jdeegan

:) I have been watching the high level competitions on BBO vugraph for a year or so, and I noticed that many top experts were opening bad 11 counts and continuing to bid with them. Sometimes they 'stole the pot' when the opponents let them play a part score going down when they had a game. Last week it happened to me.[hv=d=e&v=n&n=s1093hq5daj3c109765&w=s54h1082dkq10876c32&e=sj87ha943d954ckqj&s=sakq62hkj76d2ca84]399|300|Scoring: IMP 1♣-Dbl-1♦-P 1NT-P!-2♦-P 3♦!-P-P-P[/hv] :blink: :( I had the south hand. It seemed right to double on the first round, since I had enough to double, then bid spades. When RHO (a veteran pro who plays a top level game) bid 1NT, at this point it looked to me like a part score hand, so I passed (was this so wrong!!) since I had a good lead versus 1NT. LHO bid 2♦. If that floats to me, I have an easy 2♠ bid. But NO. RHO bids 3♦. So, I pass as does everyone else. At this point RHO comes out of his chair yelling at his partner that her 2♦ bid was forcing stayman, and his reply was conventional .... aargh. Needless to say, 4♠ makes our way and did so at the other table: 'lose 11' Does anyone have any tips about how to adjust ones game to deal with this?

:) The reason to largely ignore the 5 bagger, whatever suit it may be, is that it is usually unplayable unless partner has four card support. A 7-1 fit is almost always better than the 5-3. Why? Think about it. You are missing two complete suits, so unless you have a perfect misfit hand, the enemy owns a dink suit even if they are fairly weak in high cards. The five bagger gets tapped out, and you lose control. With the seven bagger, you can stand two additional taps. This happened to me a few times before I received an oral lesson from one of the more experienced players. I have also seen this point made in print, but I can't recall where. Also, I believe (but am not sure about) that 4-1 and 5-0 trump splits are more frequent on freakishly distributed hands.

:P 3♣ This is as good as 10 HCPs get. It's really worth 11+ imo. So, awkward as it is, 3♣ looks like the best call to me.

:rolleyes: 4♣ to begin with. Now over 5♣, let's look at some basics about partner's strong two bid in clubs. 1) He is advertising a big club hand with at most four losers 2) He is off two aces, so his reluctance to suggest slam is sensible 3) The opponents haven't bid spades, so he ought to have two or three Now, I can offer two black aces and one or two spade ruffs, so six ought to be OK and a grand is not out of the picture. How to bid 6♣ while offering some chance at bidding seven: duh, bid 5♠. True it is a long shot to work out better than just bidding 6♣, but that's what good partners are for.

:D Interesting how the suits involved and the honor card structure affect the decision to open a 5-4 hand 1NT. With spades and diamonds the only really awkward auction is 1♠-P-2♥. With spades and clubs, 1♠-P-2♦ is also a problem.

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=skj76haj9d74ckq93]133|100|Scoring: IMP 1♣-P-1♠-Dbl 2♠-P-3♣-5♦ ???[/hv] :P The opponents are unknown, but presumably competent in the last round of a large Regional Swiss where we are both in contention. Playing support doubles, 2♠ showed 4. I considered 3♠, but it seemed too pushy. 3♣ was a game try that I am eager to accept. 5♦ was, naturally, a surprise. You get to huddle for longer than usual, but beyond some point, a slow pass carries its customary baggage. What do you bid? Any comments?

:P I am a bidder. Pard has advertised 10+ black cards and a player. They have 9 hearts and a secondary fit in diamonds. Lotta total tricks on this hand. Problem is that pard may be 4-6, as was the actual case. Still, I have to bid 3♠ playing opposite myself, since I will sometimes open 1♣ with the right 5-5 and nearly always with 5-6. Pard should (I hope) place me on three card (only) support since I didn't come alive last round. A loud double might run me to 4♣.

:P Gary Hayden didn't reopen. Maybe he was considering that my partner, who declared 2♠, was on tilt. On the previous hand she down five in a 4♠ game made at the other table.

:P I think the bid on this hand since the days of P. Hal Sims has been 4♥. The Bergen take on this is that you have a minimum of 18 trumps (10 for you and at least 8 for the opponents in spades), and probably one or two more. I don't see any negative adjustments to this (your hand is 'pure'), so total tricks ought to be in the range of 19 or 20. Twenty tricks might well mean that both sides can make game in their major suit. In any event, you want to contract for 10 tricks in hearts ASAP. If the opponents bid 4♠, you might even consider the 5♥ save depending on the subsequent auction and the feel of the table. Another, dangerous but devious, way to go would be to hide the heart fit with some psyche (never do this at pairs or at a Swiss), and arrange to emerge at 4♥.

:D :P I am the guilty 3♦ bidder - mea culpa. Perhaps, 2♥ is better because we really can't find the 4-4 ♥ fit after 3♦. It turned out that my partner did not bid 3♠ because she played it non-forcing - an illogical treatment someone taught her years ago. Lesson here is be careful who you take bridge lessons from. What amazes me is that only one poster even thought about responding with a strong 2♠ initially. Perhaps, nobody plays this anymore, but at IMPs they should, imo. The North hand certainly qualifies. It is almost an old-fashioned strong two bid - i.e. 4+ quick tricks and 4 losers. It easily can make a laydown six bid opposite the perfect minimum. It is not really a two suiter. North probably should control the auction on account of his hand - minor spade cards and red aces are about all he is interested in. These are the traditional requirements for the old-fashioned strong jump shift. Auctions after a strong jump shift are normally a joy. Just remember not to immediately raise partner without an honor in his suit or with a stiff. In this instance, the bidding might procede: 1♦-P-2♠-P 3♠-P-4♣-P 4♦-P-5♣-P 5♥-P-6♠-P P-P Players who want (or need) to shoot for the grand may do so on an intelligent basis. Those whose grip on sanity is sufficiently weak enough to play RKC can, no doubt, find elegant, subtle and easily misunderstood variations.

