bid_em_up

I agree that 4 Heart can be made with hands like the actual example or with hands with more defensive power. But Pd had three possible bids after4 Spade: 5 HEart: We surely want to play 5 Heart X: We don´t want to play 5 Hearts pass: You decide. I have my take out double of 1 Club, so I have 4 (maybe 3) Spades and 4 (maybe 3) HEarts. What shall we do now? Playing 4 Spade, 4 Spade X or 5 Heart? So with a hand with just two or three defensive tricks Partner will wait for your double with the ace of Heart and an outside king. An if he wanted you to bid 5 Heart with the actual hand, he had passed too. But he did not ask you. He made a statement. Yes, but he made a statement based upon the information he has been given by me. My hand has zero tricks on defense and he may be expecting 1 to 1 1/2. My hand also has extra trump length that partner is not aware of, and my hand indicates that the opponents are likely to hold extra trump length in their suit than the auction has disclosed. So even though partner has said he thinks it is best to defend, doesn't mean that I should stop looking at my hand or listening to the auction, and just blindly pass. Partner is quite likely counting the AK of hearts for between one and two tricks as part of his double. It is entirely probable that we are taking zero heart tricks. So there is merit in at least considering pulling the double to 5H. I'm inclined to leave this one in though. My weak hand combined with partners original double (indicating spade tolerance) and my spade void leaves me with the impression that partner is strong with good spades. I pass. For all we know, partner has 5 spades.

Ben, Is there an easy way to tell via BrBr which board of a tourny these bids occured on? i.e. Does Glen ever do it on board #1 or #2? Or does it always occur late in a tourny (say bd #9 or later in a 12 bd tourny) where he may deliberately be trying to create "action"? Just wondering.

I wouldnt pass the East hand. I would call the director, since I have 14 cards. :)

Well, as you can see, players much better than the one that was sitting across from you (I refuse to call them, "your partner") agree that it is best to transfer out of 2N on this holding. 3S may make, it may go down, but it rates to certainly be an improvement over 2N. The hand has almost zero trick taking potential in 2N. It rates to take at least 3 tricks in spades (and possibly more). As noted, your illustrious partner should have made 3S after the defense erred at trick 1. Some good rules of thumb to remember: Anybody who misplays this badly and then attempts to provide bidding lessons can kiss my @#$. Anyone who leaves in a huff is frequently attempting to escape before you realize or criticize their errors. New partners currently are a dime a dozen. Next week, they may even be on sale. Good ones, however, may cost extra. The eject button never loses an arguement. Neither does the enemy button. :)

It's highly unlikely that 2N will go -1. East will be able to take 8 tricks before N/S can gather all the tricks you are claiming they can get. (N/S will not be able to take 2 heart tricks). Its relatively easy for East to score 5 diamonds, 1 spade, 1 heart, and 1 club, for 8, with potential for 9 in both clubs and hearts.

Lets seperate this into two seperate issues. Is the bid legal? Yes, I think under the guidelines of the GCC it is "technically" legal. Ok, we agree on that. The other issue is, is adequate disclosure being given for opponents to have a reasonable idea of what hand types it may contain. I don't think so. Not when it can contain anything from a bad 12 count with a ratty 7 card suit, to a solid balanced 25 count. Currently out of the 22 hands listed, 19 of them had a 6 or 7 card suit. In most all of those cases, it is a minor suit (I know you had 6 hearts headed by the AK on one hand, there might have been another, but in most cases, its a minor). Are the opponents entitled to this information? I think so. You know it, your partner has to at least be aware of this fact. Certainly the opponents are entitled to know it as well. One other time it had a 5 card minor suit head by the AKQ10 (making almost equivalent to a 6 card suit). Never once did you do it with the spade suit. Would you? If not, then maybe this is part of your disclosure. Then, in two other cases, it was a balanced 24/25 count. Are the opponents not entitled to know that this may be one of the hand types as well? Of course, they are. In several cases (at least 8 of the 22, that I counted), the hand was in the 15-18 hcp range, but contained a stiff A or K as part of those values. You know your tendency to do this. So does your partner. Shouldn't the opponents be entitled to this information as well? My suggestion is to put in the alert box "See chat area for alert info". Create a text document one time with the alert info (or write a script to do it automatically), copy it, then paste it in the chat area and send to both opponents. It could say something to the effect of: "Usually 15-21 hcp, normally contains a 6+ card solid/semi-solid suit (can be either a minor suit or hearts but not spades), may contain a stiff A or K as part of its values; it may also be a balanced 19-25 in 3rd/4th seat, or 25+ in any position; it may also contain any other hand we think will have a reasonable play for 3N opposite a random 6 count in partners hand". Note: this is just a suggestion based upon the hands presented. It may or may not meet the criteria/judgement you use when making the bid. Given a description of this nature, I have no problem with the legality of the bid itself or the disclosure provided. At least then, I would have some idea as to what to possibly expect in your hand. I would suggest you take a closer look at the hands you're doing it on however, and tightening the bid up some (you imply that you are in the process of doing so already). Of the 22 hands, I see at least 3 missed slams. A couple of hands where 5 minor is cold, but 3N should be off on any normal defense and several more where you should be going for big numbers versus decent opponents when they have nothing. This is why I stated earlier that I cannot imagine the bid being very effective. For every once that it works, it appears that it should be failing at least twice (I state this based upon a cursory look at each hand, possible contracts, normal defense, etc., but I could easily be wrong). If it is currently being more successful than that, it is either because a) the opponents are weak, or b ) they haven't been provided enough information to make a reasonable bridge judgement vs. the bid. Of course, thats just my own opinion..... I don't like those odds. Maybe you do. To each their own.

