joshs

Maybe I should have said :John Jones on your left, and Mark Bartusak on your right, if that means anything. (I just think it means a typically agressive expert pair)

Just for the record, I think partner has 4S and 1H about 55-60% of the time on this auction (simulation needed?), and there are a number of other stronger hands that he might also bid with, so I expect him to pull close to 65% of the time. Now playing my style, his minimum x will be about a 13 count with a stiff opposite a passed hand, so our worst case for a pull is 22 high, a 4-4 fit and 18 total tricks (assuming the law is right at this level) divided equally on average. 4S over 4H is definitely the money bid (even though you expect to beat 4H about 2/3 of the time)....If he has a 3154 13 count, 4H-x will be touch and go. Hmm, maybe he should always bid at equal vul with a stiff H at imps if he thinks he can declare the hand undoubled. Well these decisions are pretty close. I need a simulation!

Well I x, and I think this is a very typical shape for a responsive x at this level. I expect partner to usually pass with a doubleton (but can bid 4S with 4 cards any time he thinks he can make it, and the vul makes it tempting to bid on), usually bid 4S with 4S and a singleton heart (but can pass if he is sure we are setting this, and believes that its better to take the money, and will basically only bid 5m on very offensive hands (3064 shape for instance) or 4N on 3154 hands that still have mild slam interest.

Here is my best definition of x (under standard agreements) in the auction 1m-(1S)-? x means "I would have bid 1H but am unable to bid 2H". You might want to extend this definition in one of a couple of ways: x means "I would have happily bid 1H but I am unable to bid 2H" if you think that you shouldn't make a negative x with some of the weaker hands that would have bid 1H. Another way to extend the definition: x means, "with the knowledge that my RHO holds spades, I would have bid 1H had he passed". In that way you might include some hands with a strong 3 card holding that would have bid NT except now rather pretend they have 4 hearts. Finally, there is "I would have bid something at the 1 level, probably hearts, and have at least 3 hearts." Note that these last 2 definitions are really degenerate cases. Finally, the orginal Al Roth Defintion "I would have happily made a bid with this hand, but I no longer have a good bid available and I lack the values to cuebid". No one plays this way anymore....

I held: J9xxx Jx xxx AJT Both Vul at IMPS, playing with a sound bidder 2'nd seat 1H-P-2H(7-10ish in support)-3D 3H-P-P-3S P-? Well, on the plus side, I have a big double fit for partner, who likely has 4S and 6D (and might even have 5S). on the minus side, my points are in clubs, and I have no idea how many clubs partner has. Well after tanking for 3 minutes I elected to bid 4S (you know vul at imps and all that) hoping to get lucky opposite KQxx xx AKxxxx x (2-2 diamonds is about 40%) and maybe partner has a better hand. It goes all pass, and now you get to play it on the rusinow CQ lead. [hv=d=w&v=b&n=sj9xxxhjxdxxxcajt&s=saktxhxxxdajxxxxc]133|200|Scoring: IMPS[/hv] What's the best line, given the bidding?

Great Hand! I will never forget opening 4D (Namyats) All White on AKQJTxxxx - xxx x LHO overcalled 4H, Partner takes his 8-10 seconds and x's, P, P and I broke discipline with 4S (well I did have 9 solid and a void)-All Pass Partner, very slowly, puts down: - AKJT9x KQxx xxx I quip, well if you usually had this much for your penalty x's I wouldn't pull them. Anyway, I made 5 for a normal result. LHO with x Qxxxx A KQJxxx would have run to 5C with does allright....

I need partner to have either: a. DK and declarer has only 3 of them (almost any reasonable lead works) b. D KTx or better (almost any reasonable lead works) c. D Qxx or Txx (or better) and a major suit ace (need to lead a diamond, or the correct major) d. SK and Kx Qx of diamonds (lead a spade) e. D KX and spade K (spades) f. Major suit ace and Qx of diamonds (either diamonds or the major, partner might need to lead a low diamond back in some lies if trick 1 went to his major suit ace) (I am ignoring the possibility that partner has a club trick but thats also possible) It seems like leading a spade, and switching later to diamonds is slightly better than leading diamonds from the go.

