pbleighton

Good idea, with a snowball's chance... Peter

"Okay, Helene. Here's a challenge for you. Your RHO opens 2♣, showing anything from the QJ to eleven card suit posted above to a 24 (or more) HCP balanced hand to an unbalanced hand with 3 or fewer losers and more quick tricks than losers. How do you compete against this opening? How do you defend against it in the play?" You guess. Since when are you entitled to have your opponents' bidding methods be easy to deal with? As I said in a provious post, I think it comes down to disclosure. Peter

"Thusly, some definition of a strong 2C opening is sorely needed. I don't have a problem when it's an acol 2 bid that has excellent playing strength (like the example I gave). It's the 15 count 2 suiters with a void and lack of controls that I have a problem with." Why do you have a problem with this, as long as it is properly disclosed? It seems to me that you have a sense of false entitlement on this issue, strange coming from one who plays (somewhat) unusual methods. A little cognitive dissonance here :) Perhaps the best solution to this is to require an alert if the 2C opener may be made on less than x points, with x something like 19 or 20. We should also get a definitive ruling from the ACBL that we know if the 2C opener has an absolute floor of x hcp or not, regardless of alerting, and if so what is x. If we get such a ruling, I suspect x will turn out to be 15. I don't care one way or the other. I consider the strong 2C opening to be an abomination. Peter

3C is clear to me, anyway. It's what I've got. Peter

"The most dramatic and sudden examples of natural selection have occured during times of rapid global climate changes; if mankind makes the earth uninhabitable for man himself, would that be natural selection, mass suicide. mass greed, or simply stupidity?" Stupidity. Peter

"That said, I would like to hear your opinion on this - do you believe that man and man's ruinous behavior to be part of natural selection?" I'm not Richard, but: a) Yes, but just because we *can* doesn't mean we *should*. ;) Preserving threatened species is in our long-term interest. c) Social Darwinism is morally and intellectually bankrupt. Peter

"Not really, because with point count that small, you usually have an opening beforehand." Yes, I read somewhere that the most frequent NT range in the 4th seat is 14-16. Peter

"I think it is correct that now the opener may pass with a minimum and nothing constructive to say since the responder will have the opportunity to bid again, but what about the responder? If it is now passed around to the responder may he pass or must he fulfill his duty to rebid? That is, does opener's pass imply minimum values and allow responder to judge if anything useful will come from further bidding, or should the responder still be forced to bid, allowing the opener to pass some stronger hands that don't have a convenient rebid if he wishes to hear more about responder's distribution/strength?" The opener can pass in this situation, showing a minimum which is usually balanced. However, he should bid if he can, even if the bid isn't perfect. After that, the responder can pass if he wishes, but it is usually wrong to do so, as letting the opps play undoubled when you have the balance of power rarely scores well. Peter

"90%...lol....hardly scientific proof." ... to one who's clearly been drinking the Kool-Aid... Peter

No. Peter

"The U.S. helped the freedom loving people of Iraq, Kuwait and Afganistan to get rid of their opressors. In Iraq, they took the side of the moslem opposition against their atheistic dictator." Not to defend Saddam in any way, but this is a gross oversimplification. Peter

In a recent poll the following 4 seat hand was presented: ♠ ♥ AQJ954 ♦ Q9853 ♣ K4 Only 3 out of 20+ of us voted for 2H. What does a 4th seat 2 bid look like to you? To me, it is 6+ cards, decnt suit, 11-14(usually), no decent 4 card major side suit. For me, this hand is far from ideal, with a (bad) 5 card minor diamond suit, but I figured a 1H opening would make it too easy to find their spade fit, and finding a diamond fit was tough with a passed pd, especially playing the worst convention in bridge, 1NT forcing. How would you change this hand to open it 2H? Peter

"Question: if I open 2♥, and LHO overcalls 2♠... what does double mean? In all the years I have played, the auction has never come up... and the essence of the 2♥ bid is, presumably, to describe some ostensibly 6331 or 6322 hand with minimum opening values: it is a very tightly constrained bid most of the time.. so maybe the double should be penalty? I'd take it as negative, absent agreement... but ...... " I think it should be penalty. Peter

"2H is an underbid" Why is it an underbid in the 4th seat? Peter

I would consider double at matchpoints, but it's an easy pass at IMPs. Peter

"It's just impossible to find out whether or not our hands fit well." Agree. 2H, shows 11-14 with 6+ hearts in the 4th seat. I want to make it a little tough for them to find their spades, which means I don't like 1H. 4H has some appeal. Peter

"Dbl is probably the best, yes, though in light of a possible (likely) heart barrage from LHO, 2♠ is also ok. Pard might not bid 4♠ on ♠AJTxxx if we dbl (maybe he should, but he might not do it), but he surely will if we bid 2♠." 2S on a small doubleton and 5-5(+?) in the minors is too cute for me. Double, I'd like to have a better hand at this level, but you can't always get what you want. Peter

3D is tempting, but I pass. Peter

Glen: Unlike some posters who complain about cheating, I have found your posts pretty reasonable. However, I think that you share a misperception with other posters, namely that some people who don't play "standard" bridge are "up to something". I don't play much with pickup partners any more, but what I remember from their bidding and play makes me dismiss thoughts of cheating when opps do spectacularly weird things and get a good result. I'm not saying that cheating doesn't exist, but I think that 99% (a made up number, to be sure) of these bids and plays are just the result of self-taught bridge. I'm fixed, next hand. Peter

4D may or may not be too optimistic, depending on what your cue-bidding agreements are, but the blame lies with North. 3H showed a minimum by South, with a flat 15, no good suit, and one ace he should have signed off in 4H. He has absolutely no business with a slam try. Peter

"I try to put the pressure on and make them guess but it seems that I too often push opps into making slams when I preempt more aggressively than the other table." It happens. I would have bid 5D. Peter

"13-15 is a bit more than a preempt and the given hand is not minimum" Both are true, but not by much, which is why I bid NV and pass V. Peter

"For the rest, you are maybe right, but one off in 2D and two off in 3NT. Bear in mind that you play it, you don't foist it on partner." Yeah, but my partner shares the score with me. BTW, I don't like 2NT, but I've made far worse bids :P Peter

"Does anyone have agreement regarding 1M-1NT-2NT? Or does people generally use this as invitational showing (17)18-19hp." Yes, that's how I play it. The shape is balanced, maybe 54m22 with something in the doubletons. I don't know how to show this hand otherwise. Peter

"Wrong possibly, but how could my example partner hand: Ax,xx,AQJxx,Kxxx be 'ridiculous'. Would you be ridiculed for holding this hand?" No, that's not the point. As responder, however, you might be ridiculed for assuming partner had this hand. You have a misfitting 9 count opposite a hand which may be nothing in particular, up to an 18 count. Trust partner to push on with good 16-18 points, and don't worry about the <26 point misfitting 3NT contracts which make. The 1x-1y-2z rebid is very wide ranging, and is a big flaw in standard bidding. Inviting with misfitting 9 counts doesn't make the flaw any smaller. Peter