Close, but not quite. Its practically impossible to give " An actual Full Disclosure explanation would include all of the hands my partner will not have within that range" as you suggest in a non-f2f environment. I suppose a more accurate description would be "5+ trump, less than 8 hcp, usually will contain shortness somewhere". As an opponent, you now have a reasonable description of what to expect in partners hand, do you not? (As you stipulate, you have played bridge before and you're not going to be that far off in what you see in dummy). Now, change the example slightly, to 1H (X) 4H or leave it at 1H-4H. Now lets say rather than having 5+ trumps, less than 8 hcp, and shortness somewhere, partner starts bidding 4H on xx AQxx KQxxxx x (or similar). Let him do this 20 times over a two month period, along with 20 of the other "normal" types of 4H bids. Now I have an idea that anytime partner bids 4H, he may now be holding this sort of hand....even though we have no official agreement to play it this way. I must begin including these hand types in my disclosure, agreed? Now, Glen's partner has seen 22 (by my count) hands where he has opened 3N. Of these, some 19 or 20 of them have a 6+ card suit (usually a minor) and in most cases, its either solid or semi-solid (in 2 cases, the suit was weakish, imo). But in at least two other cases, it was a balanced 24-25 count. Are the opponents not entitled to this information @ the table? I see only one auction where Glen ran after a double. Although why he ran on this hand, and not some of the others, I guess only he knows. If he always ran after a double, then it might become an issue, it would tip partner off whether or not to sit in the case of 3N p p X ?. If he passes, he is fully expecting to make and then it might become an issue.

Really? OK, here's a hand, less than 8 hcp, 5+ hearts. Match points J5 Q9765 T86 975 If you were vul. vs. not, and the bidding had gone: (P) 1♥ (P) ? Would you bid 4♥? Same question, reverse the vulnerability. Same questions, but now your partner was dealer. So, do you bid the same in all four cases? Me, this one's easy. If partner dealt, we're not vulnerable, and they are, I bid 4♥. In all other cases, I'd wouldn't. And a partner who knows me well enough would know this. That's a tendency. But the only case when you would have actually made the bid is not vul vs. vul and then the description of "5+ trump, less than 8 hcp" is adequate. All other hands would pass, making your attempted point irrelevant. I am not questioning the fact that it's an "honest" bid. But given the fact that Glen does it, and his partner doesn't, combined with a lack of adequately being able to describe the bid....... And the majority of the hands appear to fall into a category of "Usually around 18 hcp, and a solid/semi-solid 6+ card suit but may vary". I could live with this as a description...... however, the onus isn't on me to "know" what the bid means. It's on the opposing pair to provide adequate information regarding their bids. At the table, I dont have the luxury of seeing the 14-20 hands they have opened 3N with in the past. His partner has.

Do you think a player who has read two bridge books should be playing these conventions. I don't. Oh, but then you claim you and her are playing the same system/methods and yet, her judgement and knowledge is supposed to be good enough to "know" when to open 3N? But she isn't advanced enough to be able to handle any of Richard's suggestions? Yeah, right. No wonder the bids are all by you, and none by her...... Face it, the fact is you are not playing the same methods, you are just claiming that you are, I don't care how much you try to convince us otherwise. If you were playing the same methods, then she should also be opening the same hands 3N. Since she isnt ......draw your own conclusion.

