Vilgan

I've had a lot of success with just bidding a confident 2NT with these hands. Good chance partner rates to have something in the suit, or if not.. LHO might lead a different suit hoping to get a heart through. Not exactly original thinking.. but hey.. I didn't see this thread till now :) Eric

Thanks for the honest replies :( It makes me feel better.. the fact that various friends have been saying "you got screwed" for the past week made it harder to just file away. I guess the main thinking for me was: 1) if the pause suggests any suit, its a heart. If the person who hesitated had a good spade suit they could have doubled 2) At MP the club seems like a possible but unequal alternative 3) 12ish seconds didn't seem that excessive, that it screamed for an unusual lead I guess the main thing is.. it is a logical alternative, and whether it is equal or not (debatable) is irrelevant as far as how the process works. Was my first time I ever appealed something, so wasn't real familiar with what a decision is based on. Eric

Still not really satisfied with how a director call/appeal in the RR final was handled, so figured I would check to see if I'm out of line to be a bit on the unhappy side. The auction went: 1NT - p - 3NT - p(1) - p - p 1: A Bit of a hesitation, probably 12-14 seconds. No stop card was used by the 3 NT bidder. The person on lead has the following hand: Txx K9 Kxx Q9xxx At matchpoints, given the auction, the 10 of spades was led. My partners reasoning was that it called for a major suit lead, and he also didn't want to give away a free finesse in a suit the declaring side was bound to have some length in by leading a club. As it turns out, a spade is the only lead that sets the contract by 2. The director was called, informed of the hesitation, etc. The director ruled that despite the auction and the fact it was a MP event, the 4th best club was a logical alternative and enforced a club lead. It was appealed, and the appeals committee also took the stance that the club was an equally logical alternative. I dunno, maybe we are out of line by being annoyed with this. But it seems to me, that with no hesitation the logical lead with that hand and that auction is a spade. period. If it was an IMP event, then there might be more of a case for a club lead with the side entries. However, in MP it doesn't seem that blindly just leading a 4th best club is the correct lead or logically equal to a spade. Are we that crazy for being unhappy with this ruling? I've had no problem with rulings being made not in our favor before if it made sense (different partner had a tendency to think w/o a need for it (unintentional coffeehouse) sometimes, which costs), but even a week after the fact this still grates at me a bit. The hand is board 7 at http://www.acbl.org/assets/documents/play/...is/IMPRWF1m.pdf Eric

Prob not the best plan, but bored so I'll take a stab at making 7 :). Cross to dummy with a diamond. Play a top club pitching a diamond if east doesn't rough in. If they do and rough high, overtrump and cross back with a heart. If they do and trump low, overtrump, play a high trump, and cross back to dummy with a trump to take your 4 pitches. If both follow to the 2nd club: Run the 10 of hearts. If hearts are 2-2, then after covering the J you can cross back to dummy with a trump to pitch your 3 spades. If the 10 holds and hearts are 3-1. Run clubs pitching your 3 spades. When righty roughs in, overtrump and cross back with a heart for the remaining pitches. Eric

This reminds me of a hand from about a year ago. The bidding of the hand went: 1♠ 2♠ 3NT - all check After the hand was over, my RHO mentioned that if my partner had passed instead of bidding 3NT, he was going to pass 2 spades. The reply was "And that large thud you woulda heard would have been my jaw hitting the table" (he was 6/6 reds). I had 5 spades, LHO and my partner both had a void, and RHO had 8 spades to the AJT9. Strange hands happen, and they happen a lot more frequently than I really ever see someone psyching spades in the first seat :P Eric

I don't know that I agree with this statement. I love all aspects of precision EXCEPT the meaningless 1♦ opener. It seems like one of the great sacrifices precision players make in order to add more significance to their 1♣ 1♥ 1♠ 1NT and 2♣ openers. If I lose matchpoints entirely because of system, it is usually due to having to open 1♦. I haven't read the full system.. and it sounds interesting. However, as someone who plays modern precision (with 2/1 responses) those two statements really made me cringe. Eric

Think I was distracted and hit 1♠ in the poll, but for me this is an automatic 3♠ preempt. You are all offensive, and as someone said.. take a diamond away and make it a small spade and you have about the same playing strength. The opps could have a club game, a heart game, etc and this makes it harder. If you have a spade game or slam your extra shape gives extra value to the hand that outweighs the 1 less spade. The only disadvantage is if you push them into a game they might not find normally, but this seems to be less frequent than getting them to land in the wrong spot. Eric

Its hard to clarify values etc especially in competition because 1♦ could be 11-13 without diamonds, or 14-16.. again without lots of diamonds. I would personally switch out the 2♦ and 1♦ meaning somewhat. Basically move the 5+ diamonds meaning to 1♦. So opening 1♦ promises EITHER 5 diamonds or a strong NT. Now make your 2♦ opener for hands that have less than 5 diamonds, and cannot fit in the category of a strong NT or a weak NT. Mini roman or the precision diamond both work. Bidding after that nebulous ♦ is hard, but perhaps the answer is to just adjust the meaning rather than devising a special system for responses. This is especially true in any kind of competition where figuring out if opener has 11 points or 16 can be hard. Eric

