Kalvan14

A 64-board match between an expert team (not even top-class experts, mind) and an "average Joes" team is no contest. I would expect that you would need to give the AJs 1 IMP/board to make it interesting (this assumes that the expert team plays with interest in the game, and that the 64 boards are chosen in a random way). Finesses are funny things. There are people who succeed in a lot of finesses (much more than average should account for) and people who are ridiculous failure. It's not a matter of luck: people who succeed generally no when and through whom to finesse. Then there is always the classic slam on one-of-two finesses which fails and the slam on 2/2 plus a trump split which succeeds. But this is statistically non significant. Poker vs. bridge: the "soft" skills (table presence, how to read yr oppos, keep yr nerves, and so on) are very similar. I admit that poker is harder in the sense that you have to read more people, and that bluff has a much more significant impact. "Hard" skills: even if you include bluffing here, I would submit that techniques at bridge are much more extensive and complicated. Conclusion: if your game is mostly based on "soft" skills, poker is your game. OTOH, if you can join technical skills to psychological skills, the advantage you gain in bridge is huge.

50 flips of a coin are statistically not significant. You might have a much higher heads streak (or tails, btw) than in your example. And you cannot anticipate that next run will be without significant deviations. Over a truly long run (1 million tosses? 10 millions? 100 millions?) it is reasonable to anticipate a wash-out (or at least very close results). The same applies to the lottery example. Let's make it simple: you do not choose random numbers, you just buy a ticket. If there are 10 millions ticket on sale, your chance of winning the first prize are 1 against 10 millions. If the promoter sells all of the tickets, someone will have to win (100% chances), but the individual chance of landing the first prize are still 1 against 10 millions. Poker tournaments are similar. Let's say everyone pays the same fee: 10 dollars. Let's postulate that there are 3 classes of players: good (5%), average (30%) and poor (65%). The number of wins per class are not proportional to the number of players in that class. My expectation would rather be that wins are inversely proportional to the number of player in a given class, or something similar. This means that a poor player can win, but it is unlikely; more significant is that the poor players class have to invest a very large amount of money for a small return; the good players class would be in the mirror position: small investment for a good return. Rubber bridge is a classic example: very seldom poor players last long playing for high stakes (unless they are quite rich: but this would not be high stakes for them). Same with poker. Players tend to gravitate into a table where there skills (or lack of) is close to the table average.

Cluck, cluck, cluck here too Calvin the other Rooster

True, a bad 19. IMHO, there must be a limit to the honor strength of a simple overcall. With this hand, the only possible sequence is first X, then 2S. We live in the real world, not all the bids come straight out of the Bridge Encyclopedia :)

In Australia, you have to alert 2♣ [after all it does not show 4 cards in clubs]. I know it is funny, but... OTOH, X and XX are not alertable....

3♦, in third seat I like to prepare lil traps for oppos. 1♦ would not be really signifcant bid: no pre-emption, and while it's safe I doubt it will be a useful lead. To bid 1♦, I'd like to change 2 outside K into Aces

yes, that's quite obvious. Otoh, the lead is a bit funny: I would have better expected hearts, the unbidden suit, of trumps. At the table, I wondered if it were the case of looking for a crossruff. So I played hearts to the Q (!), and obviously the K was with LHO. Back comes the ♦Q, and you ruff in hand. The exploration of alternative avenues was not really successful. What do you play now?

This is certainly the right explanation: it fails if, and only if, E is a beginner. If E is a good player, I would really consider penalising him (for lawyerism :D : in the good old days, he would hang, if convicted. nowadays no risk of that :) )

[hv=n=sq875h5dat875c843&s=skj94haqtd4cajt65]133|200|Oppos are silent. 1C - 1D - 1S - 2S -4S[/hv] You are S, dealer. MP, and vuln. LHO leads a small ♦, and you win the A. What do you play now?