How can the most important part be an 'unless'? If they don't have a special partnership understanding, then there is no 'unless'. If you read Cherdano's answer, do you you understand the point of the question? Of course it means more than 5+ trumps, less than 8 hcp. That might be your agreement, but with some partners they'd do it with some hands, with others it would be others. It also depends upon what seat partner is, and the vulnerability. If you give an answer like Cherdano's every time, then absolutely, you have something to complain about on this 3NT opener. But when you give an answer like '5+ trumps, less than 8 hcp', then you're doing what they're doing. There's an implicit understanding, in both cases. Why is it illegal for them to play something without revealing any implicit tendencies (and we're talking tendencies here, not agreements- not one of those hands would surprise me as a 3NT opener) but it's legal for you to do so? To Cherdano- it's because bid_em_up's level of explaining implicit agreements is standard here. You go above and beyond. :D This is absolute nonsense. With my regular partners, that is the EXACT meaning. Nothing more, nothing less. It is also a better description than "can be anything" which is essentially the answer that is being given. And you still evidently fail to comprehend the part that says "unless an opposing pair can be expected to reasonably comprehend".......how can you comprehend what isn't being adequetely explained????

OK, you've seen probably every single time they've ever had a 3NT opener as far back as they can remember. What special partnership understand do you think they have? I don't see any special partnership understanding here, except that opener is less likely to gamble when vulnerable, which is just bridge. Do you play SAYC or 2/1 with a regular partner? If so, suppose that you open 1♥ and he responds 4♥. I ask you for a detailed explanation of the bid. Pick one of your partners, and tell me what you would say. Remember, 'standard' is not a legal definition of the bid. 1) This is not my wording, but the wording of the Laws. You also cut the bolding off at the point where it becomes most significant, unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning. There is no way you can claim that an opposing pair to be able to understand "well, sometimes its 25 balanced, and other times its 12 hcp and 7-3-2-1 with broken suit, and other times, its just that I am bored and want to play a hand so I bid 3N". 2) His partner has a better understanding of hand types that he might make this call on. 3) It isn't so much the fact that there is an EXPLICIT understanding. There isn't. But by default, partner has a better idea of the hand types the 3N bid may contain than the opponents can ever hope to, which makes it an IMPLICIT agreement. Kind of like if your partner routinely bids 2S after 2H (X) and he does not hold spades. You become aware that he may not have them. You havent explicitly agreed to do this. Yes, it is a tactical bid. But you KNOW that your partner is prone to doing this. Making the bid implicitly agreed, alertable, and fully explainable. 4) Sorry, but I dont call this bridge. 5) Either, 2/1 preferred. 6) Why would I ever say standard? With my regular partners, the response is "5+ trumps, less than 8 hcp". I really dont understand the point of this question.

I find that no matter what card I lead from QJxx, the opposing side seems to always have the cards to gain an extra trick in the suit (at least more often than they have a right to, anyway lol). Once you decide that partner cannot have the spade A or K, this makes the spade lead very unattractive, to me. Partner would specifically have to hold the 10, but the odds are 2-1 against his doing so (two opponents hands for it to be in, one partner hand). Put this against leading a heart. Now all we need is for partner to hold 5 or 6 hearts. If I were to decide to lead a heart based on this....I would at least consider leading the Ace to cater against a stiff honor in dummy. If hearts are 2-2, leading the ace costs nothing. If they are 3-1, declarer will likely have two stops anyway, but if partner happened to have J10xxx and we caught a stiff honor in dummy, declarer now only has one stop (he had two if we led a small heart). Granted, I would only consider this at Imps....

Glen, For all your references to the rules claiming the bid to be legal, I submit the following objection. according to the North American Laws of Duplicate Bridge: "SECTION SIX CONVENTIONS AND AGREEMENTS LAW 40 PARTNERSHIP UNDERSTANDINGS A. Right to Choose Call or Play A player may make any call or play (including an intentionally misleading call - such as a psychic bid - or a call or play that departs from commonly accepted, or previously announced, use of a convention), without prior announcement, provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding. B. Concealed Partnership Understandings Prohibited A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organization." As far as I am concerned, if you can't explain it any better than "to play, may be a variety of hands", then its a concealed partnership understanding, imo. An opposing pair will have no idea as to what hand type you "may" have without doing some serious grilling of your methods. Having seen you open 3N on a variety of hands, your partner, by default, will be more acutely aware of what hands you "might" have for the bid, even if there is no explicit agreement for it. Do you open it on long suit with a couple of side suit stops? Solid suits with side stops (or partial stops in the other suits)?Weak hands? Strong and balanced? Sometimes you do it and sometimes you dont? Frequently have a stiff honor in a suit? You bid it whenever you feel like the final contract will end up being 3N and you wish to ensure that you are declarer? Do you only do this when partner is passed hand? (The example hands dont reflect this info). Partner will be aware of all of these things, but the opponents will not be. I cannot imagine this opening "style" being successful in the long run, even if it is deemed to be "legal". But thats another story. jmoo.

