jdeegan

♥ :) 5♥ is most circumstances It would help to know the vul and type of scoring, but recall that partner bid 3♥ facing, for all he knew, four small hearts and out. Then he did not double 4♠ which means he isn't sure of beating either 4♠ or 5♣ or, perhaps, both. Now at MP's there is a premium on guessing exactly right, so 4♠ down one might be a BIG winner. It would be a bid worth considering depending on one's feel of the table. In most other forms of contest, though, 5♥ will be, at worst, insurance. Plus, I think it might make. Jdonn thinks LHO is 4-7 in the black suits, and this sounds about right. According to LOTT they have 8 or 9 spades and 9 or 10 clubs. We have 9+ ♥ and 8+♦. There is probably one negative adjustment in the spade suit. Considering the strong bidding by both W and N, I would guess 19+ tricks. Bidding 5♥ figures to win when pard has a stiff club or only three spades. Bidding 3♥ and passing 4♠ is consistent with this. If he has the stiff club, then two aces and two red kings make 5♥ odds on. If he is 3-4-4-2, then they likely have 4♠.

♥ :) 3NT Partner's penalty pass indicates we have high card values for game, unless pard is an idiot. His having 5 or 6 diamonds and 4 spades is unlikely. Game is not sure, but it seems odds on to hope we either have nine off the top or he has a heart card. I see no way to make an intelligent game try since we should have enough HCP for 3NT (25+) even when pard is at the bottom of his HCP range. I first thought 2♥ was best assuming he might have the heart queen, but actually it plays better from my side considering RHO is so weak, and Qxx and Jxx or 10xxx are equally likely for pard. I would prefer to see Jxx opposite Ax played from my side. If he has Qx(x) in ♥, the odds greatly favor the K on my left anyway.

:P Does 2♦ show extras? Should it? Absent any specific partnership agreement why not just bid a fairly descriptive and unambiguous 3♣?

:P 2♥ on the first one, but it seems close to me - somewhat dependent on whether pard might raise ♠ with a three card holding - if so, it makes a ♥ contract a little safer bet. I am trying to avoid a 6-1 fit in ♠. 3♠ on the second one. Nothing wasted in ♣. Pard will usually have 6♠ or at worst a fairly solid 5 bagger.

;) you may have already misplayed the hand depending on the ♦ spot card. If it looks (or feels like) a stiff win ♦K and play ♠Q looking for two finesses (25+ percent) with a ♣ ruff as a second entry. Otherwise, go for two spade finesses assuming no stiff ♦ playing the way you did. Desperate times call for desperate measures - you were willing to gamble against the odds based on larger considerations - so, by all means, do so!

;) Pass When in doubt, pass

:huh: 1♠ just to find out right away if we have a playable spade fit. System mavens take umberage with my thinking on 5-5 black hands, but I have found a practical method that works, esp. at MP's. 1. With a good playing hand and weak to moderate high card strength, open 1♣ and then keep bidding ♠ at the minimum level. QJ986 A4 7 AJ1084 2. With a strong hand, say 17+ working HCP, open 1♠ and plan to make a high reverse in ♣. AQJ96 A4 7 AQ1087 3. With a weak hand that lacks playing strength, open 1♠ and essentially give up on the clubs. K9654 K4 7 AQ654

:D Perfect analysis. Partner's hand: x J10987 J AJ109xx Most irritating problem w/o RKC available. Best solution is to carry a cue bidding auction past the 5♥ level in hopes that partner with ♥AKQxxx or ♥AKxxxxx will get the picture. Of course, just jacking the bidding to 7♥ will work more often than not, but MP's is a game of percentages, so why risk that when competing against a typical duplicate field where at least half the pairs are not competent slam bidders.

:) [hv=d=w&v=b&s=sq10984hq982d87c62]133|100|Scoring: MP P-1♥-Dbl-2♥ 3♦-4♥-5♦-?[/hv] Now you wish you had bid 3♥ the first time, but LHO was a passed hand, you have the spade suit, and we have no singleton. So, what to do now? For that matter, suppose you had bid 3♥, LHO had bid 4♦. partner 4♥ and RHO 5♦. What would you do then? Would it be different?

:) [hv=d=s&v=b&s=saj9hakq852dak105c]133|100|Scoring: MP 2♣-P-2♦-P 2♥-P-3♥-P 3♠-P-4♣-P 4♦-P-4♠-P 5♦-P-5♠-P ? [/hv] You are playing basic SAYC with regular Blackwood. Your bid?

