bid_em_up

You can always mark the person or club ID as enemy, and check "ignore messages from enemy". Granted, you may miss some "important" club announcement by doing so, but it would prevent all the messages upon your return. When you return, you unmark them. Not an ideal solution, but......

The simplest way to solve this problem is to either lead from hand or dummy and then make the claim (or claim prior to leading from either hand). Do not play from the other hand on this trick. By doing this, the software is prevented from subsequently "adjusting" the claim.

I just have a hard time accepting the fact that anybody with the ID of: pokerbids would then turn around and attempt to ban psyches of any sort. ;) I will give a few examples of common tactical bids: Splintering into a suit that is not a stiff. Jump shifting into a two or three card suit. Responding 1S on an auction like 1H-(X)-1S, on a hand that contains good heart support and spade shortness, in an attempt to misdirect the opponents. Same goes for 2H-(X)-2S, where responder intends to support hearts later (and is attempting to again cause the opponents to miss their spade fit). Or 2H (p) 2N on a bust hand in an attempt to play 3H undoubled. (1C)-1S-(2S)-4N on a holding such as Jxxxxx Kxxx xxx void, trying to convince the opponents that you are really interested in slam, when instead you are trying to play 5S undoubled. Most all of these types of tactical bids are easily exposed (except for the splinter one or jump shift) if used against decent opponents. Many of them can even be considered partnership agreements if they are done frequently enough. They, in my opinion, are not "psychic" bids. There is a logical bridge reason behind them and almost all cases, when you make the bid, you know you have someplace to run to where the contract will not be a disaster. It is a tactic being used to cloud the issue of who has what, but the player making the bid KNOWS where he is going and is reasonably safe in doing so. A true "psyche" bid has no such assurances. It is a shot in the dark which may or may not work. As always, jmoo.

I misinterpreted your post then. It is one thing to say you don't understand the logic behind the 1C opening, or what is gained by doing so, which is apparently what you meant. I read it as "I don't understand how anyone could think this is playable, because it causes problems and solves nothing!!", as in being a sarcastic comment. Sorry.

So, what you are saying is that in the auction 1D-1S-1N, opener has to have 4 diamonds. Why can't opener be 3-4-3-3? (Don't answer that, its a rhetorical question.) So you do not know partner holds 4 diamonds. I am, of course, assuming you open your better minor when 3-3, you may also always open 1C instead. If you always open 1C when 3-3, then yes, opener will have at least 4 diamonds. In terms of an SAYC or 2/1 context, it is only forcing if responder actually has some reason to bid. Partner is not supposed to be bidding on garbage under the misguided conception of "rescuing" opener, simply because he MIGHT have a doubleton club. I think we can agree that the given hand should pass originally, unless playing some sort of big club system where 1D is a known artificial response indicating a bad hand. You will on his next call. If he is 4♦-4♣ or 4♦-5♣, he will ALWAYS raise to 2♦. If he rebids a major, he can still be 4-4-3-2 (but he cannot hold 4D), which will be determined by your next call. Note, I struck out the forcing after 1C. In playing 1C as a 2 card suit in a 2/1 or SAYC context, 1C is not forcing, no more so than any other opening bid is (other than 2C). 1D is quasi-forcing as it tends to promise a "real" responding hand, but it does not promise a second call. If the auction goes, 1C-1D-1H-1S-2S, by inference, partner was originally 4-4-3-2. If the auction goes 1C-1D-1H-2H, you don't really care if he was 4-4-3-2, as a fit has been located. Where you really gain is that 1D openings now always promise 4 cards. This practically assures you of being able escape into 2D on a known 4-3 fit, if needed. It makes it easier to know whether or not to compete in diamonds. It also makes evaluating diamond game/slam contracts much easier later in the auction. Granted, at MP play, this isn't a top priority, but at IMP play, it certainly can be. There are other inferences involved as well. Certainly, if you are not used to playing it this way (as you state), it is difficult to appreciate many of the nuances involved. But really, there are very few "sophisticated" responses/bids required by doing so. You simply bid your hand naturally, 4 card suits up the line. jmoo.

