bid_em_up

1. Huh..? Apparently, to you anything that isn't conservative bidding is masterminding, eh? 2. Fair enough. To me, it's jmoo that you're wrong. It really has nothing to do with being conservative. 1N is not descriptive of the hand, in any way, shape, form, or fashion. It is an anti-systemic bid (most likely), anti-field bid (the field will not be opening 1N, so you are swinging, in a sense), and most of the times, it will be a losing action. Also, it is anti-partnership, as it will irritate the crap out of your partner when you do this, and it fails. Feel free to prove me wrong, though (but start a new thread to do it). :) Present a logical argument for opening it 1N then, if you can possibly find one. "Preemptive value" is not a reasonable argument for a bid that prevents your side from finding its best contract. I, on the other hand, believe that I have presented several good reasons for NOT opening it 1N (as have many other posters). You're quite welcome to open this hand 1N any time you feel like it. Just dont be surprised when you find your results are less than desirable. We now return to our originally scheduled programming. ;)

No more so than opening 1N :) Why do you say that? Many people allow the 1NT opening to have 5-card majors. It's in no way masterminding.. unless, of course, if you require that 1NT cannot have a 5-card major, period. It is a very anti-field, and anti-percentage action. That to me, is what I call masterminding. Give partner a hand like xxx Qxx xxx Axxx. A normal hand, right? Go ahead, open 1N, see what happens. The hand is a bad 15, the two suits it does contain are quite reasonable for suit play (especially opposite any fit, and the heart suit is playable opposite a small doubleton in most cases). Five of its points are in KQ tight of spades (not even a tenace), 2 of which likely disappear under the opponents ace. Another one of its points is in the doubleton J of diamonds. So realistically the 15 is only worth about 12 in NT play (if that) unless partner has well fitting cards. I frequently will have a 5 card major to open 1N, that is not the problem. But, if you open 1N, you will rarely be able to play 2C/3C when its right to do so. This hand screams "play in a suit" if a fit can be found. You will never find the club fit when you open 1N. Change the hand simply to AQ KJ109x xx KQ9x and the 1N opener becomes much more tolerable (to me, at least), although I would still say it is masterminding, since it is an anti-field action. As always, jmoo.

Huh? Try actually reading the auction next time :P

That's a bit of masterminding, don't you think? No more so than opening 1N :P In the last f2f tourny I played, I had a pickup partner. About 3/4 of the way thru what was a really good session, pickup pard decided to open a 5-2-2-4 hand 1NT. Needless to say, 1N went -1, 2S makes 3 for a cold zero. The pickup player then says "I never open this kind of hand 1N", leaving me scratching my head wondering, "why the heck did you do it now then?" (paraphrased, of course, my actual thoughts are not postable!!)

umm, 1700? 2 spds, a spade ruff, 2 clubs, a club ruff, a heart, and the diamond A. Granted, its unlikely, but stranger things have happened. More likely is that you lose 2 spades, a heart, a spade ruff, and in all probability, at least 2 clubs. This makes you off 5 (or more) for a minimum of minus 1100 which is a losing result, even if they have a small slam. At favorable vul, the result is likely worse, as you may push them into a slam that they werent bidding otherwise, and you have no prospects of defeating (in your hand). You can expect your spade K is in the slot, as are any outside cards that partner may hold. Alternatively, partner could hold J10xx of hearts, the diamond A and the club A, and 5H is going down. RHO is expected to hold long hearts, and he expects them to be solid, say AKQxxxx, when in fact he has a loser. Now instead of +50.....you're minus a bundle. As always, jmoo.

