brianshark

A picture bid means a raise but with no shortage, or A, or K in either of the unbid suits.

The answers to your question largely depend on your partnership's bidding style. If your 2NT bid over 2♦ would show extras, then rebidding 2♥ is a systemic catch-all. If 2NT showed minimum balanced, and 2♥ shows 6+ (or 5 with 4+ minor that you can't bid because it would show extras) then you have to rebid 2NT systemically. After 3♠, if your partnership style is that a cue-bid is mandatory, then you cue-bid 3♠. No problem there either. If your style is that you cue-bid normally, but with a rubbish minimum, you can sign-off or bid 3NT or something, then at least you have a decision to make. Assuming you have an option, in my opinion on the given hand, despite being a minimum looking hand, the QJ in ♦s rate to be useful values, so I would cue-bid 3♠ anwyay. Also, I think a cue-bid should be mandatory here, and if I was sitting down with a random expert with no partnership agreement other than "2/1", then I would assume I have to show my cheapest cue.

I don't see an 8th point anywhere. I don't even know why your asking this question, unless game happened to make opposite pard's 17 count, or some "expert" berated you for not inviting. :)

I found this sad and unfunny because it is probably based on a lot of truth. Maybe not perfectly accurate, maybe a little biased, but stuff like this does happen. I have to say though, the correct response to your boyfriend screwing around with lapdancers is to dump him... maybe throw darts at a picture of his face for a few weeks to make yourself feel better. But her response was totally disproportional not to say illegal. I can't believe people think this guy deserved what happened to him. Illegal actions such as theft and fraudulent accusations are far worse than cheating on someone. People lose touch with reality when their hearts are broken.

You should almost never pass with 8+ pts as responder on this or a similar sequence. And unless you have a singleton or 4+ ♣s, you should probably be correcting to 2♦ anyway, even if you are minimum, but especially if you have extras. The reason is that while you will always have less than reverse strength if you have longer clubs, if you have longer diamonds, you can have anything up to a 3♣ rebid strength (GF for me - and I assumed for everybody until recently). You are in a bit of bother if you frequently open 1♦ with longer clubs (or systemically do so as I do with some of my pards) but I thionk you're better off correcting anyway because playing in a mini-moysian occasionally is better than missing game occasionally.

I like your proposal but: 1. I would ditch the idea of tags. We could do without them. 2. I would merge several of the unusual system or unusual convention threads together. For example, I see no need for polish club to be in a different thread to carrot club or magic diamond. Similar principles apply to all of them though the technical details might vary. 3. I would leave out the 'developing player' thread. Just have a beginner/learner thread and an expert thread. everything else can go in the appropriate category. 4. No need for a seperate youth/junior forum. 5. No strict need for combination problems. Suggestion: GENERAL Bridge Events/News/etc Bridge Stories and Interesting Hands Rulings and Laws Discussion BRIDGE PROBLEMS Bidding Problems Play Problems Lead and Defence Problems LEVEL FORUMS B/I Bridge Discussion Expert Forum [possibly] BIDDING SYSTEMS AND CONVENTIONS Natural System Discussion Non-Natural System Discussion

Very interesting solution to a real problem. I'd love to see this given a trial run.

Reclassify the forums according to what should go in that forums (opening lead problems, squeeze analysis, bidding poblems, unusual system discussion, etc). Change the existing adv/expert forum to an expert forum (an advanced forum is unnecessary imo). And ruthlessly move threads out of there if they don't belong.

My number one preference would be something like Gnome's suggested list of forums where it is more clear what thread should go in what forum. I think that would solve a lot of the existing problem of trying to figure out which forum to ask a question in. My number two preference would be to just publically announce and request that people put less stuff in the adv/expert forum unless they are sure it is advanced/expert stuff, and to ask the mods to be a lot more willing to move stuff out of there into general discussion if they feel it doesn't fit. Also, I think the problem might be solved by making the 'adv/expert' forum an expert forum. There's a big difference between an advanced player and an expert player (as defined by what a typical person is likely to assess themselves as). Raise the bar of the existing forum instead of adding a new one. I think either or all of those 3 solutions would do adequetly and inventing a secret committee and expert lists and posting restrictions and post authorization and the like is probably unnecessary.

I see no reason to suddently change who the captain of the auction is. Keycard bidder asks, responder tells.

