jdeegan

To me the answers are obvious: a. 2♣ b. Pass That said, overcalling 1NT the first time strikes me as a semi-reasonable way to 'shoot' if I really needed a board. It might actually work out. On the other hand a follow up of 3♣ over opponent's 2♠ just seems desperate. You might also 'shoot' with an initial super-heavy 3♣ preemptive overcall. Your chances of missing game are small, and the opponents may misjudge. It is probably safer than overcalling 1NT, but it is less disruptive.

The former. I wish I could remember the auction. It was the same at both tables.

"When God made you a fool, he gave you a fool's face" That's about as good as it gets. Don't "Play it again Sam".

The most efficient set of responses to a 1NT opening bid I know of was devised by Marshall Miles back in the early 1990's for use with Meckwell's 10-13 HCP Kamikazi opener. I once whiled away an eight hour car trip going through all its myriad variations. It was based on a sort of 2 way puppet Stayman w/o xfers. It's almost enough to make me want to go back to playing the old Kamikazi 1NT. Only problem with it was (and I actually saw this in a Grand National Team trial event in Jackson, MS) "Board 6?" "+1280" "Push".

I have to agree with you on all counts. Bravo! Bridge is not chess. Precision, much less perfection, is difficult if not possible. The psychological aspect of the game is why it has endured.

I can only report that, whatever the truth, at the time Boris(?) Schapiro was the fall guy. In retrospect this makes sense at least to me. 1. Reese, despite his prickly personality, was much respected and beloved in the bridge world. 2. He had been caught cheating red handed (no pun intended). 3. He should not, according to the powers that were, have evaded punishment. That would have encouraged cheating and, as such, had the potential to destroy international tournament bridge. 4. His partner was thus set up to take the fall, almost regardless of the truth whatever that might have been. Local rumor at the time had it that he was "a shady character".

So sue me. Oops, sorry you can't sue an American for having his or her opinion about a public figure no matter how much you disagree with it. Oh well. As far as non-public figures are concerned, you have to be shown to be in error. Oops, Reese was, in fact, found guilty. Oh well.

Gee, I thought my recollections were fairly labeled and presented as oral history. As such, they simply exist for the record. Maybe Jake and other well known players and bridge politicians from Texas were right about the cheating, and maybe they were wrong (although I seriously doubt it). Their view of those events carries more weight with me than all the written B.S. created by Reese and company after he lawyered up. He actually published a book on the topic. It is one of the few books Reese ever wrote that I never owned. Despite the scandal, he remains highly respected by everyone I know both as a bridge player and author.

Of course you are correct. I did not mean to imply otherwise. I only went as far as to describe the equivalent of a Grand Jury hearing.

I'm just paraphrasing as best I can after 50 years what Oswald Jacoby told me at the time. Their whole scheme was built around a new and strange (for that era) bidding system called the Little Major invented by Reese. It involved finger signals to convey the number of hearts held which fixed a serious flaw in their system. Reese claimed he did it because the Italian Blue Team was cheating. His punishment was more severe than I remember, but it did not extend to lifetime banishment which some believed might have killed him. He was no spring chicken at that time. The less said about his partner, the better.

This should be enough to convict them, assuming it was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The trick is first to figure out that a pair is likely cheating. Then to figure out how. Finally, to observe and gather evidence. Back in the day, Reese and Shapiro were clearly busted for signaling, but the punishment ended up as nothing out of respect for Reese and his earlier contributions to the game. He just had to quit doing it. As far as electronic signaling is concerned, it would require certain rather specialized equipment. To get away with it, first you would have to get quite familiar with the equipment. Then you would have to keep that a secret. This is not impossible, but if the casinos can identify cheaters, even the tiny little bridge world ought to be able to do the same. It boils down to this: if a pair is getting results well above their apparent ability, you smell a possible rat and start looking. Maybe you will turn out to be right or maybe not.

This one hand proves nothing in and of itself. One doctor evidently laid a clever trap for Eddie whose game is more analytical and less psychological than most. He says he was reading Eddie, not his partner. This is legal. Even if his partner did write "weak" at some point, so what if that was their understanding? What should matter, imo., is the weight of evidence from many hands and, possibly, some of these from other matches. Who knows? Maybe the doctors were behind and needed a board? Tit for tat redress for any one match is unlikely. Getting rid of the real cheats over the long run is what matters.

:P Your chances of making 3NT legitimately are not very good, so at MP's there is a good case for winning the spade and hooking the diamond simply hoping to stay even with the field. I strive to be a proper Bayesian, but you can't realistically assign spades as being AQ95 opposite J2 as having zero probability.

:P The comment may well have been a face saving way of trying to salve my feelings for missing a near laydown slam. After all, partner had no more idea of who I was than I had of who he/she was. Still, I wondered. A non-jump in a new suit has always been a cue bid not a splinter. Is something new going around? Bottom line, if someone can play even a little, I am willing to try to adapt. Bridge is a game with multiple aspects, and there are many ways to skin a cat. Ever had a partner where you had the agreement that all 4♣ bids were Gerber? My all time favorite: "bother, I never pay any attention to the spots." I just try to drag 'em home as best I can.

:P Everyone seems to agree that the 2/1 system gives up something to get that extra level of below game cue bidding for slam and near slam hands. Your issue is between using a 1NT response to a 1♠ opener as forcing or using the 1NT response as semi-forcing. A third possibility is that 2/1 is too flawed and just no good. Judging those issues is way above my pay grade, but if you do play 1NT as semi-forcing, then, imo, the best bid on this hand is 1NT. Even if it is forcing, 1NT is the best bid. Is there any other sensible answer other than 1NT?

