bid_em_up

I have a hunch this is what an AC would tell me. The fact that he guessed 'right' with 3N isn't germane. I really dont understand this logic. If the slow X suggests a pull rather than a pass.... then isn't any action other than pass taking advantage of the UI? After all, if partner had doubled in tempo, you would likely leave it in, would you not? (ok, maybe you wouldn't....but the BIT makes it clear to act, imo) So what does it matter whether the guy bid 3S or 3N? The fact remains he took advantage of the UI. Can anyone explain this faulty logic to me?

On the surface, it looks right to defend (at least to me), but I don't quite know why yet. Something to do with the 987♠ being promoted into the defenses 4th trick, I think.

What is "a 225"? Doesn't your percentage depend on the number of pairs present? A 225 is the score represented in MP's, probably on a 12 top, 156 being average. So a 225 in one session would be 225/312 = 72.12% for that session. 3♠ certainly looks like a LA to me.

I find these posts amazing.....

Did your hand suddenly improve? You told your story with your first double. No need to tell it again.

Sorry, I have to laugh. Partners don't generally turn up with prime 19 counts made up solely of controls. I wouldn't worry about this hand... ever. I would. And I don't consider it a laughing matter either. It is certainly at least worth considering bidding more than a mere 4♥. Given that partner is likely to hold three spades, unless it is your partnership tendency to double on 12-13 count 3-4-3-3 hands, partner is highly likely to hold extra values. And he doesn't have to hold a 19 count, per se, a nice 15 count would suffice: xxx AJxx Axx AQx and 6H will have some play (iff both red suits break favorably). Improve this hand any, and the odds simply get better. Is this hand control rich? Sure. But partner has to have his values somewhere (he IS missing 10 hcp in the red suits, after all) and I think he is quite likely to have extra values. My first thought when I saw the hand was "Do I want to play 4H or 6D, or maybe 6H?" I would prefer 6D to 6H to prevent the early force when playing in hearts, but I suspect we may need the diamond suit for pitches in a heart contract. Mind you, I am not saying you should bid anymore than 4H, but it certainly is worth considering, and most definitely not a laughable thought. jmoo.

Harald, While all you have to say is well and good, and it is great for you, or Helgemo, or (insert your favorite player here) to try for an overtrick at IMP play based on well calculated odds at the table, I still feel that you are missing my (or the) point. A forum user who likely isn't the same caliber player as the ones mentioned asked a question regarding trying for overtricks at IMP. It is NOT in his best interest to be advised regarding what Helgemo might do for whatever reasons or odds in regards to trying for overtricks at IMP/VP play. In his case, he should forget about overtricks, and concentrate on making whatever contract he is in. I seriously doubt Helgemo cares what I have to say on the subject anyway, but my advice isn't intended for him. :) It is addressed to the original poster of the question.

If you're in a normal contract (almost at whatever level), it's odds on to play for overtricks risking going down, since every 3rd IMP is worth a VP. I regularly employ such tactics, and see WC players like Helgemo doing the same. Of course this doesn't apply in longer matches or playing straight IMPs. Then your mantra obviously is correct. Sorry, but this is BS. Of course I have played Swiss teams with short matches converted to VP's. Long ones too. Have won many of them as a matter of fact. I repeat again, your objective at IMP's is to make the contract. Overtricks are secondary, even when playing at VP's. It is simply foolish to risk going down 1 in a cold game for the off chance of gaining 1 vp for every 3 overtricks. So you win one VP every 3 overtricks, big deal. If just one of those risks loses, however you lose 6-12 IMPs. These odds do not pay off. No matter what you or Helgemo may do. I will allow for the distinction of playing at top level WC play, you can reasonably expect that the pair at the other table will be in game (or the same contract), and that in order to gain an IMP (or VP) you might need to squeak overtricks out on occasion so that every board is not a push. This is somewhat truer, imo, in a long match, where if playing for a overtricks in a long match were to fail, you have more time to make up the possible loss (but it could pay off as well in a shorter match where the overtrick(s) are the deciding IMP/VP's). However, most people are not playing at that level of play, and for anyone else, it is simply idiotic to recommend trying to play for overtricks at any form of IMP/VP scoring. At any level of play other than top echelon, bidding and making your games is what wins IMPs, VP's and matches. Not making overtricks. :D

