jdeegan

:) I know this miserable berg. Leave it alone. It is the bunghole of the Southern Rockies. Without saving grace, it does not deserve any further opprobrium. Nearby Raton (rat in Spanish) is a far better place.

:P :P :P [hv=d=e&v=e&s=s10743hj862dj83cq5]133|100|Scoring: MP P-P-1♣-4♥ P-P-5♣-P P-???[/hv] Matchpoints versus ordinary opponents. Partner is reliable and resourceful. Early in the session. :lol: :lol: :lol:

:blink: 2♣ has a lot going for it opposite a 15-17 HCP opener. If pard bids 2♦ or 2♥, you try 2♠ which shows a hand with 5♠. Over a 2♥ bid it is invitational. If pard bids ♠, you are in game. At most you have 25 HCP with every possibility for a misfit. Any sign of a fit, and I'm in game, but I need a sign.

It's bad sportsmanship because once you decide to sit down to play, you are committed to playing the full set and not leave the room in disgust! You are obviously entitled to forfeit due to a medical condition, but that was not the case. Please note that Norway conceded after a session. That is completely different. Roland :blink: I fail to see why an appropriate concession is "bad sportsmanship" once the contest is out of reach in a one on one team match. Leaving a pairs game early is, of course, terribly inconsiderate to the other players.

:blink: Pass You have 11 HCP and partner has opted for fast arrival showing spades (enuf to play) and diamonds (good for ur hand). Too much can be very wrong to risk the five level imho. On the hand given, partner misbid horribly. A Jacoby 2NT or a 4♥ splinter would have been far superior to the wishy washy 2♦ - ugh! Consider the reasonable auctions after 2NT. You bid 3♣ (shortness). Pard bid 3♥ (the ace). You bid 3♠ (forcing). Pard bid 4♦ (the king). You bid 5♠ (asking for trumps). Pard bids 6♠. Over 4♥, bid 5♠. Pard bids 6♠. Count tricks, Bubba. Five or six ♠, the ace of ♥. Three ♥ ruffs (pard shows 4 ♠). All pard needs is the ♦ king or the ♣ ace plus no ♠ loser. Almost any 12 HCP with 4♠ and a stiff ♥ will do.

:P Well, at least you found out why you were needed as a sub.

:wacko: 4♦ - this figures to make opposite partner's minimum - losing one spade, one heart and one trick in the minors. If pard is void in hearts with four diamonds, he might raise to a makable five. Would bid 3NT if I needed a board or at IMPs - it is probably a favorite if pard has a singleton heart because the hearts may block or I can hold up to the third round and LHO has the missing entry - likely an ace. Passing would be a disaster if pard has a heart void and would score less than 3NT if it is makable.

:wacko: I'll propose a couple of novel theories: 1. Jetlag - the time zone differential had our players starting their sessions at 11 or 12 pm, 1:40 and 2:40 am with the finals session starting at most people's lowest biorhythm time. 2. The financial meltdown - some of our players have serious interests in Wall Street - it may have been a distraction for them.

B) Latest as of midnight CST in the U.S. - Yesterday's bill got defeated because e-mails and phone calls were running almost 100% against it in conservative congressional districts. Since 6pm CST a complete reversal - the same e-mails and phone calls are running 10 to 1 to do something to reverse the stock market decline by passing something - anything - next time around. Look for a finished bill by next Monday at the latest. It should include a directive to deep six the ridiculous (at least during a financial crisis) 'mark to market' accounting rule. Do I think the delay is a good thing or a bad thing? I doubt anyone cares, but for what it's worth, I think the delay in passing a bailout will be seen on balance as a bit of a negative. The ultimate bailout bill will be better, but the delay has rattled the financial markets, and this might turn things ugly for a while. In the final analysis, if you can't trust Baron Paulson and Cardinal Bernanke, at least for a few months time, then we are all screwed.

B) my dear hog, to me your argument is persuasive - partner failed to bid over 1♣ - we are at the three level - why get excited over a part score hand at IMPs where you just might go for a number if you bid thank you for an excellent bridge lesson - i am thinking about running a simulation to answer certain of your critics

B) A qualified 4NT. This one looks like a 19 or 20 trick hand. No certainty how tricks might split, but there are more ways to lose by passing than bidding. This problem would be tougher at a different vulnerability. Also, tougher at MP's than IMP's. ♠Q is a good card. A full explaination of RHO's 4♥ bid seems in order - what were his other alternatives - e.g. does it suggest five pieces of trump? If yes or probably yes, a cheerful 4NT seems clearcut at IMP's. Wtf, the opponents may take the push to 5♥.

:unsure: Imho, this is a pure tactical problem where the best action depends on the state of the match and the disposition and quality of the opponents. Personally, I have observed that "walking the dog" hasn't worked well against expert opponents. You might even consider some exotic calls like 5♦ or 6♦.

[hv=d=n&v=b&s=sk1052h8da984c10982]133|100|Scoring: IMP 1♠-P-3♠-P 3NT-P-4♦-P 4♥-P-??[/hv] Playing 2/1. 3♠ is a normal limit raise (not Bergen) promising four trumps. 3NT is a slam invitational bid (forcing, not offering a choice of games). Cue bids show aces. Do you diagree with any of South's earlier bids? What do you bid now?

