will produce a decent play for 4♠.

:P Just a second thought. I would begin by querying RHO about their system. What I'm worried about is that the reason LHO didn't open 2♠ with a 6 bagger was his secondary 4 bagger ♥ suit. That would leave him with only 3 minor suit cards. Pard then becomes fairly likely to be 3-3-5-2 and the ♦ suit 2-4 or worse. I would still dbl most of the time, but it is another element to be considered.

:P Why did pard bid 3♠? He can't be anticipating you are 5-6 in the pointed suits, so he must like the moyesian even if the 4 bagger is in the wrong hand. It sounds to me like the ♠ Qxx, the ♥ ace or a doubleton, and some fitting ♦ cards. 4♣ is a good, thoughtful, bid which ought to get you to the best spot. Before reading this thread, I would have bid 4♠ on the theory that if pard likes ♠, so do I. Passing 3♠ might work but seems anti-percentage to me. 5♦ is masterminding the hand unnecessarily and probably incorrectly.

:P Tough choice. Playing against a blank slate, double first, Pass second, 2NT third, 3♣ fourth, 3♥ no way, imo. Pard's expectancy is 8-10 HCP, so no neg dble probably means no four card heart suit. You are entitled to consider the quality of the opps, their demeanor at the table, and the state of the match. Against superior opps early in a long match, you might reflect on the fact that the most you can lose by passing (probably) is 5 IMPs, whereas your potential downside is much more if you bid. Against weaker opps your pard may have a penalty pass. You have to ask yourself, where did the vul vs nvul 2♠ bid come from? No weak 2 bid opener, but a potentially dangerous 2♠ jump overcall. Did RHO tank and then pass with a glum demeanor? Is declarer likely to lose an extra trick as declarer in 2♠. Opps will lose 100 per undertrick even if they aren't doubled. There is so much to consider that the analysis could go on and on. Covering all the potential cases is too much for me tonite. But, thanks for an excellent problem hand.

:P Oh dear! If 4♣ is awful, what is 5♣? You have answered your own question. You have a balanced min with 4 trumps. Nothing suggests 4♣, much less five. The most you can possibly gain is -500 vs -620. If the sac happens to be right, pard has to bid it.

:P This is the sorriest possible hand one can construct. If you worry about this possibility, you are playing scared bridge, not a good idea.

:P UR correct, it's not a min and deserves a 4♦ Q bid, but it is 'only' 13 HCP, and ur opps are hacks. This not, imo, a very good hand to try to catch the opps for being unethical. They apparently did do a job on you, but you can't really prove it. Most people don't appreciate that a non-serious cue of the ♦ ace is almost mandatory over 3♥ with good trumps. Even so, passing 4♥ is still not correct, imo, unless you really open light. If nothing else, trot out 4♠ and then subside. With ♥ AKJxxx and ♣ king he will get us to an excellent six. ♥ AQJxxx and ♣ king is still OK. ♠ king and ♥ AKxxxx still has some play.

:P Do I understand this presentation correctly? Your partner opened 1♥ and subsequently indicated a minimum opener with six hearts? ♥ AKQ and the ♦ A would, indeed, be the magic minimum, but that holding produces a laydown for SEVEN. Any number of minimums produce a laydown, or at least a 50%+ play for six. Assuming I haven't missread something, a pass here would be a nullo bid. Playing oldfashioned bridge 4♠ is clearcut. 4NT RKC may be better. I just looked at the actual hand. It is the magic min plus a seventh trump. I probably would have cue bid the ♦ ace, but the players you describe sound like a couple of hacks, so their slight lapse of bidding judgement is probably normal for them. At least they were good enough to know not to pass. By the way, did they reach seven?

:P I guess my oldfashioned SAYC would get to 3NT. P-P-1♣-P 1♠-P-2♣-P 2♥-P-2NT-P 3♥-P-3NT- all pass Third seat you might easily choose to open the semi-balanced 15 HCP hand 1NT. Personally, I would almost always choose one club because of its lead direction value. Even so, there are a variety of tactical situations that might, imo, call for a 1NT open.

:P I feel your pain. I play a lot with pick up pards on BBO, some of whom are very good players. You have to be practical. Your hand suggests 6♣, so I would just bid it. The idea that if 4NT is quantitative, then 4♣ is G**ber is a good one, imo. I remember Johnny G**ber from my younger days in Houston, although he never deigned to actually speak to me.