suokko

What about 4th seat? I just opened 4th seat 11-13 1NT with 14 hcp in the latest Cayne match. We should probably explain those 1NT opening up to no game interest meaning quite many 14 hcp hands fit to the category. [hv=lin=pn|suokko,migry,Derric,jillm|st%7C%7Cmd%7C2S9TQH57TKD48AC3JA%2CS25JKH389QD36C69Q%2CS7AH246D259JC248K%2C%7Crh%7C%7Cah%7CBoard%2016%7Csv%7Ce%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C1N%7Can%7C11-13%20may%20have%20minor%20singletons%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cpc%7CH3%7Cpc%7CH2%7Cpc%7CHA%7Cpc%7CH5%7Cpc%7CDK%7Cpc%7CDA%7Cpc%7CD6%7Cpc%7CD2%7Cpc%7CD4%7Cpc%7CD3%7Cpc%7CD9%7Cpc%7CDT%7Cpc%7CHJ%7Cpc%7CHK%7Cpc%7CH8%7Cpc%7CH4%7Cpc%7CD8%7Cpc%7CS2%7Cpc%7CD5%7Cpc%7CDQ%7Cpc%7CS3%7Cpc%7CS9%7Cpc%7CSJ%7Cpc%7CSA%7Cpc%7CS7%7Cpc%7CS8%7Cpc%7CST%7Cpc%7CSK%7Cpc%7CS5%7Cpc%7CC2%7Cpc%7CS4%7Cpc%7CSQ%7Cpc%7CC3%7Cpc%7CC6%7Cpc%7CCK%7Cpc%7CC7%7Cpc%7CDJ%7Cpc%7CD7%7Cpc%7CH7%7Cpc%7CH9%7Cpc%7CH6%7Cpc%7CC5%7Cpc%7CHT%7Cpc%7CHQ%7Cpc%7CC9%7Cmc%7C8%7C]500|400[/hv]

No double to 3♠ but it doesn't mean that partner can't have a good 4 card suit or even ok 5 card suit. It is too risky to do lead doubles with bad suits when opponents might make 3♠ easily in this biding. Based on that I would still chooses spade lead as the safest alternative. Dummy has denies spades so at least one of opponents hands doesn't have spade suit.

3♦ double was agreed to deny penalty and shortness in ♦. It is missing the alert/explanation in myhands at least. But there was some private chat about it in the table. My initial penalty pass caused also huge problems to later biding. Probably everyone wouldn't do same. But I couldn't figure any other way to have chance to describe my hand type and make a slam invite in hearts ending up declaring. I wanted to declare the heart contract to avoid spade ruff from the lead. That initial thinking to try to declare heart contract shadow my later thinking when I should have carefully analized what Juho had promised up to 4♥. I even failed to defend correctly that hand. But that was quite cheap this time.

We missed a cold slam when I didn't think completely what shape Juho had promised. It was so obvious spade void promised and I choose not to look for slam when I feared Migry would probably have that spade void and first trick ruff would beat us. Other wise that biding was bad from me too. But that is a different story entirely. We also bid quite many never making game contracts with minimal values while only one game making produced a positive score. But those games were actually mostly bid by opponents too. Then there was boards 6 and 18 where the winning lead was an alternative for a moment but I eliminated them. I don't know if I should have found the winning lead based on biding in our table in either one. But it is really annoying when winning lead was the last alternative and I didn't choose it.

Sorry. for a bit later reply. But I can see multiple reasons when mini-NT can be winner 3rd seat. Of course red vs white positive sides aren't that big and negative sides increase a lot. That makes the 3rd seat mini 1NT scoring expectations highly depending on vulnerability. 1. 1NT is pre-emptive opening. Opponents will have hard time finding correct part-scores and games 2. Doubling even that 1NT with passed partner is not risk free for opponents. I have opened 10 hcp 3rd seat 12-14 1NT and ended up making it redoubled (partner had 10hcp too). 3. There is no game so whole 1NT system can be designed to look for the best part-score our way.

Two weeks ago it was horrible sleepy performance. Do other allow us try to improve this week? That means Derric and I would like to play on Saturday.

"No agreements" what ever I bid is going to be pure guess if partner thinks samy way. So I will avoid any confusion and just bid 4♠. But actually that hand would like to hear if partner has a mild slam interest and short ♦. That why it would be nice to have 3NT as super accept asking for SGL if slam is possible. Other wise partner would bid retransfer to play 4♠ (or ask aces without show shortness). But more often 2NT opening includes mix of values that doesn't work so perfectly against any shortness.

