jdeegan

:P Wow! Reminds me of the night Jake and I invented the Jacoby 2NT. Jake had been using the 3NT bid as his strong raise in the majors on the grounds that it was an idle bid. I convinced him that playing 5 card majors, 2NT was almost an idle bid (you need the right 2-3-4-4 for it to be the optimal call, but with that holding you can temporize). And, of course, you save a huge chunk of bidding space by using 2NT. The rest is history. Johnny Gerber was a genius for inventing the 4♣ ace asking bid. In its day it was a godsend. Every little old lady and clueless customer in the land knew 4♣ was always Gerber. Anyone with half a brain could engineer an effective slam auction sitting opposite a semi-comatose partner. Things are so much better now. Almost half the responders to this poll (who are no doubt excellent bridge players) seem to think 4NT is some sort of ace asking bid. Of course, it matters not since 3NT is the same idle bid it was half a century ago. Gee! I wonder if there might actually be a useful use (sic) for this idle bid?????

:rolleyes: Nice problem and excellent comments. I hate to disagree with Justin, but the sim that validates an 18-20 range for a 1NT strength showing overcall makes sense to me. Was there any vibe to suggest the opps were operating? If my pard were a veteran very expert rubber bridge player like Ira C, then why not pass and try to win the board on the card play? Granted, defending 1NT is hard, but at least, if I decide to double, I'm getting a ♠ lead. With a lesser Ira, I would still pass, but not double 1NT.

:D "..........and when it comes to slaughter, you'll do your work on water, and you'll lick the bloomin' boots of them that's got it." and that's just from my memory. I love Kipling. A proper modern appreciation of his white man's burden concept can help everyone understand today's world. However, on this side of the pond, we are a nation of immigrants. So, we are sensitive to ethnic slurs, even if unintended. One thing I love about bridge players is that they are almost without exception completely modern when it comes to their views about the human race. We share a game. We play it as well as we can. No nation or race seems to have any particular natural advantage. When Deng Xaioping, the big guy in China in the 1980's and 90's, played a few hands with my former insurance agent and friend, Bob Hamman, it seemed like a really good omen, and so it turned out to be.

:P Jeez! I am coming in a little bit late in the discussion, but assuming I didn't make a reponsive double or bid 4♦ over 3♦ (I am a little light), why would I make a slam try now? Pard is very likely just trying not to get stolen from, and I have just enough to make 4♠ look reasonable.

:P Excellent discussion. Personally, for what it's worth, I would open 1NT with a weak partner or if I really need a board or if I had had a good 16 or a 17 count. Next, I plan to rebid 2♣. Reasoning: my partnership's expectation on any given board in all but the toughest fields is 60% based on slam bidding and card play, so I don't want to risk losing the board based on my initial bid.

:angry: Catchee monkey?????? Me China girl wifee say you racist.

:P I see this as a purely tactical problem. BTW what is the vul and who are the opps? If everybody has their bids, then pard is likely 5-5 in the majors with a moderate hand, so playing 4♥ looks like my objective. Missing six ♥ isn't on my radar unless the opps are non-vul vs vul desperados. What to do over 5♦, though? W/O some huge table feel, I think a stodgy 4♥ seems right.

:P PENALTY FOOL. A responsive double in this position doesn't solve a real problem (2♦,or 3♣, or just bidding 2♥ with 4-4 in the majors and a moderate hand should suffice) whereas nailing the over-aggressive 5-5 opener for 800 or 1100 can be soooo..... sweet.

:P 10,000 hours, and software plus playing on BBO is the most efficient way to get this experience. I have noticed that the ACBL tournament field has, over the past decade, bifurcated between BBO players and the also-rans.

:lol: Hmmmmmmmm. I have noticed that all bridge players are not the same. The organized establishment needs to make the appropriate distinctions. How would you do so?

:D Don't cry for me Argentina. Currency consolidation is a balance between the ease of lending in a common currency and the benefits of letting currency devaluations help you out when things go bad. I had lunch the other day with an fat Washington economist named Larry, which one I can't remember. He said that he had had dinner with an important German (like the chancellor or the head of the German central bank) who related his (and his wife's) extreme discomfort at the events just following the end of WWII. That experience forged, for him, the theoretical basis for a common Franco-German currency to minimize the potential for future conflict. Who else cabbages on to the Euro remains to be seen.