:) :lol: Judging from the forum's responses, they have not only read the book (actually books), but have learned its lessons. The point is that this is not a bridge hand to push the auction beyond the two level with this bid. At this point in the auction we should assume 17+ total trumps - our nine plus 8+ for them. Prof. Cohen advises negative adjustments for 4-3-3-3 shape and picture cards in the opponents' suits. We have the first, and with no spade honors, the odds strongly favor the second. My arithmetic arrives at an estimate of 15+ total tricks. 2♠ looks plenty high at this point. Profs. Lawrence and Wirgren advocate estimating 'working points' plus 'short suit length' for our side. Assuming pard is on a balanced min. of 13 HCP with the most common 5-3-3-2 shape, our 'short suit length' is five. Our combined point count is 20, but some of them may not be working. Suspect are our heart holding plus maybe two of partner's points. According to their methods, our trick taking expectancy in spades is 7 or 8. 2♠ looks plenty high. The actual hand itself proves very little, but it does conform to the analysis above: [hv=d=n&v=b&n=skj1052hk5daj6cj43&w=saq7h9432dq982cq6&e=s4ha876dk74ck9852&s=s9863hqj10d1053ca107]399|300|Scoring: IMP 1♠-P-2♠-P P-P[/hv] Two ♠ made exactly two, and 3♥ is down one. The play was: club to queen diamond return ducked to king club continuation won by ten spade 9 wins spade 8 won by ace heart to ace club ruff Note that South's tens proved useful.

I'm sure you're joking. 3D was a really horrible bid and everything after that doesn't matter. 2D is ok playing standard. :D The auction began: 1♦-P-1♠-P The way most people play 2/1, a difference between SAYC and 2/1 does not exist as no GF is implied.

[hv=d=n&v=b&s=s9862hqj10d1053ca107]133|100|Scoring: IMP 1♠-P-???[/hv] :D From a team game against expert opponents. Your bid? Any analysis you care to offer? Careful, though, the correct answer to this question is known. It is found in the back of the instructors' edition of the text book. I have the only copy of it on campus.

[hv=d=s&v=b&n=sak10873h108d9cakj4&s=sq9haj65daqj1087cq]133|200|Scoring: MP 1♦-P-1♠-P 3♦-P-4♣-P 4♦-P-4♠-P 5♥-P-6♦-P P-P [/hv] :) Playing BBO 2/1 at MP's. Which bid was the most responsible for the inferior contract? How should the hand be bid?

;) Unpassed hands at MP's playing 2/1 - do you play 3♠ forcing or not forcing (for one round)? 1♦-P-1♠-P 3♦-P-3♠

:) I think your point that 4♦ is not a crazy bid in this situation is well made. I wish I had the 10 and 9 of ♦.

xxx

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=saq62hkqj62d3caq8]133|100|Scoring: IMP 1♦-Dbl-1NT-2♣ 2♥-???[/hv] Playing IMP pairs with a competent partner; system SAYC. Opponents' quality moderate or better. Nothing seems amiss at the table; probably everyone has his/her bid. Your bid?

xxxx

:( This is a great problem hand, imo. I won't presume to offer this forum a bridge lesson, but I am not reading replies that address what seems to me to be the major issue on what could be a key swing hand in the match - i.e. what are the opponents likely to do? LOTT suggests the hand has lots of tricks - 11♠ + 10♥ + one void = 22 tricks looks about right, but anything between 20 and 24 is possible. It strikes me that even very good non-vul opponents will be tempted to bid 'one more for safety'. If I bid 4♠, it is VERY likely our side will get a chance to act over 5♥. If I bid 5♠, it will not only invite slam, but it will put pressure on the opponents. Who were the opponents? What was the state of the match? Was table feel a factor? All these things seem so important as to be controlling.

:) The Iranian revolution in 1979 was similar, in many ways, to the 1917 revolution in Russia. Many of the Iranian upper and upper middle classes fled the new regime - there are now nearly one million Iranians living in the U.S. - mostly in southern California. Support for the new regime is very limited among the more prosperous Iranians, but that is not the political base for the ruling clerics. The clerics are very wise, and they know a great deal, unhappily, much of what they think they know is not true.

:) Thanks for the lesson. I am a little confused about the notion of doubling on my first turn to bid advocated by some commentators. It is true that the extreme formalism of today's MP rules (RHO is not really allowed to psyche a 1♠ bid) makes double in its usual sense (exposing the psyche) an idle bid. That so, what is the best use for this matchpoint call? I can't imagine it should show A10 sixth of ♣ and another ace with only a doubleton in support of hearts. What is Snapdragon?

[hv=d=s&v=b&s=sj7h102da74ca107642]133|100|Scoring: MP P-1♦-1♥-1♠ 2♣-2♠-P-P ???[/hv] :) Moderate opposition. Your call.

:D 3♥. I can't imagine an argument in favor of a pass.