:) I didn't see any discussion about the fact that the opponents own the heart suit. Maybe with a 4-1 split. Also, the HCP figure to be split about 50-50. Is a 1♠ bid a useful preempt, or just the bid needed for LHO to show his/her values? Lottsa issues. If I had the ♦ jack, a 1♦ call would be easier.

:) Thx for the opinions. imho 'Walsh', the treatment, is so much do doux - although the Walsh's are both fine players. If you have one bid in the hand, you bid the major. With more, say 10+HCP or some shape, you bid one ♦. I ended up bidding one♠, but the idea that I wanted a ♦ lead was soooooooo... tempting that, thanks to the panel, I will bid one ♦ next time. Godspeed.

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=sj1042h8dkq652c652]133|100|Scoring: MP 1♣-Dbl-???[/hv] :huh: :huh: :huh: SAYC or 2/1 system - not playing weak jump shift responses - which bid?

:( I am surprised when skimming through the postings on this thread that nobody has stated the simple theory - actually a paradox or conundrum - that defines this problem. To have a proper context for a competition three things need to be true: 1. Each pair should have the maximum latitude to use the bidding system they believe to be the most effective for their side - this (can) make the game better and more interesting. 2. The opponents should understand this bidding system and all of its ramifications as well as the pair playing it - the better to construct countermeasures.. 3. Both players in each partnership should understand thoroughly the system they use - no partnership 'misunderstandings'. Reconciling #1 and #2 has been done fairly effectively in face-to-face games by limiting conventions and systems more severely according to the fewer boards played per opponent and the skill level of the competition - long team matches at the highest level have few restrictions. The alert procedure augments this. Everything goes all to hell when #3 does not hold, at any level of bridge. I play a lot of indies on BBO just to keep in practice. In the better indie games ones card defaults to BBO's version of SAYC. Everyone plays the same system. This works amazingly well. In BBO pairs games one has a problem even when playing BBO's SAYC. With no time for discussion, how do we defend against a strong 1♣ opener, et.al. BBO might help by expanding BBO's SAYC and 2/1 systems to include more defenses against commonly used non-standard systems.

;) Beer Pong. My son recently competed in national level games held in Las Vegas. I am SO proud.

:P dbl Way back in the 20th century, the jump Q bid meant a running suit and asked for 3NT with a stopper in the opponent's suit. We seem to have a heart loser and likely a club loser or two. So, I say hit 5H and hope to beat it.

B) 3♦ for safety, imho. Might easily be wrong, but I think one has to always ignore the possibility of the 4-4-3-2 hand. It is against the odds. Any 5-3 ♠ fit is likely not good unless pard is AKx.

:( Read a phrase "on IM" on BBO chat. What did it mean?

:P As others have so wisely said, specifying one's system is important here. Let's suppose we are playing old fashioned, high-level but still amateur bridge the way I was taught sometime back in the last century. A 2♣ opener shows: 1. 22+ HCP if balanced or 4-4-4-1 shape 2. 4 quick tricks and 4 losers if my main suit is a major 3. a little better if a minor 4. 2 suiters are OK if I am worried about getting passed out at the one level - AKJxxx AKJxx x x is an OK one bid because it's only 16HCP. Responses are: 1. 2♦ waiting with 2 queens or better - forcing to game 2. 2♥ waiting with less than 2 queens - NOT forcing to game if I rebid 2NT, and for some not forcing to game if I just rebid a suit. 3. suit bids show 5+ cards and a decent suit like KJ9xx or better - game forcing 4. 2NT shows hearts - game forcing In this case, I am going to have to play 4♥ as non-forcing because what do I bid with: x AKQxx Q AKQ10xx or x AKQx Q AKQ10xxx I have game in hand and half the high cards in the deck - too risky, not to mention too awkward to open just one. After the 2♦ response, partner's hand may be worthless, or it may produce slam. On the given auction, he will usually know what to do - only aces are any good in the pointed suits. By the way, what is the virtue in playing 4♥ forcing? Is it a cue bid for spades, or what?

[hv=d=e&v=b&s=sq6h63dakq986ckj7]133|100|Scoring: IMP 1H-2D-2H-2S 3H-?[/hv] Playing IMP pairs with a presumably competent, but unknown partner. Opponents are similarly unknown. RHO deals and opens 1 Heart. You overcall 2 Diamonds. LHO raises to 2 Hearts. Partner, not a passed hand, bids 2 Spades. Opener contests with 3 Hearts. Now what? 3 Spades is an option that was left off the menu. If you select that, check Other.

[hv=d=e&v=b&s=sq6h63dakq986ckj7]133|100|Scoring: IMP 1H-2D-2S-3H ?[/hv] Playing SAYC at IMP pairs with a new, but presumably competent partner. Opponents are of unknown quality. What now?

:) Back in the early '90's I played lots of the Kamikazi NT with one of my pards after coming across Meckwell using it at a little sectional in Michigan. It was fun to play, and Marshall Miles published a good system for responding to it. Imho, having played about a thousand hands using it, the best system in defense of it is to play natural overcalls - pretend it is a one spade opener - with a double showing 12+ balanced. Tell partner to pass with most 9+ HCP balanced hands. Otherwise, have him respond as if YOU opened 1NT. Playing a defensive system designed to cope with a strong or intermediate range 1NT opener seems like a bad idea to me. You want to be aggressive and try to get penalties when you can. You need to know what you are doing after the doubling starts, though. I once saw a +1280 in both rooms for a push at a GNT one afternoon in Jackson, Mississippi. I was not involved.