:ph34r: Always answer a question with a question. So, here goes: 1♦-1♥-dbl-2♥ 2♠ this must show 4 cards in spades or or a three card holding playable opposite four average spades along with a ruffing value. 1♦-1♥-dbl-2♥ 2NT what does this show? minors or a big balanced hand? 1♦-1♥-dbl-2♥ dbl Is this 3-2-4-4 with weak spades or 3-3-4-3 and some decent playing values? Or, could it be 2-2-5-4 or 2-2-4-5? This is the question at hand. Imho, we have to be able to get to 2♠ with a 4-3 fit, good trumps, and a ruffing value in the short hand. Consequenty, under these strictures, the double has to cater to this hand. Trouble is what do you do with good playing hands that are 2-2 in the majors? All this is why I hate the idea of the initial negative double promising exactly 4 spades of any description. Either try modern methods with all sorts of artificial bids (e.g. bidding spades denies spades), or say that the double shows three spades or four unbiddable spades (worse than Q109x).

:ph34r: [hv=d=w&v=b&s=sa9862h7d873c9652]133|100|Scoring: IMP P-1♠-P-?[/hv] Playing plain vanilla SAYC with no prior discussion or agreements in a BBO IMP pairs game. Opponents are typical players. Partner is an excellent player and an old friend. Unfortunately, we have not played together in many years. So, what bid do you recommend?

:P There is one even older treatment from when this was called the "Sputnik" double. DBL = 3 spades or 4 "unbiddable" spades 1♠ = Q108x of spades or better (or longer). The advantage of this method (esp. at MP's) is that it can get you to 2♠ quickly (sometimes in a playable 4-3 fit) and screws up the opponents reliance on the law of total tricks and/or the presence of three spades in one of the opponent's hands as an indication of shortness in their partner's hand. You also have an easy way to show modest values with only three spades. I must say that the modern method where 1♠ denies four spades sounds interesting to me. It ought to work assuming you can work out the appropriate continuations. How does one defend against it? What are the continuations? Is it legal in ACBL pairs or team events?

:unsure: Imho an "expert" by any reasonable definition ought to be able to do the following: 1. Count a bridge hand whenever necessary. 2. Recognize and execute an obvious squeeze most of the time. 3. Endplay somebody (other than partner) every so often. 4. Know how to bid fairly well. If you qualify, and would like to try a game or two, leave me a message on BBO. I will happily pay the dollar for a BBO tournament if that is an issue.

:unsure: 3♠ under an assumed name.

:unsure: Partner needs specific cards for 6♦ to be a laydown - ♠A, ♥ KQ, and either the ♥A or the ♣K - nothing wasted in spades, the suit where he has 5+ cards. With most 12 HCP hands, he will bid over 3NT - 4♦ as a slam interest bid might work, but it seems against the odds to me - and, does it suggest slam or a ton of diamonds not solid or else no club stop.

:unsure: 4♣ - pretty easy auction if partner bids 4♦ - trot out RKC or Josephine if playing in an old fashioned game where 4♦ promises the ace and 5NT is GSF. If partner bids 4♠ over 4♣, I have to make another try with 5♥. We may have to play 6NT to protect the ♦ Kx.

:( Big difference between being an expert player who plays maybe 200-300 hands per month on BBO and an average player who plays 1500-2000 hands per month. I do have five or six regular partners on BBO, but the odds of them being online and available when I am are small. I have to fit my BBO into a fairly busy, but irregular schedule. The main problem with finding good partners on BBO is that there is no easy way to network. In real life, I can get useful, screened contacts from third and fourth party references. On BBO I usually have to find a player blind, then find that they can play, convince them that I can play, and finally determine if our games and personalities are compatible. Still, I love BBO. Just playing a few hands per month in indies, robot races and money bridge keeps my game in shape. When I do get a chance to play in a nearby ACBL tournament with a good partner, it's a piece of cake - except that my bidding system has to remain rather basic - not much of a problem except up against a team of REAL experts where my chances are below (maybe well below) 50-50 in any case.

