bid_em_up

When someone who calls themselves "bid_em_up" thinks bidding is a bad idea... LOL The original name was "bid_em_up_pard". It was too long for a BBO handle. It also meant that partners never were bidding their cards to their fullest potential on the site it was originally derived on. :) It really had nothing to do with my own personal bidding philosophy.

Yes but some opinions are wrong. That is the point of a message board where you discuss things, to figure out which opinion is right, or more right. You know, originally I was going to write, "But you are entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong it may be, just as I am entitled to mine." But then I thought better of it and tried to let it go with a simple statement. But that couldn't satisfy you. Just because you think you are right and I am wrong, does not make it so. In this case, I am as equally certain that I am correct in 5D is a bad bid as you are that it is the correct bid. So we will just have to agree to disagree.

Really Justin, you just continue to prove my point. The only stupid question is the one that goes unasked. And while you're at it, maybe you should go back and read and UNDERSTAND what I originally wrote, which was: "Do you or should you alert the 5D call?". Notice I did not say that it should or should not be alerted, or what my opinion on it is. But since your partner has information that the opponents do not have, is it your obligation to alert it? Or is it the opponents obligation to inquire about your overcall tendencies? And if they do inquire, what are your obligations in disclosure? These, to me at least, are perfectly reasonable questions from someone who does not have the opportunities to play at the same level as you do. That does not mean I don't belong in this forum, as you seem to be attempting to imply. I have better things to do than to "troll" BBO forums with questions such as this. If I asked it, I wanted a reasonable answer, and not flames or smart-aleck comments such as the ones you have provided. Btw, there was another reason why my original question was directed to Mikeh. It is because he is one of the few posters who will actually take the time to answer questions such as this, which helps others who are not at playing at the top levels to understand, instead of giving glib answers or jabs at a poster like you have done here. You may think it is funny or cute to reply in a manner like this. I happen to find it offensive. I also think you are mistaken about 5D being unanimous in a Master Solvers bidding panel. If it was 100%, then it should be renamed to Master Minders instead. :) But you are entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to mine.

I think a trump lead is best. Even if it is at the cost of a natural trump trick (assuming I have one). Pick one.

lol. 5D is a bid that shows diamonds and a possibility to make 5D, a possibility that it's a good save, just a guess that 5D is our best contract. I can't think of a bid that is less alertable. If you think 5D needs to be alerted you should get a clue. I think posts like yours are completely asinine and take away from discussion of bridge hands. I assumed since you are actually a decent bridge player that your post was essentially trolling, but if you are really just so naive that you think 5D should be alertable I apologize. Since when do you save vul vs. not? Sure it shows diamonds, but I think that you should actually have some expectation of making 5D to bid it, in this position. Here, I don't think you can actually have that expectation. If it is your partnership tendency or agreement to make "unsound" calls such as this, again, are the opponents entitled to this information or not? You may not feel that they are, so be it. I was just curious whether they were or not. But it was simply a question, and certainly no reason for you to start with your arrogant bullshit. Not everyone can be as lucky as you being born into a bridge playing family with a family member who is an expert in their own right, or to be able to work for one of the best players of all time (you do still work for Hamman, don't you?) or as naturally gifted at the game as you appear to be or have access to the top players in the game to bounce questions off of. Not everyone comes by it naturally, some of us have actually had to work hard, both at the game and at real jobs with little vacation time, raising kids, marriages, school, etc. that prevent us from attending the elite events or attend tournaments frequently. Try to remember that sometimes before making stupid statements regarding other peoples questions. Sorry, but you pissed me off.

It was addressed specifically to you, because of all the posters who advocated 5D, you are the only one who stated that: 1) you used to play it more conservatively. 2) that you have since incorporated it into your partnership bidding that it not be considered a sound bid (as it was before). 3) Therefore, does your partner have information that your opponents do not? This is the crux of what I am trying to find out. Or is it considered the norm to bid with "any possible reason to do so" these days? I did not say it needed to be alerted, I was simply asking a question. Mike, the problem really isn't when partner bids 4S or 5C so much as when he cannot bid either of these over 5D. Sure. And 5D (to me, at least) says this is where we need to play. If the cold game was 4S or 5C, then what? The bottom line is 5 of a black suit is reasonably safe, right? So if partner reopens with 4N, then pulls 5D to 5S, we could infer the 5-5 black suit hand (two places to play). If he reopens with a double, then bids 5S over 5D, we can raise to six with no real worries. It isn't passing out of fear. It is passing because 5D is a bad call, imo.

oh how these forums have deteriorated. ? Sorry Justin, if you are attempting to insult me, I simply am not smart enough to understand it. How is asking a serious question considered to be "deterioration"? I am frequently frustrated when a bid such as the 5D call is made with no alert.. I certainly expect more for the 5D call, although possibly mistakenly. So I seriously wish to know, if an explanation is given. If you have a problem with that, I will put it in language you can understand: Tough *****.