I would completely agree with you, were it not an Indy (which is an acronym describing your partner: Idiotic, Nauseating, Disgusting Yahoo :) ) Make the most comprensible bid: 4NT (come on, everyone know Blackwood :D ). The real alternative (not to be despised) is PASS: your partner makes one trick less than the room (10 instead of 11), but is playng in 4♠, and you gain against all the 6♠ down 1

I vore for double (t/o, obviously). Both majors and tolerance for ♣ is fine with me

Hand 1: I would not splinter on this hand. It is too weak (a splinter should be 12-15) and you are playing an Indy!!!. Even 2NT might lead to confusion. Probably I would bid 2 ♣. and decide my re-bid (which should be 4♥, unless pard reverses) afterwards. Hand 2: since we are in an Indy, the horrible 4NT must be swallowed. After 5♦, I would bid 5♠, to hint to problems in the minors.

[hv=s=saqjt96had2cajt87]133|100|[/hv] You are quite right, in a way. It was a slam try in spades. OTOH, I know the guy, and I was pretty confident that he would not have bid over 4♥ without reasons. So I bid 6♦, and we played 6♥ (we might have played 6♠ as well). Why 4♥ and not 4♦ (which might have been a very reasonable alternative, and possibly the most "by the book" bid? because I was afraid of a bad split, a general bad split. And I wanted to put the brakes on.

S shares most of the guilt: 4♠ and then XX over 5♦X is a bit too much for a minimum aceless hand. N overbid a bit with 5N.

Apparently I am in a minority of 1: I rebid 4♥. Reasons for that: - I fear this is a misfit hand, and I don't like 3NT - my ♥ are pretty solid - I need 3 Aces or 2Aces and Q♥ to play slam - after 1♥-1♠, I did not rebid ♥ at any level. I re-bid 2♦, running the risk that (once a year) 2 ♦ might be passed. This should hint to pard that my ♦ are significant. anyway, after 1♥-1♠-2♦-3♣-4♥, pard comes out with 4♠ (new partnership, but pard is quite a solid player). What now?

2♣ shoud ring a bell for N: I am never happy when the 1st suit of my pard is in my chicane. Anyway, I agree that 2♠ is the best rebid over 2♥. Over 3♣, I would also bid 4♥; at worst I would bid 3♠, and now S would know that there is no control in diamonds.

Forget 2N (which is crazy). My preference is for pass (there is a very simple reason: I am not sure that a Moysian fit would play better than 1N - give pard AKJ in clubs :) - but I am sure that 2♥ or 2♠X would be a disaster). If I pass, maybe oppos will say something, if not I take my chances. Mind, 2C is not a foolish bid: I might consider this action, occasionally

There are plenty treatments available. I agree that RONF is standard, but I have a lot difficulties in accepting that 2♠ over 2♥ is forcing (while I do agree that 3♥ over 2♠ is forcing). But again, in a serious partnership everything goes: it is a matter of style. With a pick-up partner, RONF is better. As an aside, I do not remember a lot of hands where you played in a different suit after 2M: normally you end up playing 3M, 4M or 3NT.

I believe that luck exists (and oviously, bad luck too :) ). I do not know if "luck" is a blind cosmic principle, a nice mischievous lady or just the fact that some people can grasp patterns or sense underlying principles or whatever. OTOH, it is obvious that humans evolution was strongly biased by the cpacity or not of recognising patterns: when the rains come, the ducks come...and equally obvious that we are often too quick to identify as a pattern something which is just a coincidence (the other night at the club there were 3 slams in a row in the first 3 hands played: is it a night when all slams make? The answer is no, but you possibly are slightly nudged to be more optimistic). Equally, most people are quick to identify a pattern of misfortune affecting them, while often good luck is assumed to be personal skill. Bitter experiences (in particular, a famous hand featuring 3 aces against an inside straight) have taught me that odds are at best a non-committing suggestion :o

answering controls over 2C strikes me as the best way to loose another bidding level. Controls over 1C were used in the Neapolitan Club, and in the Blue Team Club; I played neapolitan for a time, and I always had a feeling that the first round (1C and control answer) was a lost opportunity. In the Albarran System (canape') over 2C partner showed specific aces. They were the good old days, and 2 C was truly game forcing (and playing a canape' system there was no risk of a 1-level bid being passed). At least, specific aces might be very useful for slam bidding, on specific deals. Nowadays I play a 2C "almost" forcing to game (includes the hands which in Acol would be opened 2M), with 2D waiting and paradox responses. It works pretty well.

