Yzerman

I recently encountered this cool hand in a tournament. Our opponents managed to be the side that declared the hand. I offered a post-mortem afterwards and my partner (bridgeboy) quickly seized the opportunity to correct my inaccurate analysis. [hv=n=sj2ha1042dk4cqj1032&s=sa75hk87da976ca95]133|200|[/hv] Matchpoints - 3NT from South (auction, 1N-3N) You are playing from the south hand, and you get the 6 of hearts led, opponents are leading 4th best (yes that was ME that made this awful lead). I make you win the H10 in dummy (very nice play - assuming 6 is authentic 4th best) and take losing club finesse. Your LHO (me again) quickly switched to SK and you duck, and continues SQ. How do you play from here? (Note: be VERY careful to maximize your MP result from this point forward). Regards, Michael A Lucy

ITS A BIDDERS GAME ... One can never have success playing bridge timidly There is some merit to everything everyone has mentioned, and personally i think you can proceed with (1) brute force/straightforward approach (blackwood), (2) you can use super science cue-bidding or (3) alas even another approach, JUST BID 6S. Personally I think 7S is out of the picture with only 8 card spade fit (and partner having club void). I am not too hot on the last train stuff and super-science cue-bidding, I am going to make a simple try with 4D cuebid and if partner not cuebid 4H I will bump 4S to 5S, surely partner will get the picture what to do with KQ hearts. There is neat implication here (i think), IF you cue-bid 4D and partner bid 4H does this 100% promise HA (i believe it should). HENCE, I cue-bid 4D, if partner bid 4H I will blackwood the hand to ensure he not too loaded in point in heart suit (if partner have 1 key with Queen will bid slam if no queen + 1 key will NOT bid slam, if 2 key + queen I bid slam as well). So personally, I will be using cuebidding to ellicit information to try and determine how much of partners hand in heart suit (if partner have 1 key no queen, he must have AKQ or AKJ or hearts).

Perhaps blackwood is the preferred route on this type of hand, if you are off 2 Keys, bid 5H and pray to the bridge gods, if partner have 1 key bid em up (6H). Partner cant have 2 keys for a negative response (A+K+4cdM). How to play, two lines of play stick out. Play Line (1), score the following tricks - 1S 3C 1D 7H * Cross ruff line, win spade, ruff spade, AKQ club discard 2D, Ace of diamonds, ruff diamond, ruff spade, ruff diamond ruff spade and try and score H10 en passant. This line require LHO to hold the HK OR either hand with clubs 4 clubs to have the HK. Some handling problems occur if spades are 5/2. Play Line (2) - * Play for 1 red suit King onside AND trumps 3/2. Relatively straightforward play but require a fancy unblock, Win spade ace and FINESSE DIAMOND (this is important if diamond king is on and heart king is off you need ability to finesse diamonds 2 times). a - If diamond finesse loses and spade is returned you MUST RUFF with HJ (to protect against Kxx hearts in RHO). Now take club ruff in dummy and pass the H10 and hope for Kxx Kx hearts in RHO. b - If diamond finesse wins, CA and ruff club in dummy and finesse diamond again. Now you have the option of ruffing the another baby club to protect against 5/2 clubs. Play line 1 wins anytime clubs are 4/3 (62%) * HK on left OR HK with 4 clubs, dont have my calculator handy but this seem very reasonable or appx (62*.5+62*4/7/2) or appx 53%. Play line 2 wins anytime 1 of 2 red kings are on (75%) * probability of trump suit 3/2 (67%) or appx 50.25%. If my calculation is right, play line 1 have slight advantage however there are a few intangible left unaccounted for (i.e. play line 2 will work on some hands where club are 5/2). In any event I would probably opt for line 1, this line combines your chances when trumps are not 3/2!!!!! Regards, MAL