5D is nothing but a WAG*, imo. Have those of you endorsing a direct 5D bid forgotten that you also have a partner? Nobody has even mentioned the fact that bidding 5D directly might easily get raised to 6 by partner, since he will likely be expecting more from you as well, for a real disaster when 5D was making. If declarer actually holds his 3-8 count, as suggested, I would expect partner to balance the majority of the time when it is right to do so. Bidding directly to me is a clear violation of partnership discipline. Unless of course, you and your partner have agreed to play these sorts of direct bids (as mikeh suggests/implies he has). And Mikeh, as a side note, do you or should you alert the 5D call? I think most people would expect you to be holding a much better hand for it. You and your partner are both aware of the fact that you may not have a better hand, aren't the opponents entitled to that information as well? I'm just curious how/if you explain this. What about the times when 4S or 5C are the only making games? How do you explain this to your teammates? Granted, these hands may be few and far between, but they do exist. Partner can easily be 5-3-0-5, can he not? You may even be cold for 6 of a black suit on this holding but can't reach it because of the 5D bid. It was also noted that this is board #2 of a 14 board match. I am not certain I would be willing to risk disaster this early in the match. jmoo. *WAG = Wild Ass Guess.

I agree with Justin. Partner had the opportunity to double both 4H and 5D and failed to do so. He should not be doubling now to be asking for the lead of either of those suits. Partner definitely is NOT asking for a heart lead. If anything, he is demanding a lead of anything but a heart in this case. He can reasonably infer that my "normal" lead on the auction is likely to be a heart. If he has the heart A or a heart void, he should pass and let me make my normal lead. If he has a natural trump trick (no matter how unlikely it may be), it doesn't matter what we lead. He had the opportunity to double 5D as well and failed to do so. That, by itself, isn't enough to make a decision but.....it is unlikely partner has a diamond void on the auction and my holdings. And while the lightner double may ask for dummies first bid suit (diamonds), more specifically, it calls for an unusual lead. The unusual lead on this auction is a spade, imo. So, without the double, lead a heart, with the double, lead a spade.

Of course there is a difference. A psyche is usually based on garbage and may or may not work well, even if you have a suit to run to. With the tactical bid, the opening bidder is always bidding 4H, regardless of what his partner does or what the opponents do. He is simply attempting to draw attention away from a possible diamond lead. Is it a form of a psyche? Sure. But it is one that is made with a specific intent or tactic in mind. Of course, by bidding game over partners non-acceptance of the game try, you also tend to clue good opponents into the fact that the 3D call might have been a tactical bid. There is nothing to alert. Assuming you are playing 3D as a natural game try, what are you supposed to alert it as? IF the opponents asked for an explanation, you would say "natural game try". There is nothing more to tell them, as that IS your partnership agreement (assuming you even have one). The word is "scoundrel". :wacko:

Leading blind from 3 small vs. suit is never a good option, even when it is the other major. If you are playing 3/5 leads, leading small will probably work best. Partner should be able to infer your length. If you are playing 2/4 leads, MUD is the norm. It is also impossible for partner to read if it is from 872 or 72 when you lead the 7. Which is why I don't lead MUD vs. a suit contract, unless I seemingly have no other decent choice. A trump lead here rates to work best, imo. Or, at a minimum, it will give declarer nothing he can't do on his own. And you will have seen the dummy, along with a possible discard from partner to decide what to lead next (assuming you are eventually in with the heart K.)

Why not? Over which bid from partner do you have a bidding problem? 4♠, when he thinks 3♣ implies spade support. :P

Just a few thoughts: 1) Toystar was playing with Double!. They do not appear to be a regular partnership, so there is no possibility of "fielding" a psyche. 2) It really isn't a psyche. It is a tactical bid or a lead inhibiting bid. 3) Why on earth would you ever alert a psyche? How would you alert this? "Opps, I'm psyching, whack my butt now?" Come on. If you make a psyche, there is never a reason to alert it. 4) Yes, the table host was rude. Mark them as enemy and move on.