Always. The objective at imps is to make your contract. Never. The objective at IMP's is to make your contract. Overtricks are secondary. Unless you are doubled, again, the objective at IMP's is to make your contract. It doesn't matter all that much if you are -1 or -5 undoubled. If you are doubled, you must weigh how much you will gain for making your doubled contract versus the severity of the losses if you go down. If you will only be down 1 (or two) then play to make. For the last time. The objective at IMP's is to make your contract. Stamp it on your forehead, tattoo it on your hand, whatever it takes to get you to remember this. Why is this any different? Sorry, this is simply bs rationalization on your part. If this is really the case, then simply play as if you are in one less level (ie, if you are in 4H, play as if you are trying to make an overtrick in 3H). Ok, I lied, it was not the last time I say it. The objective at IMP's is to make your contract. You play to make your contract. Who cares what the field does?!?!? If you have a 100% line for +420 versus 3-2 and 4-1 splits, this is the line you choose. Repeat after me.....The objective.......

A circus owner runs an ad for a lion tamer and two people show up. One is a good looking, older, retired Navy pilot in his sixties and the other is a gorgeous blonde in her mid-twenties. The circus owner tells them, "I'm not going to sugar coat it. This is one ferocious lion. He ate my last tamer so you guys better be good or you're history. Here's your equipment -- chair, whip and a gun. Who wants to try out first?" The girl says, "I'll go first." She walks past the chair, the whip and the gun and steps right into the lion's cage. The lion starts to snarl and pant and begins to charge her. About half way there, she throws open her coat revealing her beautiful naked body. The lion stops dead in his tracks, sheepishly crawls up to her and starts licking her feet and ankles. He continues to lick and kiss her entire body for several minutes and then rests his head at her feet. The circus owner's jaw is on the floor. He says, "I've never seen a display like that in my life." He then turns to the retired pilot and asks, "Can you top that?" The tough old pilot replies, "No problem, just get that damn lion out of the way."

Most of these have probably been said already, but here goes: 1) Rebidding the same values over and over. 2) Reversing when they do not have sufficient values to do so. 3) Failure to plan the play in advance. This includes counting winners, counting losers, and deciding how they will develop the extra tricks necessary in advance, along with how they are going to get to and from each hand to cash those tricks. 4) Overbidding good hands, and underbidding what they think are bad hands (but may be quite good in the context of the auction). 5) Failure to count cards on defense. Both at trick one, and during the play of the hand. Although not really a mistake in and of itself, I would include failure to follow/watch the play closely when dummy as an error. Much can be learned by paying attention to how good declarer's play or good defenders defend. Most beginners tend to "wander off" mentally, the minute they become dummy.

I would lead a diamond, as it is the loser that declarer might be able to dispose of quickly on the clubs.

How about I put it bluntly then: The poem says you are incapable of distinguishing something said in jest (fun) from something said in seriousness (earnest). There, does that help? "The 9th will not be invited back. :) " tends to indicate something said in jest. If he were serious, there would be no :) on the end of it. At least thats my interpretation of it.

Regarding defenders asking during the play, 20F2 refers in that case to Law 16, which has to do with UI. Seems to me that any UI would be minized by only asking a general question, so the fact that UI possibilities are pointed out leads me to believe that a defender can ask questions about specific calls, though he should do so after getting the general info, and keeping in mind that he may be passing UI to his partner. Aside from that, I've been saying that case 2 is correct. With all due respect, then why does 20F2 state: "either defender at his own turn to play may request an explanation of opposing auction." but then explicity gives declarer the right ask regarding a specific call. ""At his or dummy's turn to play, the declarer may request an explanation of a defender's call or card play conventions." This leads me to believe that a defender is NOT allowed to ask about a specific call, even after requesting an explanation of the auction. If that were to be the case, then the Laws should spell it out explicitly. I don't think it is possible for a defender to ask a question regarding a specific call without providing UI. Thats why it is worded in such a manner that they cannot ask about one. If they were, the Law would read: "either defender at his own turn to play may request an explanation of opposing calls." just as it does for declarer. jmoo.