I'd like to add a couple more thoughts that nobody has touched on yet (although their suggestions are excellent). Learn one system, and learn it well. SAYC or 2/1 are your best choices. Not because they are the best system, per se, but because they are the most commonly used. No, you dont have to play every "current" convention. Yes, you can live without this, that and the other. For the "advancing" player, the biggest single mistake, imo, thats made is trying to play too many conventions, without actually understanding them and their inferences (or negative inferences from lack of the bid being made). You do not have to play something just because "everybody else does". Yes, it helps to have an idea of what certain conventions are and what they mean. But, until you are comfortable with everything you play, dont attempt to add anything else. If you start playing with a new partner who wants to play a given convention, feel free to say "sorry, I dont play that" rather than agreeing to play it and subsequently having a disaster. Are you forgetting to make certain bids? Making the wrong bid? Both are an indication that your system is too complicated for you (or your partner) at this point. Go through your system with your regular partner and decide if the conventions you are using occur frequently enough to be worthwhile or if something else might be better. I have done quite well in many events with pickup partners playing nothing but stayman, rkc, and transfers. I believe this is because you dont waste as much energy worrying about what bid to make, is it forcing, how will partner take it, and in turn, have more mental energy to use on concentrating on counting, playing, and defending. Learn to be disciplined at the table. Make your best bid the first time. Dont bid the same values twice. Learn to double the opps for penalty ;) (my personal favorite, and the major factor in why I refuse to play support doubles/redoubles). As always, jmoo.

My partnerships use (1C)-3C to show spades and diamonds via the following method (this may be Ghestem, or a variation of it): Direct cuebid shows the two higher ranking suits. 2N shows the two lower unbid. Jump to 3C over opening bid (1x) 3C is the higher and lower ranking unbid suits (by opponents). If opponent opened 1D, it would be clubs and spades. Yes, this gives up a preemptive bid of 3C. Oh well. When is the last time you were allowed to play a preemptive jump overcall of 3C? Unless thats where the opps want you to play and when that is the case, you are usually doubled anyway. The tradeoff is partner always knows immediately what two suits you have, and how well your hands fit together. If partner simply bids 3D, you can now show the bigger hand by bidding 3S (which should be absolutely game forcing, you would pass 3D otherwise). Easy game, this bridge.....hehe.

Does anybody know what the "Rank" is or how it was assigned? Entrants for the Cavendish Pairs 2006 Rank......Pair........................Auction Price (in $K) Entrants for the Cavendish Pairs 2006 Rank Pair Auction Price (in $K) 30 Zia Mahmood – Andrew Robson $48k 3 Fulvio Fantoni – Claudio Nunes $43k 1 Bobby Levin – Steve Weinstein $42k 50 Antonio Sementa – Alfredo Versace 42 15 Waleed ElAhmady – Tarek Sadek 34 4 Geoff Hampson – Eric Rodwell 32 2 Sam Lev – Jacek Pszczola 29 49 Alain Levy – Herve Mouiel 25 5 Boye Brogeland – Ishmael Del’Monte 23 6 Bjorn Fallenius – Roy Welland 21 20 Steve Landen – Pratap Rajadhyaksha 20 7 Gary Cohler – Howard Weinstein 19 11 Piotr Bizon – Michael Kwiecien 17 13 Curtis Cheek – Joe Grue 17 16 Bob Hamman – Justin Lall 17 24 Chris Compton – Mike Passell 17 26 Drew Casen – Jim Krekorian 17 17 Alex Dubinin – Andrei Gromov 16 37 Marc Bompis – Jean-Christophe Quantin 16 33 Marty Fleisher – Chip Martel 15 22 Michael Cornell – Michael Rosenberg 14 27 Vincent Demuy – Gavin Wolpert 14 34 Neil Chambers – John Schermer 14 36 Fred Stewart – Kit Woolsey 14 38 David Berkowitz – Billy Pollack 14 41 Ton Bakkeren – Huub Bertens 14 9 Grant Baze – Gaylor Kasle 13 23 Peter Lakatos – Gabor Winkler 13 29 Russ Ekeblad – Ron Rubin 13 39 Bob Blanchard – Jeff Meckstroth 13 8 Seymon Deutsch – Paul Soloway 12.5 10 Richie Schwartz – Chris Willenken 12.5 12 Michael Elinescu – Entscho Wladow 12.5 14 Gilad Altschuler – Piotr Gawrys 12.5 18 Christal Henner-Welland – Michael Kamil 12.5 19 Amos Kaminski – Shaya Levit 12.5 21 George Jacobs – Ralph Katz 12.5 25 Zoltan Nagy – Bob Richman 12.5 28 Jill Levin – Jill Meyers 12.5 32 Franck Multon – Pierre Zimmermann 12.5 40 Sartaj Hans – Tony Nunn 12.5 42 Bart Bramley – Barry Rigal 12.5 43 Mathias Bruun – Peter Fredin 12.5 46 JoAnna Stansby – Lew Stansby 12.5 Auction Total: $821,000