Isn't it conceivable I could pass 1♥ with a minimum? Or just toss it in in 4th? And you did neither of those, did you? And partner already is aware of this, right? So now in the context of the remaining possible min/max hands, I think 2H just assured opening hand, and this hand is minimum in that context. Would you have bid differently holding x KJx AJxxx KQxx? I would consider this to be a max hand, and the one you held is minimum for the given auction. jmoo.

If I'd had the forethought to review the table settings before my partner left, I would've ticked "permission required for players". Since you do not become the table host until partner actually leaves the table, this option would not be available to you; it would be grayed out. You can review it, but you would have to ask him to change it prior to his leaving.

I would have bid 3♠ over 2H. My hand could be a lot worse and I do have a good fit for either minor (diamonds excellent, club Kx is good in spades). This serves several purposes, it lets partner know that we can sac over 4H, lets him know that 4S is ok if he is maximum, and it takes away a level of bidding space from LHO. A simple 2♠ bid allows LHO to much flexibility to further describe his hand. However, in the context of good/bad micaels, I agree that this hand is outside of either range and that 2H was a poor choice of calls.

This hand should begin with 2N, not 2C.

Neither vul. RHO Dealer. Playing with an aspiring intermeditate player, the following auction occurs: (1♥)-3♣-p-p (X)-p-p-xx- p-? You hold: xxx x Qx AJ107xxx Is the redouble SOS or not?

I think if you just called this an Entry squeeze (as Reese did, in your later post), you would be correct. It is not an entry-shifting squeeze.

If the agreement is top of 3 low, 2nd from 4 low, then why not make matters abundantly clear by following with the 8 on the second round from 8654? I guess, although I don't know why the 8 would be any clearer than the 4. Because the rule of 11 already tells you the lead was not fourth best. (If it was, the 7 would have held trick 1). So now by following with the 8, you would know he originally started with 4 cards 8654, and by following with either the 5 or the 4, he will only have 3. I dont think it should make much difference between the 5 and 4 though, unless he might also have led from 64 doubleton, or is it 65 doubleton? :P

[hv=n=sj9h105d875cakqj63&w=s10765hak7432d6c95&e=sak84hj8dk1093c1082&s=sq32hq96daqj42c74]399|300|This was the full hand[/hv] Ok, so it would not have helped to begin with a high heart. I couldn't remember if East held AK10xxx or not. I suspect that South expected more than just AKQJxx for the 3C bid. However, this is the set of results on the Board: RESULTS OF BOARD 24 SCORES....FREQUENCY These are the N/S scores +430.....6 +400.....6 +100.....3 +50.......2 -50........4 -100......2 -110......2 -140......1 -300......1 -500......1 So evidently, lots of people bid 3N.

Try Ottlik's book "Adventures in Card Play" for many similar esoteric squeezes. I think he calls this an entry-shifting guard squeeze or similar.

Ok, you are looking at the CoC for the pairs, and I was looking at the one for teams. However, I think this covers it. 14. In general, any convention or treatment that is familiar to the average tournament player, or can be explained to the average player within 10 seconds, is allowed. The other part isn't applicable, imo, since gambling 3N should be familiar to the average tournament player. again, jmoo.

I'm not sure where you are getting the "rule" number from, but the CoC states: 9. Systems and Conventions: All methods approved for the Cavendish Invitational Pairs are allowed, but no others. In general, any convention that would require a pre-alert and suggested written defenses, including Multi, preemptive opening bids that do not specify the suit or suits held, and other artificial bids that cannot be explained to an average player within 10 seconds, are barred. If there is any question about the acceptability of your system, it must be approved by a member of the Tournament Committee prior to the start of play. Since I think you could explain Gambling 3N in 10 seconds or less to any player at this event, I think it would be allowed, even though the suit is not known. (Yes, I know, this is contradictory to the stated rules). jmoo.

LHO did indeed have the AK of hearts. RHO had an entry in the spade Ace, but LHO led a small heart (the Ace or King might have been better). Declarer took 6 clubs (they were solid), 1 heart, and two/three diamonds via the diamond finesse. It appeared at the time, he only took one diamond finesse (maybe he did), but 10 tricks were claimed. I think RHO pitched his 2nd heart removing his link to partners hand. But 3N is a terrible call, imo.