joshs

In Washington Standard, for instance, the Auction 1C-1S-2C-2H is Non-forcing. 1C-1S-2C-2D is ART and equivalent to new minor forcing over 1N rebid. In 1D-1S-2D-2H is natural and forcing, but personally I prefer that also to be an ART force...

I think bidding practice is valuable learning SAYC, learning 2/1, or learning partner's brand new varient thereof, as it is for learning something esoteric. My first regular partnership was with my office mate Ben in DC. We played SAYC with 2/1's promising a rebid except if opener bids game or 2N. We had to learn how to bid with this system, especially our third bids, and learn how to handle 5233 14's, etc. Suppose you have AQxxx Kxx xx Kxx You open 1S Partner bids 2H You bid 2S (3H would be forcing) Partner bids 3C(GFing) What now? It took lots of practice to get the system down...

I think practice is very valuable if you are serious about the game. Declarer Play- You don't need a partner for this. There are many good books to read on the subject. Also go over the hand records of hands that you played and see how you could have taken more tricks as declarer. Defense - Again there are some good books on the subject and going over hand records is very valuable. Its especially valuable to discuss defense with your partner after the fact. Why did you play this card rather than that card. In my most regular partnership we discussed almost every card played on defense for the first year of our partnership, and it really helped. Bidding - You can learn a little bit from reading books, but mostly you should try the partnership bidding room on BBO with a partner and also bid hands yourself. Try to select the call you think is right and be honest about what you would bid over that without knowing the complete hand. Whenever I try to learn a new bidding system, or am experimenting with a convention, I take a stack of hand records and bid them using the new methods. I personally have spent many many hours doing these things...

Maybe we should just eat our babies for food? Or am I stealing from another author.... :)

I am a passer. I have no fitting diamond honor, so the likely hood of 9 fast tricks at NT is pretty small. I actually don't think the decision is close. If partner x's back in to show extra values, then I will have a decision...

I don't understand all this put trust in partner talk. Partner trusted you when he made a takeout double of 4♠ and you let him down by passing. Now LHO has redoubled and partner is scratching his head.. thinking.. I made a takeout double of 4♠ expecting partner to pull. Partner decided to defend. Fine, partner must know what he is thinking, so he PASSED so you would do the right thing. I think the problem here, as such, is the meaning of partner's 4♠-DBL. Can this be penalty? I know what you are thinking, if responder who made a non-forcing 2♣ bid (or was it forcing?) wanted to FORCE you to choose between the minors he could have bid 4NT. But the problem with that logic is two fold. First, 4♠X might be right when he holds ♦ and ♣ if your values are in hearts and especially spades. Partner could even be 1-2-4-6 or 1-1-4-7 or 1-1-5-6 for this auction, and he might think YOU Have spades (I still bet he is 2-1-4-6 or 3-0-4-6 or similiar). If you are 100% certain the initial double was penalty, you probably should still pull. But for me, that first double was takeout... with an option to leave in (since partner could have but didn't bid 4NT) and for me, partner denied as many as 4 spade when he bid 2♣, so they have AT LEAST 10 spades, and I am willing to bet we have 9 clubs and 9+ diamonds. A reasonable hand for partner is... S-xx H-x D-QJxx KQJxx Also bear in mind the opponents are VUL and we are not. They are very unlikely to be fooling around. RHO is looking at 5 to 6 spades, and LHO certainly has at least four. They could easily have singleton diamond in one hand and singleton club in the other and make two overtricks, while 5♦ or 5♣ has some play. At this vul, passing with the plan to blame partner here seems criminal to me. The stdard meaning of x's after 1 player has defined his hand type is penalty. Partner's 2C, was non-forcing, showed a club suit (usually 6) and no fit. Yes you can have conventional agreements that later x's by both players are still takeout, but thats an unusual agreement. It would be really wierd if responder's x's were takeout, but openers were penalty - how does responder ever make a penalty x?...

The difference is: Short suit game tries instantly show 2 side suits which is more descriptive Long suit tries can show 2 suits also, (bid 1 then bid the other) but if partner accepts the first you don't need to show the second, so have provided less info to the defense. I have always said the best auction in bridge is: 1S-1N-2D-2S-3C-? (or similar) It highly descriptive, partner can usually place the contract exactly, and of course, it helps the defense. The more exact the info you provide is the better the bidding and the better the defense. Its just a trade...

I know that a. 1D-3C showing the minors, INV but not forcing is legal b. 1m-2S showing a raise of m is legal (this is my limit raise with marc) it gets kind of tricky when it shows 2 suits, neither of which is the denomination named and neither of which has to have 5 cards in it. I don't think its strictly speaking GCC legal, but I doubt that anyone would object to it either.... I think Josh Donn and Kevin Bathurst used to use 1D(precision)-2S to show minors INV, but I have no idea if anyone ever told them if its actually legal. I would just claim that this bid is a limit raise in opener's minor, who cares that no one but opener knows which suit is his minor.... :lol:

Warning: Just as short suit tries sometimes help diagnosis a perfect fit (no wastage opposite the singleton), it also helps the defense. Suppose you hold: x Kxxx Axxx xxxx The auction goes with your side silent: 1S-2S-3D (short suit game try)-4S What do you lead? You lead the diamond Ace and start tapping declarer, since trumps are not breaking. Nice of them to tell you how to defend. Had the auction gone 1S-2S-3C(long suit trial) you would be guessing, but you would probably lead a heart....

I expect that partner has something like: Kxx x Axx Qxxxxx Opposite that hand we likely have 1S, 1H 2D and 1C trick on defense Down 1 or 2 xxed sounds good to me. I don't know, maybe you should have bid 4C over 3S, then you could respect his decision in good concious.