Although I think 4D describes the hand nicely, I would probably bid 5D at IMP's.

No, and no. I could agree that a double might work but I think it is more likely to go wrong.

If this is the case, they will be equally as bad in a NT contract and you have no source of tricks. But by defening 3C, you may well go +200. On the other hand, it is more likely partner has 1-2 clubs and a hand so weak that it could not act in the direct seat. If this is the case, you're hosed when you bid 3N. Pass.

Huh? I don't recall saying that specifically. What I believe I said was that "it is still considered to be a takeout double with a much stronger hand". South doesn't have that in hand #1. He already told his story with his initial takeout double, his hand hasn't improved significantly on the auction. If South cannot stand to defend, then he should bid 4N (takeout) at this point. If he tries to reopen with a double indicating a stronger hand, he may well find himself defending a makeable contract (as was the case). Who knows what South was thinking on hand #2. On the auction, I would expect South to be 3-0-5-5 and very strong. I would be inclined to sit for the double. The weaker and more balanced my hand is, the stronger and more able to cash tricks in our "fit" partner is likely to be.

You are certainly entitled to believe whatever you wish. However, I do this simply because it is NOT fun for me to sit at a table and churn through opponents at a rate of 1 new opp every 2-3 hands, if not more often. It is NOT fun for me to see a screen full of ???????????????????????????? every other hand. Maybe you enjoy this, but I do not. I have found that players from one specific country do this on a higher basis than what would be considered "the norm" for whatever reason. Maybe it is acceptable behavior in their country. However, I do not enjoy it and I will not suffer through it when I do not have to. Been there, done that, too old to put up with it anymore. I don't do it on the basis of their color, I don't do it on the basis of their religion, and I don't do it on the basis of their gender. I don't even do it on the basis of their nationality, although you may think that it appears that way. I do it simply because players from this specific country have overwhemingly proven to me that they do not know how to be civil at the bridge table. As you said, "I earnestly hope that one of the reasons for the “draw” in here is its very openness and freedom and accessibility to all subject to following generally acceptable codes of conduct." For the most part, members from this country overall have proven, to me at least, that they are not capable of following "acceptable codes of conduct". Granted, this is strictly my own opinion and evaluation of this, somebody elses may be different. I choose not to go thru 100's, if not 1000's, of players to find the few who actually do know how to behave civilly. If they were to change their behavior, then I would be more inclined to let randoms players from this country sit. Until then, they are still welcome to play on BBO....just somewhere other than my table please.

Agreed. Responder has limited their hand with the 2N bid. 3C is not forward going.

You probably can take advantage of bad opponents, but I suspect that you are overlooking the obvious. Assuming LHO is leading his 4th best diamond, RHO only holds 1 diamond higher than the 7, right? I'm more inclined to believe that a bad opponent has led from J987 than from K987. They simply will not lead away from a king vs. a slam. Play the diamond 10 at trick 1. It is likely to lose to the King, eliminating any need for a spade finesse. If it loses to the jack, well, at least you still get to try the straightforward spade finesse, as opposed to trying to guess spade spots later. You probably get to try it at trick two. :) Yes, this line may be technically "inferior", but it is also more likely to win vs. bad opponents, imo.