Having read responses, my perception is the majority (slight majority) are very adament about full disclosure, which I would say in the long run is the most fair and equatable way to run an online tournament. I have a general question; Why is it that there are MANY more director calls online, BBO, than in real life tournament play? I think, as discussed in this thread, there are two primary factors. 1) Wider range of systems, languages, governance, and a much more diverse crowd of bridge play. 2) There are people who are always looking for a "free lunch", so to speak. It is my perception that these people feel they can take advantage of the diversity explained in (1) and use it to their advantage. I think first and foremost, it is each players and directors responsibility to understand the rules (convention charts, conditions of contest, etc) and just as important each player and director in online bridge must play and direct under the following assumption; YOU MUST ASSUME EVERY PLAYER PLAYS WITH GOOD INTENT If you use this principle as a player, and as a director, I think there might be reduction in director calls and ultimately problems. Some people sit at the cyber bridge table see a Polish flag, or a Turkish flag, or US flag and AUTOMATICALLY start looking for reasons to get angry and make director calls. Personally, I get EXTREMELY ANGRY when i feel I have been unjustly played against, but in general I do not make an issue and call a director. I understand this is online bridge, I understand that people sometimes are motivated by winning more than playing good/sound bridge and I understand I am not going to save the world. As a director I am much more open minded however online directing can sometimes be a very difficult task. Regards, Michael A Lucy

I have an interesting topic, and perhaps a call for some advice on this topic. Personally, I am sure that every tourney director on BBO has had to endure the follow argument at one time or another, so I am kind of interested in what others would have to say. The argument is that some players will call director if/when they feel the opponents have not been forthcoming with alerts and/or explanations, which of course every player has a right to do. However, the problem is when people will call the director in an auction in which they have NO STAKE in what the opponents are bidding. I have 2 very good examples of this from recent AbaLucy tournaments in which I ruled against (and in one case penalized) the pair that had made the complaint. Here are the hands; Example - South Hand (E/W were playing WJ2000 and N/S not familiar with system); xxx J98xx xx xxx Auction - N E S W P 1C P 1S P 2D P 2S P 4N P 5D P 6S P P P Alerts - 1C was polish - 11-14 balanced, 15+ clubs, 18+ any ALERTED AS "2+" 2D alerted as "fit reverse" - 18+ relay asking for further description 2S alerted as "4 spades, and 10+ points" 4N/5D blackwood and response, no alert All bids during play that should have been alerted playing polish club WERE IN FACT ALERTED, however the explanation of 1C was "2+", in my opinion not very good description of a polish 1C opener. During the play, I was summoned to the table by the south player in which he was mad as hell that 1C was alerted as 2+, he thought the alert was misleading. (fyi - We wasted 5 minutes arguing this, and policy in AbaLucy is to add time to clock upon incomplete round so I added 4 more minutes this round for this arguments ... I subsequently disallowed adding time because I felt this was abuse of tourney policy, that is another topic though:). So here is my problem, South was arguing that he was upset with Easts lack of a good explanation of 1C opener. My question is, how does the lack of explanation in any way shape or form effect what South was going to do? You mean if 1C was better alerted he was going to overcall 1H with 5332 1 count? Or perhaps he has more information to come up with a superb opening lead? Come on, lets get real here, you were not injured and you have NO excuse to waste 5 minutes of the directors time (and 5 minutes of every other players time because of extra time added to clock). I subsequently have issued a 'warning' to this person that this type of 'crying wolf' director call will not be tolerated, and naturally this person resisted quite emphatically. I have another example of the similar type problem but will not bore anyone with more details, however I will state my position on this as a bridge player first then as a director second on this topic. As a bridge player, I could CARE LESS what the opponents are doing for I am more interested in optimizing MY PARTNERSHIPS RESULTS rather than learning the opponents bidding. IF I feel that I need some information during an auction, I inquire in private chat to one or both of my opps for more information (NOTE: I do NOT click box, for this may be interpreted by MY partner as UI, the fact he knows i requested information is in fact UI in my opinion). But experience has dictated that its best to let the opponents bid on their own without any prompting, 1st of all if you ask questions you may wake them up to something (agreement, convention, system) they may have forgot, so my silence is 'tactical', I simply let the opponents dig their own grave. As a director, I think a median must be found in which the director if responsible for determining IF one pair has been injured or harmed during bidding or play. Personally, I will just as readily warn/penalize a pair that instigates or claims they are not satisfied with opp alert/explanation as I will warn/penalize a pair that actually is not forthcoming. I would be very interested in what other directors and/or players have to say on this topic. Thanks, Michael A Lucy