Yeah I could have bid 3S natural and forcing. I expected that either: Partner had 7 clubs, and then I wanted to play in clubs, or partner had a singleton and I could show spades after partner shows a stiff diamond (pig suey) or hearts, and just bid 3N if he showed a stiff spade. Adam double crossed me by choosing this sequence with this shape. :D In anycase the main theme here is that I have a hand type that is interested in 4 different strains, and is not sure about level. I need to know suit quality (for clubs) and a location of singleton for everything. And I have 1 level less to exchange info than natural bidders, so the question is, what is the best use of the space....

Well its more common to play all bids mean the same as without the xx, and pass to get to your own minor. Either way is fine, of course, but the following simple agreement should handle all sequences: After partner makes an ART bid whichs gets xed: ALL bids mean the same as without the x (including pass to play) xx says I have my own suit (in many auctions this shows a specific suit): e.g. 1N-2C(majors)-x-xx would be diamonds since you would pass with clubs. After partner makes an ART x which gets xxed: ALL bids mean the same as without the x, except: If xx was strong, then pass is a desire to run to your own suit, otherwise pass is to play N.B.: These agreements for pass and xx are not universal, and are just a suggestion. These auctions usually causes confusion in an unpracticed partnership. Note some Implications of these agreements. Suppose you are like a few of my partnerships and play (1D)-2D as 4+H and 5+C and the auction goes (1D)-2D-(x) P=Diamonds xx=Spades 2H,3C=to play 2N=Game Try (as before) 2S=Spades Well there are 2 ways to get to spades, so in my regular partnership (John Pendergrass) we play xx is definitive "I want to play in my own suit" while the 2S bid (the other way of getting there) would be offering a choice (logically between spades and clubs). Anyway, its just a suggestion. It does allow you to play in ever suit, including the xed suit.

Note: After you make a card showing x or xx, you no longer need lehbensohl, and 2N becomes natural and non-forcing. Also note: Whenever you play a method over 1N with unknown suits (x in Dont ot woolsey, 2C in capp, etc.) x by advancer at the 2 level is "I want to compete, what do you have". E.G. 1N-x-2D(x-fer)-x this shows interest in playing 2S or 3m as appropriate. With 4 H and 5 in M and a good hand, you can even make a penalty x of 2H if your trumps are good after advancer's x (he will frequently pill this to 2N to get you to bid your minor, but not always). Over Multi 2D bid (in woolsey for instance) there is not universal agreement about what x's are by advancer (I usually play x as pass or correct at the 2 level, but some play penalty and you have to bid a major as pass or correct). At the 3 level there is very little universal agreement, luckily 3 level bids are probably forcing so its not an issue...

What do you do with a strong hand then if you play new suits on the two-level as non-forcing in this auction? The cuebid is already quite overloaded and brings you to the three-level immediately. --Sigi Who said anything about new suits non-forcing???

Well, I am not completely convinced. Your sequence is a reasonable start (after showing a min, opener can afford to cue-bid, assuming that 4C is really a cue-bid), but I can hardly say that when 6S was bid in your sequence that I knew: a. We belonged in slam b. This is better than 6C Also what would south do over 3N by north? He is still guessing about whether or not there is a club slam, although I would probably give up after opener showed a min and no spade fit, since he might have a stiff spade. Of course if he has Kx x xxx AQJxxxx 3N might be going down while we have a cold club slam....

I think the vast majority of experts would x 1S holding: a. xxx KQx Axxx xxx or xxx KJx Axxxx xx and some would x holding: b. xxx KQx QJxxxx x but 99.5% of the time it produces 4 hearts. Playing x as just cards with no convenyiant bid (the orginal negative x convention) is playable but almost no one plays it that way anymore.

Yeah it is. The empasis is on logic and not signals or rules, so that makes it hard.

