benlessard

Good post . I prefer pass too but i much prefer X to 1S or 1NT. 1- My 1Nt in balanced is 11-14. 2- X is curiously more likely to keep them away from H than a 1S overcall. 3- Over 1H ill bid 1NT and partner will be less tempted to correct to 2H than if i had overcall 1Nt directly. So X is more likely to lead to a 1Nt contract than a direct 1Nt.

K109xx Qx xx AK10x Passing with this is soooo lame.

I would X but pass is ok too. For me there is a significant strength difference needed to double 4S instead of 4H.

I make pretty light initial X but make sound X in balancing so its a clear pass and they are not going to make it.

From the lead and AKJx on dummy it doesnt take a genius to say that its time for suit preference and not for attitude. I dont like 4Nt nor the double of 4Nt but its irrelevant. 200% blame to east

If the opening is limited 4S is a perfectly normal bid at imps. im repeating myself but red at imps it doesnt pay to stop at 3M.

If you play good bad or if X followed by 3C is possible (not playing support double) then the strong 3C isnt a big underbid. At MP it doesnt make sense to GF and expect to be minus more than 50%. There is no doubt in my mind that with A xx ATxx AKQJTx with the bidding 1C-----(P)-------1S----------(2H) 3C (str)---all pass And more than 50% of the times ill be happy to not be in game and it wouldnt surprised me that much to see 3C go down. I dont think its likely partner got a H stopper but if hes got a soft one (K or Q) i doubt RHO will give ur our 9th trick by leading the suit. 3D with A xx KTxx AKQxxx is just plain bad.

Squeeze without the count.

1S here. Do you think you will get a good MP score defending a non vul 2H even if partner lead diamonds ? Me i rarely get good MP result by selling out in 2H in a cozy 4-4 fit. First option is to bid 1D and double 2H later, but that is out because its likely partner going to pass the double and if he pull he will play us for 3154/3163 2nd option is to pass and double 1H or 2H later, partner will not play us for values. But that doesnt help partner find the D lead & it doesnt help him to double 3H if they compete too hard. + in the unlikely case that hes got a monster passing will not lead us to game. 3rd option is to bid 1S. It will gear us toward 2S. If they compete too hard partner will find a double. It might stop LHO from bidding 2H if he is broke.

Even if the system permit it i think the profits of opening this hands in particular is pretty small. 1- For me the number of spades ive got is primordial with 5H and 1S the chance that im going to bury their fit is quite low. With with 3♠ & 5♥ or with ♠ instead of ♥ the chance to bury their fit is much higher. 2- Lead directing. here the H are ok but a diamond might easily be a better lead. 3- The ability to describe my hand later if i pass. Here if partner open 1S i have a near perfect response of 2H. If the opps open and raise to 2S my hand is still good enough to make a move.

A high reverse like this is 100% GF. You need a very big hand to make a high reverse with xx in the opps suit. A xx ATxx AKQJTx This is not really enough since partner will need magic in D to make game. A xx Axx AKQJTxx Even with this monster hand (enough to bid 3D) Im not sure that game will make more than 50%. At Imps you cannot afford to miss game but at MP you dont need to force to game if you feel that game are less than 50%.

Agree 100% There is many hands where 4 make and partner is dead minimum. + there is hand where 3 is too high. Hand with long suit like KQxxxx are perverse, facing Ax they might provide 6 easy tricks but facing a stiff they will bring only 1 trick.

Yep your are right transfers are probably a superior method here (we are playing transfers lebensohl almost in all sequences like these) One thing is sure is that here you dont need 2 type of NF hands (invite+comp) but you need forcing and competitive. This is because partner show extra values. The 2nd thing im sure is that old school players will treat 3H as forcing because the 2C promise another bid. Nowadays however with 2C often close to a negative free bid (9 count) i dont think it promise another bid.

Maybe im wrong but i think the stronger bid is forcing, especially here since partner showned 10+ pts.

I think a major fact is how you can control the bidding after partner reopen with a X. With 13 pts and a double stopper you have an easy 2Nt. With 15 pts & Qxx in S with or without 4H its tougher. If you cue-bid are you forcing to game ? If so so might easily go overboard if partner X agressively. Since 8 pts tend to be enough in balancing seats 14-15 pts hands are tough to handle after partner made a balancing double.

Many frenchs play 2D as GF.

I dont understand how you can put a hand like this and no tell the vulnerability. W VS R ill open 2H for sure.

In Imps you wont get super rich with gametries that will jeopardize your contract and you wont get rich with correcting partscore at 1 level higher. On this hand playing standard i would invite but expect down 1 is partner refuse. Passing is probably not a big mistake if it is one. Opening 1m light, RED & not lead directing doesnt make anysense imo, and please dont tell me its a matter of style. Im fond of making 3 card raise but never when i can bid 1S to show 4. Agree because 3D is by far the most useful slam tries available.

If i have a way to INV and stop at 2S that is my first choice otherwise i just force to game with 2H. RED at imps it doesnt pay to stop in 3M.

A simple and straitfoward vien on Canape is that its stronger when the bidding is at the 1 and 2 level because you are pretty sure of being able to show your 2 suiter but is weaker at higher level because you might not show your longest suit. Long S + D 1D-----(2H)------p--------(P) vs 1S------(2H)------p--------(P) here canape is better placed then in standard. But 1D-----(2H)------p--------(3H) vs 1S------(2H)-----p--------(3H) here you prefer to not play canape. The same thing happen if you open 1M instead of 1m. long D + 4M if you are able to show the minor than opeing 1M will make thing harder for opps. But if opps raised to the 3 level your long minor will be buried more easily than the 4M would have been if you would have opened 1m.

You dont need to policed anything. Just make a room where players are handle as a pair. Random player/ beginners/casual or those that want to play a short time will stay in the main club because it will be easier for them to just sit and play. Players that are looking for more serious bridge will form a partnership and go into the "formed pair" room.

At MP you need a way to compete without showing extras values otherwise you are going to lose the partscores battles. On this hand for example if you pass do you expect partner to X with minimum (or subminimum) values and lenght in spades ? IMO no expert player will pass on 2S. Even in IMPs i think 3C is a much better bid then pass. At MP 3H or 2Nt bad is clearcut

a practical definition is ... 1-They have a convention card fill out and know what is written on it. 2- They are on bbo to play together and not there just to play bridge with anybody. Maybe steady isnt hte correct term. Formed partnership is maybe a better term. Imagine that when your partner log in you invite him to form a partnership he accept. There is a box with a number & both name. Then you send a message to a partnership box & both players received the messages. When you setup a TM you just type the number of the partnerships. Its just so much simple.

IMO the solution is simple just make a room for steady partnership. A steady partnership playing vs a steady partneship usually mean 1- Stronger players. 2- no quitters 3- less bidding misunderstanding 4- better alerts and explanations. 5- Less insults. 6- longer sessions. 7- its faster to etup a team matches. 8- more interesting defenses. etc Considering that its probably no big deal to setup a new room, I think its a real pity that a room for steady partnerships doesnt exist.

I think its bad to double RED at IMPs with borderline hands but good to do it at MP. Here passing is very unlikely to cost a game while passing is more likely to lead to a + score than doubling.