Couple of suggestion for BBO/Uday regarding this topic; 1) Would it be possible to have a 'warehouse' or 'library' of *.txt conv card files somewhere in BBO that could be used as 'templates'? For example, say John Doe/Billy Joe play 2/1 with Bergen and weak NT, they can file their conv card *.txt file in the library for others to download OR they can peruse the library for a conv card of similar type and use as a template for their partnership in tournament play. People that are interested in getting new conv cards, can simply peruse the library for conv cards of interests, and use them as templates. (fyi - i was considering implementing a conv card library on the abalucy website as a repository for club members, and others, to retrieve conv cards however i think if BBO would have central storage place it would be much more useful and flexible for this purpose). 2) Would it be possible in some way to flag or annotate, perhaps alongside a partnerships name or even small box somewhere on the UI of table, that discloses a partnerships general approach and carding. Perhaps a small box somewhere visible for EVERYONE to see that would say "Partnership: John/Billy; Standard Approach: 2/1; Carding: Std; Leads: 2/4". Perhaps this is a little ambitious, however as a tournament director and occasional player in tourneys, this would solve MANY PROBLEMS! Regards, Michael A Lucy

Hi all, Its been a LONG time since I have participated, but I am interested in this discussion and perhaps I can add a few items of interest myself. Currently I have hosted over 60 AbaLucy tournnaments, and directed over 100 in total I am able to lend some of my personal observations into online bridge. 1) Some bridge players suffer GREATLY from what I call the "bridge ego". This is the self perceived experts and world class players of universe. These people, as per my observations, fail to respect and/or recognize ANY opponent as worthy of defeating them or earning a good result. I have MANY examples of GOOD players (some 'stars') that create ridiculous action (preempting 3 level with Jxxxx and similar type bridge behavior) and get caught with hand in cookie jar. When a lesser opponent exposes this ridiculous action the self perceived EXPERT will call the director and complain that a lesser player is incapable of exposing this and hence, MUST BE CHEATING. This is 100% UNCALLED FOR. 2) When BBO 1st held open pair tournaments, I would occasionally play. I have a unique ability to remember names and results, and I would notice that there were a few pairs, and a few people, that were ALWAYS in the top few places. Personally, I would take an interest, perhaps there was a budding superstar in the bridge world. On a rare occasion, I might even play against these people. One pair in particular struck me as the type to create ACTION (you know, raising partners 2 level overcall on Kx with trump stack in enemy suit). I have played enough bridge to KNOW that IF you play bridge, and your Modus Operandi is to create action, you will have good days and bad days but is theoretically IMPOSSIBLE to have success every time you play. So from observation, experience, and my subsequent conclusion I made it a point NOT to play in any event that this particular pair played in, because of suspicion, but I kept my feelings and my thoughts to myself, this was simply my decision to play in only games in which i felt comfortable and I perceived as fair. 3) Cheating, and cheating accusations, will ALWAYS occur in the on-line bridge world. For every control you can create to minimize or reduce unethical behavior, there is always another way to play unethically. However, as was quoted to me by a very respected person, it is FAR WORSE to accuse 1 innocent person of unethical play than is to catch ALL the unethical players. Having said that, I think it is EVERY BBO players responsibility to maintain this approach. If you have a problem, I think is best to discuss in private and disclose any suspicions in private. Citing the above as my personal observations and feelings towards unethical behavior (and accusations) was the PRIMARY reason why I embarked upon the creation of a private club. The private club was originally intended as a venue for mutually RESPECTED players such that they could COMFORTABLY participate in a game of bridge, a game we all dearly enjoy. BBO has done a GREAT job creating a resource to control tournaments in an attempt to create a comfortable environment to compete, each player now has the option of CHOOSING his venue to compete in. In response to Bglovers initial post, for anybody that would EVER consider making a public accusation, I would ask that person how THEY would feel if somebody were the recipient of an unsubstantiated accusation. There is MUCH more at stake than a silly game of bridge, there are the feelings of the other human being involved. So if I could lend anything at all to the game of bridge, the online community, or the BBO community at all I would suggest that BEFORE anybody were to make any accusation they would think twice and put yourself in the other persons shoes for 1 moment before saying or doing anything. Regards, Michael A Lucy