:) I think the management might consider promoting a functional description of a person's playing ability when describing what should constitute a particular skill level. For example, it seems ridiculous for someone to describe him/herself as an expert bridge player if he/she cannot: 1. count a bridge hand whenever necessary 2. recognize and execute a simple squeeze at the table whenever they arise (most of the time). 3. endplay somebody every so often I have noticed that some players who cannot even begin do these things advertise themselves as experts and as SLM's and GLM's as if that is some kind of big deal. What do these initials stand for? Should I avoid such people as partners? Are any of them any good, or are they ALL terrible players? Most genuine experts who play in BBO tournament indies and with pickup partners in pair games tourneys average over +0.50 IMPs per board and over 55% at MP's playing against the field. O. Jacoby, a well-known local player in years past, claimed his average in MP tournament pairs events was 60%. Of course, in real expert versus real expert contests all bets are off - the better of the experts win, but the losers may be very, very good players, indeed. Might we say that anyone whose IMPs per board in BBO tournaments is negative, and stays negative over a long period of time over may hands should avoid advertising themselves as BBO Experts? I give you as an example, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX whose record over the past month (667 hands) has averaged a -0.45 IMPs per board. [REMAINDER DELETED. PLEASE NOTE, BBO forum policy does not allow poking fun of players by name. Repeated episoldes can lead to sanctions. - inquiry]

:) Open for 1♥, but a 2♣ opening is not terrible, just not best. I haven't heard a better set of rules for minimum strong two bids (aside from the big balanced hands that depend on point count) in over 40 years. To wit: 1. Four quick tricks - gotta be able to stop their game, usually 2. Four losers for majors - three for minor suits - gotta have a play for our game 3. Tend to avoid with two or three suiters unless you have so many high cards that the bidding may likely die if you open just one of a suit. 4. There are a few exceptions like AKQxxxxxx in a major with an outside ace. With this open 2♣, rebid 2 of the suit, then jump to game' - you have game in hand and know where to play, but too much D to preempt. You see the underlying theory in all these cases?

:P 2♦ seems to me to be the third best bid. 2NT leads to an easy auction as partner will show shortness or else reveal his/her general strength with the next bid. I can then MASTERMIND the hand. A strong jump shift of 3♦ has a lot going for it as well, esp. opposite a good partner who will not give up on slam holding a diamond fit, so I can simply support spades and then relax. Six ♠ is easy opposite ♠AKxxx and ♦KQx.

:) A hesitant vote for 6♦. This is a pure tactical problem. Really hard to argue with the near consensus choice of 5♦ except that this is what everyone else will bid, so the issue to me is what are the odds that bidding the 6th diamond will improve my chances. Seems pretty good to me. Can't imagine walking the dog except versus very weak opponents - giving them extra chances to bid gives them extra chances to make mistakes.

:) One partnership principle espoused in my part of the world by our leading local player of the day, Oswald Jacoby, is the pitcher-catcher notion. The good and stable partnership consisted of one of each - a temperament matter. The pitcher creates most of the action, and the catcher helps field it - I hope the analogy also makes sense in Cricket. This doesn't mean the pitcher is or even need be the better player. Jake liked to gamble on MP pair events. In his later years he formed a partnership with a (then) 20 something local girl. Taught her to play. Then bet the two could beat all comers in tournament pairs events. She, as you can imagine, developed into a very good player, and Jake won a lot of money and had a lot of fun gambling. Later on, I formed an occasional partnership with the same woman with me in the pitcher's (Jake's) role - now there is a dropoff in skill level for you!. Even so, our bridge chemistry has been exceptional, and our tournament win percentage over the years has been remarkable in regional and large sectional events and, I think, reflects this. I must admit that it sometimes feels odd to be the pitcher in a partnership where one's partner is so much the better bridge player - my first encounter with a steppingstone squeeze (not identified by name at the time) was at the table when she apologized for having missed one on the hand she had just finished playing.

:) The expert opinion (esp. at IMP's) is to avoid Stayman when the combined point count is 29 to 31 HCP, the major fit is potentially weak, and your hand is balanced - 4-3-3-3, or 4-4-3-2 shape. You avoid losing three unavoidable trump tricks plus another when you have most of the power. Old fashioned lesson - read and learn.

:) Yes and HELL YES. Of course this depends on ones philosophy about preemption. Imho, the important considerations are strength, suit length for those who believe in one suited 6-7 baggers and 'purity'. This hand is pure. It has a six bagger - the proper suit length. Finally, it is weak - suitable for those who believe that higher level openings are better for preemptive purposes than for constructive bidding.