I apologize, I got the general mixed in with the specific. I would never use 'garbage' Stayman with a 7 count across a 10-12, for reasons already mentioned. There are 7 counts that I would use 'garbage' Stayman with across a 12-15 opener. I would do this because I would be bidding to improve the contract (expecting to make both 1NT and wherever we ended up), not because I was afraid of a double. This specific hand is very no-trumpy, so I'd just leave it in 1NT. In a case where you were holding a seven count, 4-3-5-1 or 4-4-5-0, I can understand using garbage stayman opposite a 12-15 NT or a 10-12 NT. That may have been what you were trying to say, but I didnt read it that way. :)

Again, why do you want to run prior to actually being doubled? Especially in this case. You have 1/2 the deck and are 12-15 opposite 7. You do have a QJ combination and two other queens. Your intermediate spots are certainly tolerable. You should not be running from 1N until you actually get doubled. You might even sit for the double. Your hand is not THAT bad (its not a rose garden either, but in context, it could be a LOT worse). At worst you are most likely -1 in 1N, but could easily be minus 2 in two of your suit. At best, you can easily be making 1N x'd+1. I can see no advantage to running from 1N in anticipation of a double that may never come, and even if it does, it may or may not be left in. Make them try to penalize you first, then deal with it.

Assuming we are the not vul side, there is absolutely no reason that I can see to run until the opponents double and it gets left in for penalties. If you are not making them guess what to do after 1N p p ?, and instead going ahead and bidding garbage stayman with this holding, you simply aren't making the most effective use of the NT opening, imo. You can reasonably go -2 undoubled for a likely good score @ MP. Minus 100 will score better than just about the opponents bid and make. And thats assuming they make it. They may even end up playing 2H!! Once they double in passout, your runout structure should allow you (or partner) to find your best fit. Yes, you may be doubled now when you rest there, but if that's the case, you were probably being doubled no matter what you do initially. jmoo.

JoAnne, Just in case you didn't know, Inquiry (Ben) is one of the BBO yellows and forum moderators, as is Rain. Uday is also a BBO yellow and one of the programmers with BBO. Along with Fred (Gitelman) the founder and writer of the BBO software who also frequently posts here. This is just one of the things that I feel have helped BBO to become as popular as it is. They are here, and they respond to the users. You can contact a BBO yellow on the site at almost any time of the day or nite, if need be. Fred frequently incorporates new ideas from forum users into new releases of the BBO software. In other words, the owners and administrators of the site actually listen to the user's needs and requests. We may not always get what we ask for, but we know we have been heard. You simply cannot beat the vugraphs here. In quality or quantity. And this will only grow in time as more and more SO's take advantage of it. BBO provides the vugraph software for free to anyone who wishes to use it for vugraph purposes. Walldk (Roland) does an excellent job of providing commentators for all of the scheduled vugraph matches, and he does it on a volunteer basis. Does your paid site do this at all? Yes, the site is free. That's another plus (in some respects) and it can also be a minus. It is a plus as it allows users who cannot afford a monthly/annual fee to play bridge to have a quality place to play. It is a minus because there is no discouraging factor to signing up and then being rude/abusive/etc. other than a ban on using BBO. In most cases, people who have had to pay a substantial fee to play on a site will refrain from this sort of behavior if they know they will have their membership terminated and lose their money as a result of it. A lot of this behavior also has migrated from Yahoo where it was a free-for-all (and MSN) to here. A big plus for me is the number of World Class players who use this site. Almost every top player in the world frequently plays here, free for the watching. A lot of people enjoy this, I know I do. A lot of the WC players are even willing to join you in either MBC games or in team matches, giving non-WC players the opportunity to play with or against them It is possible to find good bridge games. Following the advice already given by others will produce many good players for you to add to your friends list. Find the forum posters on BBO and see who they are watching or who is watching them. Any of these people are more likely to be the type to sit and play for extended periods of time. In time, you may notice that the people who tend to frequently vacate hands are from a handful of specific countries (or at least I have). I won't name the countries, but they quickly become obvious. I have simply stopped accepting random players from these countries at my table. Am I missing some good players by doing this? Probably, but it was a solution I can live with.