From todays Cavendish Bulletin (hope its ok to post this....): Changed Days, Indeed by Sam Leckie Most of you know of my success in naming the winners of this event. I have been coming to this tournament for the past nine years. Six out of 9 can’t be bad. I have surprised even my modest self, but perhaps my greatest triumph was a couple of years ago when WBP asked me not to name my selection until after the auction as it could affect the prices. Hell, did I not give you a complete profile of the winning pair (Gitelman-Moss) the year they won? The one pick I have never made in all these years is everybody’s favorite player—Zia. I have always been of the opinion that the method of scoring and other factors made him a no-go and my judgment has been spot-on because the best finish he has ever achieved was second place in 1998, playing with Steve Weinstein. Believe me, even I could finish runner-up playing with four-time champion Steve. This year I feel is different. The other factors have been reduced (this venue is an expensive taxi ride to the strip) and his teaming up with Andy Robson (I swear, the kid is still growing!). A few years ago they were a very successful partnership all over Europe and the fact that Zia has gone to all the trouble of reinventing it must be a pointer. What finally decided it for me was an incident that happened Tuesday evening. Zia was having a meal with a few of the players when suddenly he announced he was going to bed. The time was only 8:45 pm. This was surprising enough, but the clincher for me was that all the other players actually believed him! http://www.thecavendish.com/2006/FRIBULL2006.pdf

What is not being said directly, and I am inferring is (and I could be entirely off-base): The Cavendish asked Susan to be the onsite tournament/vugraph operator/coordinator for their event, due to her prior experience. She felt that as such, it was her responsibility to select the commentators herself (rightfully so, imo). If the coordinator position is a "paid" position, then it is definitely her responsibility to select the commentators herself, rather than delegate it to someone else, since their performance will reflect on her. It is always possible that there are certain people that the Cavendish organizers would prefer not to have commenting and how do you tell Roland to invite everyone but abc and xyz? Or please exclude commentators from a given country? I have no idea if this was a reason, but even if it was....it is their tournament. They can choose who they want or do not want as their commentators as they see fit, along with whether or not it is broadcast at all. In either case (Susan or Roland), both do excellent jobs. Be thankful that the organizers have allowed the vugraph to be broadcast for the world to see. I know I am. ;) I just wish I didnt have to work today!! (No bbo access) :D

No, I was specifically addressing the statement that said "at IMP's its a no-brainer, bid 3N" and I dont see where the original question is asking "bid game or pass?", but instead is asking what action do you take? edit: (Ok, now I do.....who reads titles anyways?) Pass is certainly a reasonable alternative and one that I considered. Yes, GOP (what is that, good ole partner?) heard you, but he does not have a club stop and is unaware that you hold one. Given that partner needs as little as: Jxx Axx AKQxxx x for 3N to make (not an unreasonable holding to expect), 3N is the matchpoint call. You wont win many MP's for playing 3D or 5D. As always, jmoo.

Really? Actually it should be the other way around. At matchpoints, 3N is normally the "no-brainer" call, as it will score the same as 5D if it makes, you have to take fewer tricks and you outscore 5D if you score any overtricks. At MP, whenever 3N has a reasonable chance of making, you should bid it, instead of the minor suit game. At imps, you should consider which is likely to be the best game 3N or 5 of a minor or is game makeable at all. Overtricks dont matter. I think that both 3N and 5D are likely to go down, but since I only have to score 9 tricks in 3N, thats the MP bid of choice. (edited for clarification).

The pairs auction doesnt occur until Thursday 5/11, @ 7 pm PDT. The auction results are usually posted the in the following days bulletin (and sometimes on the website), if memory serves me correctly. The Bulletins and website may be found here: http://www.thecavendish.com/

was that the one with the wales? How do whales hold cards, much less a computer?

