pbleighton

4C. I'm guessing this is wrong, since it is the obvious bid :lol: Peter

"and buy all of babylon 5 if you can... you'll see the genius of harlan ellison" Genius might be a stretch, but it was one of the best sci fi series ever - Star Trek: Next Generation and the X-Files are the others IMO. The TNT Dune miniseries was good, too, better (but not as flashy) as the movie. Didn't really capture the book, though that may be impossible. Peter

My primary pd and I stopped playing ftf about 4 months ago (I play a little ftf with others). We have been playing in the Main Lobby, which is fun, but: The standard of play in the Main Lobby has decreased over the last few years, and we find the level of competition to be (usually) disappointing. We have been putting "Adv+, friendly only" on the table description, but have been (so far) reluctant to lock the table - this is not so friendly, and anyway the "Advanced" and "Expert" players are really... well this has been discussed in other threads. I'm looking for tournaments to try. We are no experts - we're above average club players, strong intermediate/low advanced in real (vs BBO self rating) terms, and are looking for a game where we are roughly in the middle of the field - whether somewhat better or worse than average is unimportant. We are willing to pay an entry fee. We play an EHAAish, simple but aggressive system (we always post our cc), so we would want to avoid tournaments where this would be an issue. We speak English only. Masterpoints, BBO points, etc. are irrelevant. Any suggestions? Peter

Very few opps I play against in the Main Lobby use a convention card (I play only with a regular pd, use a cc, and our profiles direct the opps to look at our cc). I think a LOT more space in Other would be useful. Peter

"Most recent full time gig was as a Technology Strategist for Symantec. Currently doing consulting. I'm hoping that I get into the PhD program at MIT." Richard - I thought you already finished your PhD at MIT. Another one? Peter

Application developer/project manager for OLAP applications - they sit on top of the everyday transactional systems that companies use, and provide more sophisticated reporting capabilities. Before that, I was an application developer for transactional systems. Before that, I worked in the insurance industry (marketing, management, and actuarial work). Peter

"If you open 10 count's in 1/2 you really should open sounder in 3/4." I play 10-13 1-3 all vuls, and 14-17 in the 4th. You are right, we really "should" play 14-17 in the 3rd.. :) Peter

2NT, with 3NT very close and double reasonable. So I guess I don't see it as "pretty clear" :) Peter

I may be reading this wrong (it's late), but did East really bid 1S with three small spades? Is this a partnership agreement? I don't fault West for 1NT, though 2D would have been fine too. Peter

Close. 1D. The SK is a flaw, and it decreases the chance the hand will be passed out. Peter

"I'd go with 3H. Probably only worth 2H." 2H. I'm not smart enough for 3H :rolleyes: Peter

If "go away" was meant seriously, there is no excuse for it. He/she may have been using it as a joke, I don't know. As to your bidding, it was aggressive, and I wouldn't have done it, but so what? People overbid all the time, and sometimes they make it, which keeps them overbidding :rolleyes: Peter

Josh' point is a good one - heavy vs. light depends on the context. Another example is how light you open, including how light relative to the field in the minimum strength of your opening 1x bids, and how it affects your invitational range - minimum for a 2/1 vs. GF. When I played light openings (5-KQ854-K105-Q874 wasn't a stretch at all) in a relatively sound-opening ACBL field, where the average minimum strength is one to two points higher than this, it was imperative to invite on 11 counts and good 10s, or we would miss a bunch of games the field was routinely bidding. I wasn't going to GF on 12 counts opposite these openings, so my invitational range was 10+ to 13-, a wide range out of necessity. I'm currently playing very sound one bids (13+ unbalanced, 14+ balanced), and we invite with 9-10, GF with 11, and I see no reason to go to 8-10 as an invitational range. Another example is NT range relative to your minimum openers. With strong NT, you have a high percentage of your hands at the bottom of the range (especially in the minors with 5 card majors), which maximizes the number of hands which won't accept an invite, and where you languish in 2NT, the worst contract in bridge. I won't venture numbers here, or Richard will beat me upside the head with a wad of simulation code :lol: OTOH, if you play 12-14 NT and open unbalanced 12 counts (or lower), the percentage of acceptor hands is substantially higher, and you have two incentives for a wider range - fewer 2NT contracts as a percentage of invites, and the risk of missing game opposite balanced 15 counts (again, especially if you are playing in a strong NT field). Peter