:rolleyes: Great hand because it illuminates the potential actions of the opponents. Might as well bid 4♥ since 3♥ begets 4 ♥ on my left with 13♥ missing. 4♥ more or less forces us to slam, but it helps us bid seven if that is right.

:huh: I like the idea of bidding 3♥ as (one hopes) a prelude to 3NT, but on this hand there are so many ♥ missing as to suggest that the bidding will go higher. Still, it's not a bad way to start.

:angry: I really don't like to double, but what else can I do? I guess my plan is to bid the right number of ♦. If RHO had passed, I would open 2♣ with the plan of bidding the right number of ♦.

:rolleyes: 3♦ showing a self-sufficient ♦ suit seems to me to be a lesser fib than 3♣ indicating ♣ as a suitable place to play. Pard's polymorphus 4♥ call will elicit 5 ♣ showing the king, followed by 7♦. Bridge is an easy game.

:unsure: I don't see a general purpose answer to this one. Everything is in play - the form of contest, the state of the match, and above all the feel of the table. You have, roughly, six losers. Pard has to cover three of them for 4 ♥ to make. I wish I knew who has the ace of ♠. Are they going to swindle me out of a vulnerable game, or hammer me for 1400? My general inclination is to pass, but in a really tough game I would probably go ahead and bid 4♥ just to establish that I can't be intimidated.

:D yeah! I was going to post, but your comment states my view very eloquently.

:P If 4NT is not quantitative, then how does one invite 6NT with a balanced hand? If you can't accurately bid simple point count slams, what kind of system are you playing?

<_< Am I trying to beat this hand or what? The ♥ loses when declarer has a stiff ♥ and three ♦, not anywhere near the most likely configuration. To me the best chance is 2♦ a ♠ and ♥ ruff.

:D There are a lot of interesting special systems to play in this auction. In the simple game 3♠ shows 4-4 in the majors with no interest in 3 card ♥ support. Otherwise you bid the other minor.

B-) Soft and long ♥ values clinch 1NT for me, esp. at matchpoints in this vul. I can gamble for down two or down four in 1♥ doubled, but at this point an honest 1NT looks like it will work most of the time, plus they might slide for 2♥.

:D Learn to bid from the good players. Rebid 2♥. Six to the ten opposite two small is where you want to be in a part score. In what other contract can you get THREE ♥ tricks?

On the Potential Utility of the Abductive Synthesis of an Explicit Semiquantitative Causal Model for the Exercise of Rational Judgment Dr. David Brown, Universiti Brunei Darussalam, Research Interests: Artificial Intelligence, Biological Computation February 10, 2009 Abstract: The value of semiquantitative modelling to the exercise of judgment in non-trivial decision problems is discussed. It is hypothesised that an explicit causal model can shed light on a decision problem and help point the way to its solution by an iterative, abductive process of model reformulation. Examples in four different domains are given. Number of Pages in PDF File: 33 I rest my case.

<_< Fortunately, the bridge authorities in each country tend to allow the conventions favored by the more successful local bridge politicians. This aids and abets the evolution of the game, but it does mean that the allowable conventions for pair games differs from place to place. (There was a time when the Woodson two way one no trump opener (10-12) or (16-18) HCP was legal in US pair games because of Mr. Woodson.) Generally speaking, the ACBL seems to be more restrictive these days than most jurisdictions. That said, the current US rule is that Flannery openers must have a minimum of 10 HCP. Personally, it wouldn't bother me to change that or to allow the 2♦ multi or a few other successful conventions popular on the other side of the Pond. BBO is a great forum for this since it is so multi-national. I do notice that in BBO indies everyone seems to play a standard SAYC card.

Most players would double back in with the north hand. I just prefer 2♦ as safer. On the actual hand, pard is at the bottom in high cards for a neg dbl, so his pass isn't that terrible imho. A 4-3 major fit is OK at the two level since the 3 card holding takes the tap, but at the 3 level the LOTT bites you as it did on the actual hand. Plus, if pard has a marginal penalty pass of 2♣, my hand could be a trap with unexpectedly long ♦ and only two aceless quick tricks.