On a pure frequency basis, how often does one really need to bid 2 NT naturally in this spot as opposed to a bid showing both minors? I haven't had the situation come up once in the last year, whereas similar auctions where I appreciated being able to bid 2 NT for the minors and X for penalty have come up several times. Eric

Hrmm, perhaps a tad late to chime in.. but as a young player I am not at all surprised that rubber bridge is declining faster than duplicate. I love duplicate bridge and am completely uninterested in ever playing much rubber bridge. Rubber bridge is (imo) closer to a regular card game than duplicate. Its a past time that a few decades ago appealed to the masses, but over time a lot of other things (video games and tv being big ones) have appeared as alternate ways to relax and have fun. Duplicate is (for me) a completely different cat completely. It eliminates the luck of who got the "good cards" inherent in most games and is very competitive. The demographic of people (imo) who enjoyed rubber bridge has a lot more competition for their attention now. The demographic for duplicate players really doesn't have much competition as there really isn't anything like duplicate bridge. Rubber bridge isn't just for casual relaxed players, a lot of experts seem to enjoy it. However, the average rubber bridge player is a lot more casual, relaxed, and is more likely to wile away hours doing all the various other entertaining things that have appeared over the years than a duplicate player who really only has one outlet for their competitive appetite. Eric

My apologies if this is the wrong forum. Is there a good (accessible) way to find hands to practice certain tactics... specifically (in my case) squeezes? I can read hands out of a book and figure out the best line usually, but it feels like a more complete learning experience to actually play out a hand on a computer in some way. Maybe even a listing of hands from bridge baron 16 that apply? Just looking to practice recognizing and implementing a squeeze on a bunch of hands so it becomes familiar more quickly. Only software I have atm is BB 16 and BBO, but might be able to buy more if it is worth the money. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Sorry if this is a B/I thing, just seemed sort of borderline as to which forum. Thanks! Eric

I started playing about a year ago... so being a "new" player is a fairly fresh experience for me. Some of the comments like "just learn how to play, don't worry about conventions" are imo rather patronizing. Most conventions are not complicated, and they make the process of bidding easier rather than harder. Admittedly you don't want to start playing everything at the same time.. just keep adding something every 2-3 sessions or whatever rate makes you comfortable. However, they are not big scary complex things and serve people of ALL skill levels equally. Another thing I disagree with is the comment about omg learn count. As I phased out of intermediate status, I started playing count and I LOVE it. It is incredibly frustrating now for me playing with someone who does not show count. However, (again, imo) count is something that you start doing when you feel ready for it. Its great for visualizing the hand layout/distribution of the 2 hands you can't see... but when you are still learning the game there are plenty of clues in the way people play.. signals etc, that you can usually find the right play even without knowing if declarer is 5/4/2/2 or 5/3/3/2. When you are comfortable with the game to the point that you are starting to picture the other 2 hands in your mind, then count is awesome. But when mentoring newer players who have enough on their minds already, count falls by the wayside for a good while imo. Eric

Why would they want to fight back against online play? Okay, if someone wants to play all day and get lets say 4 colorless points that show up on no ranking list whatsoever... who cares? It effects absolutely nobody else whatsoever. Others who go to tournaments can rack up 10-20 a day and be involved in a more social/fun atmosphere. To be honest.. I think some sort of rating system would be good, but it should not be based on masterpoints whatsoever. Perhaps people are rated.. then play in a flighted event, and it might tweak their rating up or down a tiny bit depending on how they did compared to how they were expected to do. Masterpoints are a marketing tool... and a great one. But they should not in ANY way be utilized in an actual rating system that is meant to be accurate. Eric

all you really need pard to have is the ♠K to have a good shot at setting the contract.. so a low spade it is. If pard was marked with 0-1 points, I might lead the heart. Eric

I don't know that beginner/intermediate means easybridge style bidding only. I asked here since I consider myself an advanced imp player but an intermediate MP player, and it seems like a reasonably straightfoward % question that I don't have the MP experience to answer myself ;) Obviously there will be times that we miss our major suit fit and a game, but (for people that do preempt with 5 card majors at MP's), what I wasn't sure about was if 51% of the time you get a better result by being willing to preempt with hand 1.. or hand 2. Hand 1 was day 2 of the blue ribbons.. but my partner and I got creamed there (like 120 out of 130) since we are imp players and only starting to do the whole MP thing. Eric

all at MP's, would you preempt 1st/2nd seat with: ♠ 9 ♥ Jxxxx ♦ QJTxxxx ♣ <void> My partner and I disagreed on it.. and it is a style/partnership agreement thing. However, to me it seems like a natural preempt at MP's. I would rather mess with the bidding since somebody at the table has spades. If its my partner.. I want him to shut up. If it is the opps, I'd like to make it harder for them to find it.. especially since X might be harder w/o hearts. This can be compared with another hand i held: ♠ KT8xx ♥ <void> ♦ 9 ♣ QJT9xxx Which first seat I decided not to open. I think with this hand its better to pass.. and if opps have the game going values and find a heart fit.. I'll start bidding clubs and spades. Anyways.. what are the general feelings on preempting with a side 4/5 card major? I think it hurts our competitiveness to refuse to preempt with them, but others have disagreed. Would you preempt the above hands? Does the "thou shalt not with a 5 card major" rule always hold true even at MP's? Thanks for any insights. Eric

flighted would rule IF they let people play up. Not enough people at some games, but others could probably support separate flights. It would, however, take a bit more from the software to automatically build the sections instead of just randomly making them at the game start time. Stratified is kinda bleh. Good for those hunting for MP's, but tends to bring in more weak pairs (imo) and it'd get even more random than it already is imo. Stratified is a good business choice probably, but 1 or 2 flighted games would rule.