This post is more evidence of the depth of bridge, and the absolute dependence on PARTNERSHIP and PARTNERSHIP agreements. Readubg this thread, almost everyone that did respond had different thoughts for there was not one consistent approach. The only advice I would offer for bidding hands such as these is that IF the auction was not discussed or no previous agreements exist, choose the option that is least likely to cause a problem or least likely to be misunderstood. Also, remember that in this auction (in theory) it is now responders responsibility to place the contract for opener has made a limiting bid (although ambiguously limiting).

Some personal thoughts on the subject with respect to what is said in this post as well as the other "scientist vs naturalist" thread. I tend to agree with Fred on the general theory of bridge (obviously, or I would not be participating in this), that bridge is a complex enough game without all the overhead associated with artificial/scientific bidding systems. Why do WE play the game? Personally I play the game because of the challenge that NOTHING else in life has posed to me in comparison. The dynamics of the game of the game of bridge are like no other game in the world. These are just some of the factors that one must weigh in approaching the game of bridge (to name a few); a) Defensive Card Play ;) Declarer Card Play c) Partnership Skills d) Table Feel e) Bidding Judgement f) System Construction/Agreement Those are quite a few intangibles one must "master" before becoming a competetitive bridge player. These tend to get prioritized base upon personal approach to the game, people value these in different priorities. So based upon that personal prioritization or approach to the game, is how one adopts their approach. I, for one, take a much more simplistic approach where I value Card Play, Bidding Judgement, and Partnership Skills (I try, trust me I try!). My personal "theory" is that if I can master those that I mentioned as important to me, I feel as though I will be successful. However I very much appreciate what Richard (hrothgar) wrote in this post as well as what Eugene (eyhung) wrote in the other post. To establish a bias or prejudice against certain systems is to greatly hinder the progress of bridge. Certain "components" within a bidding system may have some value for bridge players, competitive players or even casual. As long as certain systems are deemed NOT to be totally destructive (as judged by our domestic governing body - ACBL), I accept them as viable systems that I have to play against. This is a free world, and as long as governance states that something is legal I believe people have the right to exercise that freedom. Personally I play alot of artificial/scientific "stuff" (although never studied MOSCITO), but I tend to do so ONLY in established partnerships or in partnerships where that is the stated goal, bidding experimentation or learning of new system. One reason I personally dont like to play in casual partnerships with lots of artificial bidding, is that ALOT of bidding and bidding judgement is based upon what partner did NOT bid as opposed to what they DID bid. Hence, if I am not familiar with a partners tendencies with certain hands, there is a whole extra layer of information/logic I am not able to evaluate effectively. As I understand the cause of this whole challenge, our team will probably field the following pairings; kleek-fred/inquiry-malucy malucy-fred/inquiry-kleek Although Kurt (kleek) and I are not "world class" or "expert" players, we have a very refined partnership (not only system, but familiarity with how each other judge bidding and our tendencies) and that would present us with a predisposed advantage. Furthermore, our partnerhip utilizes alot of artificial bidding (relays, artifical forcing bids, etc) that would not help promote the cause of this event (and I just cant play with kleek and NOT have my bidding tools!). One advantage that we will have in these pairings, is that we will NOT have to spend much time (if any) preparing lots of agreements. Our approach will be very simple, and consistent with what is set out to be measured; What approach is best strategy for being successful at bridge, (a) scientific/artificial bidding or (:) natural bidding?