Statements like these are usually based on a lack of appreciation for subsequent changes to other auctions and the inferences implied. They are totally false, and are strictly the opinions of the posters quoted. I used to feel the same way as they do until a player much better than myself showed me why I was mistaken. There is no additional "sophisticated" structure required. Problems like the original one are nothing more than an indication of the lack of discipline on responders part to pass 1C. There is absolutely no reason to respond on garbage such as this. This is a direct result of partner being an "beginner/intermediate" player who thinks he must "rescue" his partner, and has no bearing on the 1C opening itself. In most cases, they simply do not have the experience/discipline required to pass and risk partner playing a 2-1 fit, all the while knowing that if 1C gets doubled for penalty back to them they can run then. And they also don't appreciate is that by holding a stiff, it actually reduces that likelihood that partner only holds a 2 card suit. Your issue really shouldn't be with the system. Your issue is with your partner who cannot follow the system and pass as he is supposed to.

Did you query the opponents regarding what kind of hand 4H can be? Is it always weak/preemptive with 4-5 trumps? or can it also be an opening hand with 3 card support?

Shubi, I am cwfrith from eBridge, we used to play together there occasionally. Glad to hear that your daughters situation has improved, and will keep you and your family in my thoughts and prayers that she will fully recover.

Amazingly enough, many years ago, I was actually dealt an (almost, see below) identical hand, two hands in a row in a shuffle and play event. As we took our cards from the travellers for the second board, I sorted my hand, and stated we had already played this board, assuming it was still the first board. Noone else at the table agreed with me, however, and at their insistence, we proceeded to bid and play the 2nd board. After the play of the hand was over, I looked at both hands and discovered the 2nd hand was actually off by one card. One suit was J85, instead of J86. Other than that, all the other cards were the same.

Who is going to be on it? Are teams listed anywhere?

If you cannot conceive a hand like: J9xxxxx x xx KJx then you need to rush to the store and buy yourself some imagination. :) Not everybody would preempt this either 2S or 3S (even though many may). But you would certainly bid 2S over the 1N overcall.

Well, the first question should be: What does 2H deny? It denies the ability to double 1N. In most cases, hands holding 10+ points will double 1N and they would likely double holding 8-9 and a minor suit fit as well or 8/9 and a good 5-6 card suit of their own. So I rule these hands out. Of course, this can change if your partnership is prone to opening 9/10 counts in 3rd seat (or any other seat for that matter). 2H normally shows a weak hand (less than 8), and a suit that was not capable of opening 2M directly (i.e a bad suit). xx J10xxxx Kx Qxx would be a good example, imo. It could, of course, have a partial minor suit fit included as well, but unless agreed otherwise, it does not specifically imply one. jmoo.

Well, when you are 5-6, surely you are not saying that by rebidding 2H and then 3H, you still must have the 17 the 2H bid originally implied, are you? Of course not. The rebid of 3H cancels the reverse in terms of HCP requirements, partner should no longer be expecting this. He should be execting good playing strength and 5/6+ distribution instead, but the hand can be minimum in terms of HCP. Agreed? Show me where I said that. You inferred it. All I ever said in the original post was that it cancels the reverse and shows 5/6. You assumed that I meant it was any 5/6. Sorry, I was at work when posting. I will try to be more specific next time. If you say so, I've forgotten what it was now. :)

You know, some people seem to enjoy attempting to pick something apart when there is no reason to do so. It IS a bare minimum in terms of HCP. It has 12. Thats fairly minimum in terms of HCP, no matter how you attempt to slice it. That comes nowhere close to the 17 or so that the reverse originally implied. Sorry that I did not explicity spell this out. It is not a bare minimum in terms of playing strength. And although I said, "it is a bare minimum", in context, it is implied that I am referring to HCP, not playing strength. "Cancels the reverse" means it is no longer guaranteed to be the 17 hcp hand, and is more distributional/playing strength oriented. I do believe I said that already also. Geez.

So you would do it on: x AJ10xx Axxxxx x But not on: x Kxxxx AKxxxx x Did I read that right? What if it was: x Axxxx AKxxxx x? I dont think I said I would do it on any 5/6 hand. I only said that it cancels the reverse in terms of having to have 17+ hcp. You inferred the 2nd part, from where I do not know.

I completely disagree. You have made your bed, and now you must lie in it. Peter There once was a time, where the reverse always showed the extra hcp. From what I have both seen and been told by others, this is no longer the de facto expert standard. While it may not be "your" style, there is absolutely nothing to disagree with. It just isn't the way you play it. More and more players, have migrated to the view of distribution is more important than hcp, and this is the trade-off of being able to show distribitution at lower levels that had you opened it 1H then had to rebid diamonds. At a minimum, you will be at 4D before you have shown the 6th diamond (if you ever get to show it).