2H, 3H, and pass are all reasonable. It depends on your agreements and style. That said, unless I had a partner who had specifically requested disciplined preempts, I would bid: 3H in the first seat not vulnerable, or in the third seat at any vulnerability except unfavorable. 2H unfavorable in the third seat I would pass in the second seat or in the first when vulnerable. I don't vary my preempting style by quality of opponents. Better opps bid better against preempts - they also bid and play better in general. Peter

"X expect a lot of votes for 2H." What do you do after pd bids 2D? 2H and pass are both reasonable, being me it's 2H. Peter

"Personally, I just think 2/1 is easier than SA, since its much clearer which auctions are forcing and which are not." For me, the "easy" test is a wash - the 2/1 auctions are easier, the 1NT forcing with invitational hands are harder. I actually don't have anything againt 2/1 - I play it in one partnership and have a good time. What I find amusing is the attitude of so many club players that 2/1 is clearly superior to Standard, which is just baby bidding :P Peter

"I agree that a majority of people don't use serious 3N. This is a seperate issue from fast arrival/slow arrival." What do most club level 2/1 players that you know use to show or deny slam interest in a 2/1 auction? How many of them effectively have basically no agreements at all? This was the point of my original post, not the actual merits of any particular method. Peter

2H. This really depends on what strength 2C promises. 4S. 4H. Pass. Peter

"Disagree. I think that fast arrival is predominantly used by weaker players, and few strong (north american) players use it in 2/1 auctions." LOL. Depends on your definition of strong, I guess. My point was that the majority of club 2/1 bidders (who form the great majority of 2/1 players) don't even use slow arrival - they don't have any agreements, they have no methods to show or deny extra values. I won't venture to aregue with you on what national caliber players and just below are doing. I will say that if club players in the northeast are using Serious 3NT, etc, they aren't alerting it, in the clubs or in the local tournaments. Perhaps it's different in Texas. Peter

"My monologue was definitely from the view that the majority of players simply do not have enough grasp of the tools that they wish to use; instead of being implements to a greater good, they often become the bludgeons of punishment themselves." I don't agree with all of your first laundry list, and feel that it is overstated, but this revised version is a reasonable general point. I will add a specific agreement to your list, in conjunction with this revision: Most club players (and I certainly include myself in this category) who play 2/1 would probably be better off playing modern Standard American (not SAYC :P). I realize that in the hands of experts and the better advanced players, in established partnerships with a lot of agreements, that 2/1 has better slam bidding than Standard. The tradeoffs are the loss of a natural 1M-1NT and inferior bidding with invitational hands, resulting in poorer game bidding on these hands. If you don't get significantly better slam bidding with 2/1 because you don't have good agreements, you are better off playing Standard. Also, if you play mostly MPs, you are better off playing Standard. The stuff frequently talked about in the Forum (Serious 3NT, etc.) isn't played by most 2/1 players I have seen. Even fast/slow arrival is only practiced regularly by (mostly) the strongest pairs. I like fancy stuff in the right partnership - my Precision partnership has better slam bidding than my 2/1 partnership - but of course we put more effort into it. Peter

Masterpoints are a marketing tool. Peter P.S. Congratulations - but not on the masterpoints :D

3S first choice, 4S second choice. It would be closer at IMPs. I assume pd has a reasonable hand for his double of 2H. 2S bidders - what is the worst hand you think pd could have? Might your pd double on a quacky 8 count and a stiff spade? Peter

D7, because it is the obvious lead, and I tend to make obvious leads :lol: SQ second choice. Pd has at least 3, and probably 4+ spades. Peter

3NT, but 4S is quite reasonable. Peter

Absolutely 4+ hearts, nothing about diamonds. This is how almost everyone in my neck of the woods plays it. Peter