My Favorite All Around Bridge Book: Matchpoints- Kit Woolsey Best Books for Advancing Players: Watson- The Play of the Cards Kelsey- Killing Defense Lawrence-How to Read the Opponents Cards, Openings Leads Also definitely worth reading: Play Bridge with Mike Lawrence Partnership Bidding - Robson/Segal Partnership Defense - Woolsey Expert Level Bridge Books: For Experts Only- Granovetters Bridge in the Managerie-Mollo ( Very entertaining) Master Play in Contract Bridge-Reese Squeeze Play-Reese Bridge with the Blue Team

OK, given those constraints: If this suit was 1-4 then: Starting with the ace is right if the stiff is the K J or 9. So if you play the ace and if: a. The K or J comes down, you lead toward dummy's T (picks up all the 4-1's plus KJ tight) b. the 9 comes down then go to dummy and run the T, this loses to J9 doubleton and picks up singleton 9 or K9 doubleton c. if a low card comes down , you need the suit to be 3-2 case c1: RHO also plays low. Go to dummy and lead a low card and play the Q if RHO plays low. This picks up 9x or Jx offside but loses to Kx offside. case c2: RHO follows with the J or 9. This case you are playing RHO for KJ9... This line also pick up Kx or KJ or Jx onside.

Serious 7N. Its so much better than scrambling 7N and slightly better than non-serious 7N, which gets xed more often.

I am sorry, but it actually matters if this was a suit contract or a NT contract, and how you know one suit was 5-3 or 6-2. If its a NT contract, and LHO led from his 5 card suit and thats how you find out that suit is 5-3, and another suit is 2-2, then this suit you care about is much less likely to be 1-4 than you expect, since that would give the opening leader a second 5 card suit, which he might have led instead, so by restricted choice he is more likely to have only 4 cards in the other suit than 5. Phil Martin wrote a great article years ago, called "The Monty hall Trap", about the problem of treating biased information (the fact that you got this information is directly correlated with the information itself) as random information. This article can now be found in the Granovetter's collection, For Experts Only. So in this case, LHO's expected length in the given suit depends somewhat on some of these other issues. But yes, LHO is expected to be slightly shorter in the given suit than RHO, but the liklihood of a singleton varies.

I figure that someone could write a macro to correct my spelling and grammer, right?

My partner and I stumbled into slam last night, on an unconvincing auction, on the following card combination: KJx xx xx AQJxxx AQxxx K9xx Axx K Our Auction: 2C(10-14ish, 6+C)-2D(relay)-2S(no major, a legit opener, singleton somewhere or 7222)-2N(relay)-3N(7222)-4D(rkc)-4H(1/4)-[x]-4S(Q ask)-4N(yes and S K)-6C I sort of expected Kx xx Kx AQxxxxx. Anyway, who has a suggested auction in their favorite methods, which is convincing? This is also hard playing natural methods... In TOSR, I at least come reasonable close: 2C(6+C, 10-14, no side suit)-2H(GFing Relay)-3C(3226 or 2227)-3D(Which?)-3S(3226, min, A mild underbid?)-4S(Mild Slam Try, Overbid?)-5D(I like my hand, 2 key cards, no trump Q)-6S but since I don't know about the C Q and J, I can't count the 12 tricks in the acution.

This is going to be the challenge, given time zone issues, and work schedules and all that....

Well yeah, if you don't pull the 3'rd trump and instead play a heart to the ace, and then heart back running the 7 if you don't put in the J. LHO is then toast. A pretty hand!

Well good spelling might also be "edjucational." :)

[hv=d=n&v=e&n=s9hakqjxxxdqca8xx&w=sjt87xhxdakt98ctx&e=skqxhxxxxd7xckq7x&s=saxxxhxdjxxxxcj9x]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] At my Table, North opened 4C showing a strong 4H bid, South Bid 4H and in deference to the VUL we passed it out. I led the DK, Adam discouraging with the 7, and I switched to a trump. Declarer pullled trumps in 4 rounds, pitching 3 spades from hand and led a low club from dummy. Adam was ready for this and played low without a hitch, and declarer put in the 9 losing to my ten. Nice defense! Since there are 4 clubs in dummy, and they can't go anywhere its certainly correct for Adam to duck, but its an edjucational position anyway, so I thought I would write about it. :)

I wanted to pass 3N and then x 4C for takeout if partner xed 3N, but I wasn't sure partner would be on the same wavelength (obviously, from Adam's post, he is. Hi adam!). So I ended up in 4H down 1, when 4S was making and 4C-x was going down 3. Partner had: AKJx AKx A9xx xx I feel there are really 2 distinct ways of playing here. a. xing 3N establishes a forcing pass, so then responder can pass for takeout on this hand b. xing 3N shows extras but does not establish a forcing pass, so then responder's x is takeout, showing some values I am not wed to either one...