I give North 75%, only because there is no option between 75 and 100. He is closer to 100 than 75 though..... 90/10 is appropriate, imo, however. The initial X is fine, see Justins explanation. 3H is an overbid, imo and this is where South earns his 10% of the blame. The spade Q is not carrying any weight whatsoever. With a 5th heart, 3H becomes a little closer with the compensating club shortness, but light values + shorter trumps is asking for disaster when you bid 3H. 5H draws the rest of the blame. No extra values, missing the 4th trump, no compensating distribution, etc. etc. Please dont tell us North is trying to defend his/her bid..... (And if you were North, don't admit it. At least not in public) ;)

I'll go out on a limb and lead the club 9.

Under the given choices, 4♥ is slammish minors, as suggested. You had other options for spades + minor (3H or leaping michaels). Hands that bid 4H should be at least 6-5 in the minors. If partner, knowing this, bids 4♠, I pass it in a heartbeat.

And I think 2N is clearly wrong. But I am not a fan of bidding Jacoby 2N on distributional hands and realize that others may have no problem with it. To each their own. Splintering 3S may work, but then again, maybe its the club shortness that would get partner excited.....so splintering with two stiffs isnt an option for me either. 2♦ is game force. Thats all you need. Second choice would be 4N......and I think it should be RKC. But I always treat ambiguous 4N bids where no suit has been explicitly agreed as agreeing the last bid suit. I can't really think of a good reason for 1M-4N not to agree the major....but I suppose somebody has one.

In a word, No. N/S can be accused of not knowing what they are doing, and thats about it. I really wouldn't sweat "ethical" issues of this nature against an "old man" with whom I had good relations prior to this, as you later state. You are also playing chicago, which sounds as if you are playing against a pair of friends (or aquaintances) in a social game (maybe even a home game). For all we know, this pair has been playing like this for years in social games where things such as this are the norm. While their behaviour could certainly be described as coffeehousing, or simply "lack of experience", to accuse someone of being unethical as a result of this in what appears to be a friendly game is taking things a little bit too far, imo. They ended in a bad game, you misdefended, it made. Tough cookies. It's chicago, they will be likely to stretch for a vul game of any kind. 4S is cold on the lie of the cards though, they could have easily been in it instead (losing 1S, 1C, 1D or 2S and 1D). You might explain to them that taking advantage of (mis)explanations is considered to be unethical and why. But by no means should you accuse them of actually being unethical....at least not until they do it a second time after having the reasons why it is considered to be unethical explained to them. :)

1N for reasons already listed above.

You lost me at "Disclaimer" :P

This isn't entirely true. In a 2/1 context, the 3D rebid could be something like: Kx xx AKQJ10xx xx or Kxx xxx AKQJxxx void In order to hold the 17-20 count you are expecting, partner would have to hold (almost) all of the diamond honors, the spade honors and the club A, something like; KQx x AKJ10xxx Axx Now, how many people rebid 3D with this hand....instead of 3N? Very few, imo.

Could also be cold for 7D, you dont know at this point. 4C is forcing, there is no reason to do anything else at this point.

You're red, they're white. Competing with a few hearts and a lousy hand, in the long term, is a losing proposition, imo. I would not encourage partners to do this. Given that, partner must have reasonable values for the 3H raise. Since I was bidding 4H over 3H, its either X or 5H for me. Pass is not forcing, since partner doesnt know we were about to bid game. In this poll, I choose X. Could work out poorly though. B)

Personally, I'd kinda like for everyone at a table (kibitzers included) be able to enable a webcam if they desired. I'd like to be able to actually chat (via voice) at a table amongst all four players and/or kibitzers (with or without cam). (These are, I believe, technically feasable already....they may not be justifiable). I'd like to be able to reach thru the monitor and choke the living crap out of partner via remote access appendages. (but only when s/he deserves it, of course) :lol: I'd like to receive warnings before anyone attempts to do the same to me. :) I'd like to have sensory perceptions enabled, so that when I pass gas, everyone at the table goes "Ugggghhhh, peeeeuuuuwwwww". :P Ok, maybe that's going a tad overboard.

It is a forcing pass situation, but as I think Mikeh was implying.... Phil has already shown extra values in the auction. To use a forcing pass here should imply more extras than he has already shown. If the first call of 2♥ showed at least a king extra (as Phil stated), a forcing pass here should imply about 2 kings extra. With nothing to add to values shown already, you really should go ahead and bid 5C and let partner know you have real support and let him make an accurate decision. jmoo. (I voted for 5C also, but considered 6C at length before doing so. A forcing pass was not an option.) :)