18-19 BAL and 14-16 5m4M are about equivalent in playing strength. Too bad quite different values work in partner's hand for both. But without any special agreement to have separate raise for 18-19 balanced with 4 card support I would stick biding 3♥. Some like to even force to game with 18-19 balanced and 4 card support but that prevents a lot light responses looking for maximum unbalanced opener with fit. Those light responses require different thinking to bidding in other sequences too leading to situation where one simple just has to agree to a system and adjust minimum response according to what has been agreed to.

I just wanted to say it out loud that it was neither misclick nor intentional swinging. It was simple total lose of composure resulting to complete lag of any knowledge what I was holding or what I should do. At least I managed to pass instead of some wild bid. :) If I'm behind in a match I always keep playing my normal game because I trust that is the best way to win what other table produces. Even tough when our cards are played by Garozzo and Sadek it is expected that even our best game isn't good enough to beat their score in long run. I know they aren't the best players in world (any more) but they are still very good. But still swinging is big minus EV action which I try to avoid making.

For a moment I simple didn't know what cards I held and passed over 2♥. Without any opening I would have been likely to cause round pass. Then trick two I should play Q instead of J to make it possible to overtake. But even at that moment I haven't yet managed to gain full composure. Also it seemed like Juho was yesterday too tired too. We didn't talk much yesterday because he went straight to sleep.

In begin just a lot playing teaches basic understand of card play. I did start playing without knowing pretty much anything. I only started finding basic reading after fooling around quite many boards just for fun. But just playing doesn't teach a lot of important knowledge about biding, signals, leads or card play technique. That information is easier to get from a mentor. Alternative is to look for books or good online sources. This game has so much different technical details that without reading one can't simple learn enough. Good online sources are: This forum Richard Pavilcek's bridge site http://www.rpbridge.net/ Phillip Martin's blog http://thegargoylechronicles.blogspot.com Wikipedia Articles in Contract bridge template links (The folded link list in the bottom of page) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_bridge Bridge winners http://bridgewinners.com/ Later on good source of many biding systems is Daniel's system pages http://www.bridgewithdan.com/systems/

System policy: No HUM in short round tournaments. In long round tournaments (teams) HUM system loses seating rights allowing opponents choose who plays against HUM. Fairly simple and actually keeps people playing fairly generic systems because those are simple the best for results. I think it was 2007 or so when there was last time a HUM system used in the team championships. What about too many conventions? I think too many conventions hurts players playing those conventions unless they are seriously practicing them. Without practicing conventions can easily produce bad scores because players forget continues or choose wrong bids. So I would be happy if my opponents played too many conventions for their commitment level.

Derric and I would like to play

Top level italians think that Mexican 2♣ or 2♦ is clear long term winner because it makes later biding by 1m opener in competition better defined. I agree with their thinking on this. Big bang is using the 2♣ for 18-19 balanced which allows stopping to both 2M contracts. That includes even hands like 2-(344) and 2-(335) after opponents decide to preempt with spades. After saying that I have to confess that I'm not playing Mexican two opening.

Ambra [1] has transfers to most of overcall situation with many places having transfers in two different levels. 1m(1♠) is definitely annoying trade off. * Giving up take out double isn't possible * I prefer not to give up natural mild invite 1NT Losing 2 level clubs bid is actually workable if you compare to 2 clubs being forcing. Too bad we ended up losing competitive+ 5+5+ cue bid also to allow competitive club bids and mixed raise for ♦. 1[♦ (1♠) X 4(5)♥ 1NT mild invite (7)8-10 2♣ inv+ 4+♦ 2♦ 7+ 5+♥ 2♥ stopper asking, either BAL inv+ or inv ♣ no stopper 2♠ competitive or FG no stopper 5+♣ 2NT inv+ ♣ promises stopper, 3♣ mixed raise 3♦ preemptive 3♥ inv 6+♥ 3♠ splinter 3NT S/O 4♣ FG 5+♥5+♣ 4♦ preemptive or preemptive invite depending on zones. EDIT: I forgot to mention that this structure is used in system where 1♦ is always unbalanced. That makes it likely that raise structure might require some modifications like 2♣ promising only constructive values. [1] Daniel's system page has link to Ambra documentation http://www.bridgewithdan.com/systems/