A small diamond. If there has to be a force, diamonds are more likely to force than hearts. 10♦ is attractive, but i doubt that anyone could pull such a lead in real life :P

All this is quite interesting. However, i would point out a couple of things: 1. There are a lot of HCP missing (after all you have just 13 HCP). Equally, pard can have a lot of possible hands. 2. Your hand is playable in ♥ or ♦, and you have 4 to 4.5 losers (2 blackies, 2 in ♥ and maybe less than 1/2 in ♦). Unfortunately, three of these losers must be covered by Aces. If pard has KQ♠, KQ♣ and ♥A he is covering 1 to 1.5 losers. 3. pard might have a number of ♠

I suppose the first action would be to order a drink myself The second action would be a double. i assume you are not playing any sophisticated method. I always enjoy playing against 1NX when declarer is tipsy :P

As Justin said, posts that say: 'in my specialized method, this hand is easy' do nothing to advance our understanding of the issues raised by the post. I am not attacking your method (I do not know enough about it to do so), but it has nothing to do with the thread. And observing that game is good opposite xxx - xx in the blacks, with nothing else, is also unhelpful. Would partner know to commit to game with that, and not with xxx♠ xx♥/♦??? Would you be able to tell that he held xx♣ and not xxx?? The problem is not susceptible to a right or wrong answer approach. It is, however, useful for prompting a discussion of how various players (with a wide range of experience and skill levels) approach this everyday evaluation problem in the context of a standardish method. I prefer 1♠, but I would not criticize a partner who chose 2♣: as I pointed out in my first post, a minor change to the hand could get me to vote for 2♣ myself. I and my partners stretch to respond. If you need 6 hcp to respond, then open 2♣. If you would bid 1N (on the way to 2♠) with Qxx Jxxxx Qxx xx, then open 1♠. If you bid aggressively in response to a 2♣ opener (I do) then open 1♠: I would, as partner, assume opener's hand was slightly stronger than this and thus might push a level too high in my slam hunt. Those two factors are roughly equal, with the balance favouring 2♣. But what tips the scale for me is the presence of opponents. It is highly probable that one or the other will bid if I open 1♠. If It goes PPP, then there is a good probabilty that we have no fit: RHO will strain to reopen with short ♠, so a pass is an indicator (not an assurance) of ♠ length. "my method" was just an aside. The issue is that I do not want the risk of pard passing with the little that i need to make a game. Therefore, I rate it better to open this hand 2♣, and i would do it certainly playing either SAYC or 2/1. The hand has 8 controls out of 12 and a solid spade suit. frankly 5 or 4.5 losers against 4 is not a major issue, IMHO

Hi, Robert. My style is to double 1♠ with 4♥, if the double is backed by limited strength; the more off-shape it si, the more strong it must be. Therefore i would double 1♠ with 1-3-4-5 with a good 15/+ HCP. However, the quality of the suits plays an obvious role. With x, Jxx, AKQxx, KQJx I would prefer 2♦; with x, AQx, KJxxx, KQJx I would certainly double. Now suppose that I have not that strength, but a good ♦ suit (1-3-5-4). I would prefer to bid 2♦, and when the bid comes back to me at 2♠, to double to show ♣ and tolerance for ♥ (note that if the hand were 1-4-3-5 or 1-4-5-3 i would have no qualm in doubling 1♠). If I were to bid 3♣, it would show a 5-5. Now you may argue that I did not use the unusual NT over 1♠: this would be because my ♦ are significantly stronger than ♣. This frees up 2NT for 6♦ and 4♣. I would not care to compete with 2-2-5-4, unless it were something like xx xx AKJxx AQJx. In which case, i'd use 2NT again Does it make sense? I will welcome your input. regards