This has been pulled on me before... and is probably one of the angriest times of my bridge career. Playing with a C partner who I was sort of mentoring (not that I'm a major veteran myself) I made a bid that he initially thought he knew until undergoing the 3rd degree from LHO who seemed doubtful (even though they knew it was correct). Then somewhat flustered he just lost his mind and made a wretched bid that gave away the board. It was hard to call the TD on (I chose not to), but it made me lose all respect for the opp who knowingly did this. Also had people try it on me.. 2 NT p 5NT, rho says "oh, so that's invitational to 6 if you have a max?". From a top flight player? Come on. Anyways, I agree that its unethical.. but its also one of the things that seriously pisses me off more than anything else. If people don't know their own agreements.. let them make the mistakes on their own. Knowingly nudging them in the wrong direction is one of the most inappropriate things that can be done imo... especially to newer players that are trying to remember enough as it is. Eric

Its better than the MBC, but still much more random than any of our club games. Not really sure if it can be fixed though. On the flipside.. I don't have a problem with online MP's. You don't have to pay for the club, the director, utilities, etc etc so the costs are going to be a lot lower. If people really care about lots of MP's and are willing to play online all the time to do it... cool. It still won't hold a candle to those who play f2f tournaments and do well.

Would assume he is referring to the fact that anything but a 1♣ opener promises a very specific range (for us, 11-15). Not as narrow as 1NT, but its still reasonably specific and makes judging a variety of things a lot easier immediately. The various 1♣ auctions with asking bids and finding slams are GREAT, but the fact 1♦, 1♥, 1♠, etc all have a ceiling is also extremely useful and frequently overlooked.

I don't agree. Why can't you teach newbs precision? Comment 1: I posited that the noobie area should feature a single bidding system. I really don't care what this system is. I would expect that this system would vary by region (SAYCish in the US, Acol in Britain, some form of Polish Club in Poland, Precision over in China) Comment 2: I have no objection if you, or anyone else wanted to teach (or learn) a system other than whatever passes for standard. I simply suggest that noobie area isn't the right environment to do so... I dunno... I think newer players exploring precision as an optional playing style shows interest in the game that ought to be heavily encouraged.. not stamped out in a "everyone plays standard here in this newbie game" campaign. Precision has its strengths and weaknesses, and I think the BIL is an awesome place for newer players to try out various styles and figure out which one they like best. On this style of auction, we've actually had something similar. Partner accepted initially with an enormous major... with interest in possibly playing 6 of a minor. Found out I had garbage (1 control) and cashed out at 4 of his ginormous major instead of the minor.

The more I play bridge, the less I like club games and lean more towards playing mostly just tournaments. The field at the club (ours anyways) is usually so bad that I feel like it would be detrimental to my ability as a bridge player to play at the club more than what I do.

2 way stayman is very useful if you play micro or weak NT. My partner and I play 10-13 NT when not vulnerable, so with that... 2 way stayman is very useful. Over a strong (which imo 14-16 is) or even intermediate, the disadvantages to 2 way stayman and not using transfers rapidly outweigh the advantages. So ya... 2 way stayman can be nice, but not with 14-16 NT.

Playing precision and mini roman, with 2♦ being 11-15 points (can be 10 at favorable), my partner and I agreed that 2♦ <something> X is always penalty. I think this is reasonably standard. However, we appear to disagree as to the meaning of 2♦ <something> P P X. I believe it should remain as takeout. Aka, partner I have a very good mini roman hand (top in values, no wasted honors in their suit), however I also have defensive tricks if you convert. He insists our agreement should be that it is penalty. We had a hand earlier that went 2♦ 3♣ P P to me, and it was a hand where having X available as takeout was correct since we can make 3 hearts and they can make 3♣ but not 4♣. We haven't had a hand ever come up yet where the mini roman opener can X for penalty in the passout seat, and tbh it seems a hand like that would be rare to nonexistant. %wise, what is the better treatment of double in the passout seat for matchpoints? For imps? Anyways, might be a bit too basic for this forum but would appreciate any insight from those who also play mini roman :) Eric

Wow, this whole thread was a total eye opener. I had no clue there existed places that enforced a dress code to play bridge. That's totally crazy B) The idea of not being allowed to wear shorts in the summer totally boggles my mind. Is that a Europe thing, or are there places in the US that do it too? As part of the "younger demographic", it'd be really hard to take anyone seriously who insisted that I had to go change into different clothing to play a card game. Eric Sieg