There are two hands I've just played where GIB N and I are in a constructive sequence, and the opponents waltz in. In both cases, I doubled which in my opinion is a clear penalty... GIB leaves this double in, and then the opponents try something else which I also smack. But for some reason, my GIB pulls this 2nd penalty double. Perhaps there is some agreement that after a clear penalty double, double of the run-out is inverted or something? I can't see the records, the hands aren't up yet on myhands, but it's hand 37 and I think hand 35 from the set I played today around this time (1700-1800 GMT). This is the second of the two: [hv=d=n&v=n&n=sajt54ht2dtca9763&w=sk82hq43dq9ckqjt4&e=sq93haj76daj82c52&s=s76hk985dk76543c8]399|300|Scoring: Total Points 1♠ P 1NT P 2♣ P 2♠ 3♣ P 3♦ Dbl P P 3♥ Dbl P 4♥ Dbl P P 4♠ Dbl P P P [/hv]

1♦-P-P-2♠ P-3NT-P-P P I don't see why you should make a vague 1♠ bid when a more descriptive 2♠ fits.

If pard can have a limit raise with support then I'm going to cue 4♣. If pard bids 4♥, I'll bid keycard and sign-off appropriately. If pard bids 4♦, I'll try 4♥ but pass if pard bids 4♠s. Edit: I missed the double of 2♦. I'll just sign-off then so.

Cheapest overcall.

Seems like a normal 3♣ to me. Show what we have and let partner have some input rather than the master-minding 3♠ bid.

Just because you have a 6th card in your suit doesn't automatically make a minimum 1-level overcall a 2-level weak jump. I would consider bidding 2♥ nv opposite a passed partner, but in any other situation, normal 1♥.

I had a flick through the original post on the rec.games thread. I disagree with most of what has been said. System regulations are meaningless to new players. Masterpoints are meaningless to new players. Lowering fees is pointless. (If anything increasing fees to increase advertisable prizes would be better.) Here's what I think we need: 1. Advertise, advertise, advertise. Ads for lessons and local tourneys should appear in local media, such as newspapers, radio, bulletin boards, etc. 2. Publicise exploits of young players in said ads and media, especially when it involves them travelling overseas to represent their country, or winning major competitions for example. 3. Teach it properly. That means: A) How to play cards well. B) How to judge the best contract based on hand-evaluation of your hand and your expectation of what partner has. Once these two are well taught, introducing a basic system to them will mean so much more to a new player. In my opinion, it would be better to have 4 beginners sit down at a table, bid and play hands without telling them anything about what bids should mean. They will have plenty of fun, and after a good few games, they will yearn for more structure to what their bids should mean, and tips and tricks on how they should play and defend a hand.

So you can't play, for example, 2C as an artificial GF and the other 2 bids as natural and 10+?

Lol, nice post Ken. And I agree that it can mess up the meaning of conversations to have one user's posts invisible. When you come across a post from someone you want to ignore... why don't you just... not read it?

One thing that struck me was the -20. I can't remember the last time I played a match with a 20 imp swing in one board. That's double vulnerable slam swing!

Also, if 2♣ didn't promise a 4 card Major, you should say so when posting the question. It may be relevant.

4♥ should show two top honours, having already bid the suit. I'm going to ask for specific Kings after keycard anyway just to be sure, but I reckon 7♣ has play if I find partner with the ♥K and maybe one outside K. Will also work if he has extra ♥s or the ♥J but no way to find out about those.

In both cases, responder has the ♣s stacked. But in the first case responder has the extras, and in the 2nd, opener has the extras. So I think there is room to play it that way.

I prefer teams trials to imp pairs trials, because I'd much rather compare against team mates than "the field". Imp pairs is theoretically superior in finding the best 3 pairs, but in reality, playing on a team where you know you can trust your team mates plays a big part. It shouldn't, but it does.

I like penalty doubles over strong NTs. I understand that this is pretty anecdotal, but I can remember numerous times we got good scores from having it, and a few times when not having it missed out on a good score from our inability to penalty double them. I can remember only once or twice when we went for a number after a penalty double opposite a broke partner. It's harder to remember situations where a conventional double would have gained/cost imps. Regarding the double in balancing seat, I think there is merit in playing it as lighter than the normal 15+, eg 12+, or 10-11 as a passed hand.