I expect 4x7x and a very mild slam try. Perhaps something like Kxxx xx AQxxxxx - 5D is safer than 4S oppposite this class of hands.

In general, relaying works best when you have a balanced hand, is tolerable when you have something close to a balanced hand, and doesn't work that well when you have singleton's or even worse voids. It would be nice if you could have switched to natura, or a reverse relay scheme, instead of relaying. (Note its really hard to come up with a good reverse relay scheme that handles both 2 suiters and 3 suiters, so usually relay breaks can be used with one or the other but not both). Inferentially your partner is probably much more likely to open a 5-5 9/10 count with good spades than with bad spades, so we have to expect values outside of spades, although knowing that doesn't help you much. You basically need to know about quacks in your suits, and now you just have to guess. I would ask controls and move toward slam only if the answer is less than 3. Opposite 3 I would sign off in 4H. The 4C relay is another good option if J and Qx will excite him, but I suspect that isn't what you have in mind by lots of wastage in the short suits...

I have always played the weak/strong varient, and there still is no consensus on this but I do think that expert opinion has been shifting toward the "show shape/offense first and catch up on values later" philosophy toward competative bidding. This of course does involve some guesswork about if you have enough values to big again....

I like eggs.

You really need 4 spades, or an exceptional reason to want to play in a 4-3 fit for the 2S bid. If partner had 4144 shape you might end up in 4S-x down lots when 5C was a good contract. If partner's x was 4+S, then its acceptible to "raise" on only 3, and partner would not expect 4. here the x is exactly 4 spades, so you shouldn't normally raise on 3. Having said all that, with Axx x AKxx Axxxx 2S would be a reasonable bid, if x by you was penalty (I think its better to play that x should be good hand, nothing good to bid, hence something like Axx AKxx Axxxx).

I think I am missing something in this thread. If the suit is 3-3, both plays are equally likely to succeed (assuming the ace is always ducked). If the suit is 4-2 you can pick up Jx in either hand by playing to the K and Q, but can only pick up Ax offside when playing to the T9. again this assumes best defense of always ducking the ace at the first trick. Hence, playing to the KQ picks up one more case.

I don't think 3H shows extras, it may not even be a 6 card suit, since you have to rebid something with Kx AKQxx xxxx xx. I wouldn't say that 3H is totally a waiting bid. I think the expert style is when you have a choice between a between a number of forcing calls that are equally descriptive (or misdescriptive) you pick the cheapist one, since that saves space to explore all strains. So on adam's example xx AKxxx KQxx xx, think its clear to rebid 3D, which gives partner room to preference hearts on 2 and you room to preference spades on 2 next. But with Kx AKxxx Qxxx xx you probably just need to bid 3H or 3S since the diamonds are extremely weak. There is a case to be made that 3D should just be a waiting bid, saying nothing, but I don't think thats common.

Reverse strength, at least 5-4 shape, for a new suit bid. The Jump reverse is typically 6-5, but maybe, maybe, maybe be a really huge 6-4 or 7-4 hand. I would only bid this way if I can still make game opposite a 0 count without a primary fit for either suit.

I prefer: 1H-1S-2D-3C-4H-P AKxxxxx is worth a jump, I think, unless you think that shows a solid suit (AKQxxxx) instead of a "1 loser opposite a stiff" suit.

Its a difficult hand, but a new suit at the 3 level always sets up a game force in standard american (in fact many play that a new suit above 2 of the opening bidders suit sets up a game force), so you can't pass 3S. I don't really like the 2H rebid, but I can't say for sure what rebid is really best. 2D, 3H, 4H and even 3D all seem like possibilities (I don't like 3D with that few high cards but you do have almost the offense for a game force). I would rebid 2D and then bid 4H next if you have a chance.

A treatment following an INV 2N bid by responder: Case 1: 3 suited auction, openers second suit is lower ranking than first (e.g. 1H-1S-2C-2N): Opener's second suit is NF, 5-5 Rebid of opener's first suit is Forcing, 6-4 rebid of responder's suit is forcing (5431ish) Bidding the 4'th suit is forcing 5-5 Case 2: 3 suited auction, openers second suit is lower ranking than first: (E.G. 1C-1H-1S-2N) Opener's second suit is forcing, 6-5 Opener's first suit is NF, 6-4 Responder's suit id forcing 5431ish 4'th suit is forcing 6-4 Case 3: 2 Suited auction, both by opener, NOT both majors (E.G. 1S-1N(forcing)-2D-2N) Rebid of Opener's first suit=6-4 forcing Rebid of Opener's Second suit=5-5 NF Bid of LOWER Unbid=Any 5431 forcing (then relay to find the fragment LH) Bid of Higher Unbid=5-5 forcing) Case 4: 1S-1N-2H-2N 3C: 6-4 forcing or 5-5 forcing (3D asks which) 3D: ANY 5431 Forcing, 3H asks frag: LH 3H:5-5 NF 3S:6-4 NF

Seems like a normal 1S bid. Its not strong enough for 2S. Pass might be right, but thats too big a position for me.

My opinion is: 4m by a player who has already limited himself, opposite a limited hand should be NF. Otherwise forcing: E.G. 1D-1H-1S(Less than 20, not forcing)-3D(INV, limited)-3S(good spades, interested in game)-4D(Not Forcing) 1D-1S-3D-3H-3S-4D(Forcing, was not previously limited)

Break Lights.

Well, I've read that she is sick of all the fuss that is associated with being famous. Apparently she has made up her mind but I guess she won't be pursuing her Hollywood career any further. Anyways I'd be happy to see her in some more films. --Sigi Thats sad. Run Lola Run was awesome.