I don't agree per se, it's just that once you have shown 5-6 it is understood you may be lighter and bidding more on distribution. It still shows something extra, you won't have a bare minimum. Really? x AJ10xx AKxxxx x This hand isn't the 17 or so hcp that a reverse normally promises, but I am fairly certain that you would open it 1D and rebid hearts, no? It has nothing extra, to speak of, and is pretty much a bare minumum, but it does have good suit qualities and texture. Would you do it on, say: x Kxxxx AKJxxx x This is closer, I would sometimes, but you may not. (Or you would sometimes, but I might not). In either case, we both (I think) are saying the same thing. The 3H call cancels a "real" reverse in terms of having 17+ hcp, and instead implies 5-6 with good suits, and not as many hcp (although it could still have 17+). It could also be minimum hcp though, imo (see first example).

Interesting I was wondering if you would reverse based on dist rather than hcp. I see you did. 3H cancels the "reverse". Meaning it is no longer a strong hand (in terms of hcp), but a distributional (5M/6+m) one now. EDIT:I will rephrase this last sentence for further clarification. Meaning it is no longer guaranteed to be a strong hand in terms of having approximately 17 hcp, but it is now a distributional hand that will be 5M/6+m with appropriate playing strength.

Close, but I think what you really meant to say is: In My Holey Opinion, reverses at the 2 level after 1♠ opening should be played as roughly 3 to 24. We'll excuse it since we know English is not your native language. :)

Missed that. Thx.

I vote for opening 1D.

On a side note.... There was a guy shot and killed by the police on one of the main highways in the town I live in yesterday. Seems the guy had robbed a convenience store, the cops spotted his car as it was pulling out of the store and chased him some 70 miles before he stopped. When he exited the vehicle, he had a gun drawn and the cops shot him. Now...the funny part (at least to me) is that the cops were able to spot his car leaving the convenience store because after robbing the store (which just happens to also be a gas station), the moron orders the clerk to turn one of the gas pumps on so he can get gas. While he is pumping gas into his car, the store clerk calls the police, who then have enough time to arrive at the store as he is pulling out. Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.

That's what the article original said when it was linked...that he'd been running away and crushed by the car. Since then, the article has been edited to make this the "officials earlier said" version. I still don't get what you guys are attempting to get at. The cops initially believed he was intending to kill only the girlfriend. Since they thought he was attempting to flee the car thereby saving his own life. That was the initial story. They changed it to murder/suicide when they realized he was ejected from the car, and not fleeing from the car attempting to escape being hit. Meaning he was attempting to kill them both (murder/suicide). In the first case, he was attempting to kill only the g/f. In the 2nd case, he was attempting to kill both of them. The story was revised to reflect that it was an attempted murder/suicide, and not just attempted murder of the g/f. In either case, he was attempting to kill the g/f. In either case, it still isn't classified as a "tragic accident". And since he was killed instead of the g/f, that's fair enough for me.

I think if you read it again, you will see that the story says "The girlfriend survived in what police suspect was an attempted murder-suicide." (first paragraph). Later in the article, it says "The driver, who witnesses said was arguing with his girlfriend, parked the car on the tracks moments before a northbound Metrolink train crossed the road, Lopez said. The train hit the rear passenger side of the car, spinning it around and ejecting the driver. The girlfriend, who was wearing a seat belt, was taken to a hospital and later upgraded to stable condition, Lopez said. Officials earlier said they believed the man was trying to kill his girlfriend but fled the car before the train hit, only to be crushed by the car. They later revised their account because of new information." This, to me, says he was still attempting to kill the g/f, but it was revised to being intended as a murder/suicide (instead of just killing the g/f only), as he was ejected from the car when it was hit, and that he was not attempting to flee the car, as originally believed. It was not revised to just being an accident. Granted, this is still speculation and if it was simply an accident, then it is a tragedy, albeit a stupid one and one that could have been avoided. But if he was intent on killing both himself and the g/f or just the g/f, then he got what he deserved.

Roland, I am pretty sure Rain is referring to the fact that the man was trying to kill either both himself and his girlfriend or was intent on killing the girlfriend), but he ended up being the only one killed. While the proper term may not be "fair", it is at least appropriate that he died and the g/f lived. In most cases, she would be dead, and he would be the one in the hospital, but still alive.