:P Like the other posters said: bid 1NT. You might want to state the conditions of contest (MP's or IMP's, et.al.), the vulnerability, and who was the dealer. Also, it sort of depends on what kind of hand partner would hold to pass 1NT (ie. how light do you open). Your only real concern is missing a makeable vul game in spades at IMP's with a two suit fit in the pointed suits and the right 24++ HCP combined. Personally, I would feel better gambling by taking the low road with 1NT unless I were clearly behind in a match and needed to shoot. In that case, 3♠. Let's face it. No bidding system is good enough such that the occasional slight overbid or underbid is not called for. In this case the underbid seems clear unless times are desperate.

:P I had an odd hand today in a BBO pairs game with a pick up partner. You hold: ♠KQJ98 ♥AK43 ♦void ♣KJ87 Nice hand. So I opened one simple ♠. It went Pass - 3♠(limit) - Pass. To me an obvious 4♥ cue bid. Partner bid 4♠. All Pass. Way too much danger of wasted ♦ cards to press on, imo. Possibly you disagree. It's you turn, and you gotta bid. Partner had: ♠A103 ♥QJ876 ♦KJ7 ♣106 The ace of ♣ was led. My problem is not with partner's bidding or with missing a (very probably) makeable slam. It is with my pick up partner's comment after the hand. Remember, this guy was totally unknown to me, but he proved on other hands he could play bridge. After the hand, he said " I didn't know if your 4♥ bid was a splinter or a cue bid". WTF is going on? In my world, splinters are Al Roth picture bids. They use otherwise (nearly) idle bids to show specific hands. The remainder of bidding structure remains intact. This guy seemed to be a decent player, but his comment suggests to me that his mentors are no good. Am I right, or wrong?

:P 4NT??? Whatever happened to the old fashioned treatment where the double of 4♠ is cooperative saying "I think it is our hand and we can probably beat 4♠" whereas 4NT is a generalized three suit takeout with zero or one ♠? Imo, the LOTT tends to validate this older approach. RHO has 7 or 8 ♠, and you don't have any. The expected number of ♠ for the opponents is 10+. LHO and partner figure to hold about half the high cards between them. You don't happen to have even one little ♠, and your hand is potentially a huge playing hand. Time to get lucky gambler. Feel of the table is part of it, too. Johnny Crawford did not usually get these kind of hands wrong.

:P No doubt Belgium was the better team. Realistically, our chances were slim to none, and Slim was just seen leavin' town. Our team was good. Our goalie was the greatest. Our coach was the best we have ever had. My main beef is with the ESPN announcing staff. If you are going to broadcast to Americans as a national audience, please have the grace to do in their own 'Murrican' language. If a team (not a SIDE) has failed to score, you do not refer to this sad condition as a 'NIL' score or even as 'love' as in tennis. The very word 'NIL' is so odious to the 'Murrican' ear as to be almost intolerable. In the USA, a country's national team is considered to be a singular noun. You don't say "England ARE". You say England IS". A GAME is not a MATCH. IMHO, announcers who violate these strictures should be summarily fired on the spot. Then they should be conducted by security guards to the nearest parking lot and beaten to within an in inch of their lives. That'll learn ya durn ya. The other problem Soccer has in the USA is that it is widely seen as a wimpy game, appropriate for girls and pre-pubescent boys. People who know the game know this is not true. Nevertheless, when Americans see Europeans and South American players flopping and pretending injury in order to try to dupe an official, it disgusts. Personally, I love the game.

:P 4♠ seems obvious. My hand is a nice minimum, that's all. My ♦ Q and my fifth ♦ are iffy opposite partner's stiff. My stiff ♥ is iffy opposite partner's suit.

:P Fair enough. Minus 800 or 1100 is no worries. Minus 200 or 300 after all pass is only a routine concern. After all, your opponents are from a generation raised on matchpoint scoring and negative doubles. Now we are into IMP scoring which is more like the old days. Anyone willing to consider an overcall of 1NT with this hand the first time? Personally, I would never do it.

:P A 2♥ overcall is imho let us just say 'incredible' at forms of scoring other than matchpoints. I am trying to get my mind around its merits at MP's. You may well have a good point in today's environment. What would you bid at other forms of scoring?

:P If you double, you can't pass a 3♦ response. You end up in 3♥. So, you lost today's matchpoint shoot out. No biggie.

:P Seems like dbl. is good. I have almost half the deck in high cards. If our ♠K is in the swing, and it is opps hand, we could be in some trouble. However, RHO is an nvul 3rd seat opener, and he may be bidding on air. Furthermore, we have some safety since partner can't have a really big ♦ suit (no double of 2♦), and I can't have just really big ♥ (didn't bid 3♥ right now). For all I know, the opponents are poised to make the fatal mistake, if pushed. It is MP's. Minus eight zillion is just the same zero.

:P Looks to me like they your opponents were either lucky as Hell or possibly wired. Responder apparently intended to represent a shapeless strong game forcing ♥ raise and then got distracted by partner's forced 2♦ rebid and forgot to support ♥. Imo, you ought to get to 6♥ or 6♦ given the actual bidding system. Bidding the perfecto grand on what they/you know as so few HCP with so little info as to controls and trick taking potential just seems odd to me.