Is it possible to change the software to allow you to right-click on a players name who has just logged off and edit their player status and/or notes? The reason I ask is, many times an opp will make a comment to his partner "you dumb @%^&" and logoff. When they logoff, their name goes red, and you no longer have the right-click functions available for them. I can add this person to my enemies list (via clicking on my name and add enemy), but I cant put any comment regarding why the person was added to the list in his profile, until the next time I see them logged on, by which time I have usually forgotten what the reason was, or just dont remember to do it. Since I like to notate what a person did to get added to the list, this is a pain. Thanks

Just for grins: Waleed ElAhmady – Tarek Sadek Zia Mahmood – Andy Robson Sam Lev – Jacek Pszczola Bobby Levin – Steve Weinstein Fulvio Fantoni – Claudio Nunes Hamman-Lall

Then who is replacing them?

1) 3S, with X a close second choice. 2) Yes 3) No. Although I really want to :rolleyes: 4) J♦ 5) I think the crossruff line will fail in #5 if trumps are 3-1, when RHO wins heart A and returns trump. Count winners, 1 diamond, 2 spades, and the 7 remaining trumps = 10. (If you are going to crossruff, you cant score the 5th spade in dummy.) A 2nd trump lead when you lose the 2nd heart will defeat 5C when clubs are 3-1. However, "knowing" that the spades are 4-3 from the opening lead, allows you to win the spade A, ruff a diamond small, ruff a spade, club to dummy (making sure trumps arent 4-0), spade K (pitching a heart from hand), and then a fourth spade, pitching a heart regardless of whether RHO discards or ruffs. I think this line is 100% whenever trumps are no worse than 3-1. If one opponent showed out on the club to dummy, I believe you are forced to play for the heart A onside at this point.

Hmmm, if LHO is known to be a weak defender, there is something to be said for winning the heart Q in hand, club to the K and then club to the 9. If this wins, you have 10 tricks (assuming clubs were at least 4-2). And if it loses, LHO is going to be hard pressed to not cash the AJ hearts, especially if his partner follows to the 2nd heart. Not sure why RHO would be playing the 2 of hearts from x2 for standard count or reverse attitude though (except for maybe he is trying to give the illusion of holding a stiff heart when he is really holding both diamond honors and a doubleton heart). I also think this is the more legitimate line of play, where you are depending only on 1 card, the club J onside, as opposed to all the requirements necessary for the diamond line to work, but I will consider it some more.

True, but if you make 7, the score is 1800 vs. 1390, so the bot cheated you out of 4.10. Still a silly bot, though. :D

How did this cheat you out of 3.60? 5D xx'd+1 = 1400 6D = 1370 Net 30. Cost 30 cents. Now if 6D had gone down..... :D Silly bot.

1) 4N pick a minor, no slam interest (opposite a normal takeout double). And I consider the West hand to be on the top end of a normal takeout double, so he should not bid 6m. 2) Yes. What else should he do? 3) Yes. 4) Same hand, spade void, or stiff spade, and about KQ better, slam interest. Its not so much a function of hcp but losers and suit quality. With 2 small spades, inviting slam in highly risky. Here I would expect to have at least one loser in spades, and quite probably another on the side, so 4N would suffice. 5) Penalty. I think responsive in this scenario is not a good treatment, or your opponents will push you around with ease since you cannot double for penalty. As always, jmoo.

In the first case, 1440-660/690 = 780/750, which is lose 12 or 13. The second case is 630-690 + (100/200/300, or 200/500/800) which is again 12 or more. So a 24+ imp swing, I could understand, but 20? And the auction is presented in such a way, that leads me to believe that his table stopped in 4N making, and the opponents bid and made the slam at the other table. So again, how is this a 20 imp swing?

I'm still trying to figure out how 4N making against slam bid at other table represents a 20 imp swing.

I think since you have decided to play suction over precision, that this is exactly the hand it was designed for and you bid according to your methods. You hand is expected to be weak, and two suited, and thats exactly what you have. To bid 2N is anti-systemic (not to mention the unfavorable vul). Your partnership decided to use this method, to show this hand. Bid accordingly. Anything else is a violation of partnership trust, imo. As always, jmoo.