There is a way to do it now. You can have 2 tables set up playing one the Spingold or Vanderbilt sets of deals.

Lost in this mess somewhere are the arguments I was stating of multi 2D vs Flannery 2D (as an alternative to each other); a) Which bid has more utility (opportunity costs, risk/reward, benefit), within the structure of a bidding system (2/1 being implied)? Perhaps I never fully stated that my preference is Flannery within a 2/1 structure (and I am not one of these stubborn people that refuse to try other systems, I am capable of playing more systems than most bridge players - I am tooting my horn, I am just stating that I am flexible and understand counter arguments). Yes, I concede the point that within the bowels of other systems (some big club, system with non-forcing or semi-forcing NT) Flannery is of little value. But the modern standard here where I am native to is 2/1 and inevitable Flannery has a quite humble value. Regarding some examples of hands where game/slam (and even partial) bidding can be an advantage in Flannery, let me first give you some system adjuncts (which is standard in my vicinity); Opening 2D (11-15, and 4513, 4531, 4621, 4612, 4522) Responders bids - 2N - Any game try 3C, 3D - Forcing and natural 3H, 3S - Slam try (demand cue bid) 4C, 4D - South African to 4H, 4S respectively (either to play or to initiate RKC) 4H, 4S - To play Give the constructs I supplied above there are 2 DISTINCT advantages. The first is the 3H and 3S slam try bids. These bids confirm a trump suit and establish a forcing slam going auction @ the 3 level such that you have the whole 4 level for constructive cue bidding (you can isolate 2 losers in a minor, make slam try, and still stop @ 4 level). The other advantage is that responder can direct the hand to be played from either side of the table such as to protect any tenace positions (from personal experience, this has been a very valuable). Another advantage that I had not described above is the ability to use picture bidding (eg AKxx AKxxx, AQxx AKxxxx, etc). Responder can have a very mediocre hand and be making a simple game try (2N) when partner makes a picture jump, see below; Responders hand - KJ10xx xx Axx xxx Now responder makes a simple game try with 2N and opener bids 4C (4621 picture jump). All of a sudden your game try has reasonable shot at 12 tricks in spades. Obviously, some of these arent available to those that have not studied or experimented with Flannery very much hence experience with the proper use of this convention (as with any convention) is crucial. But like I have maintained throughout this posting, I have studied and worked with Flannery and have come to a personal judgement that it has far more value than other 2D conventional bid (including 2D diamond preempt). ******************************************* Perhaps I should have started a poll(s) as opposed to a thread. We could ask the following questions; Which 2D opener has most value within a 2/1 system? a) 2D Diamonds Preemptive :D 2D Flannery c) 2D Multi d) Roman, Mini-Roman e) Others Which 2D opener has the most value within a Big Club oriented system? a) 2D Diamonds Preemptive :) 2D Flannery c) 2D Multi d) Roman, Mini-Roman e) Others Perhaps this would lead to better analysis and/or discussion on bidding theory.

I usually qualify all my arguments here with something like "system can only be as good as the judgement". As I had stated earlier, there are some conditions (i left some undisclosed) in which you may or may not open flannery as well as some other judgemental/systemic things I propose. Flannery is not meant to be used for ANY 11-15 hcp hand and there is NO LAW that says opener cant bid again after 2D-P-2S. Furthermore, one of the advantages of Flannery is that RESPONDER can take aggresive action with minimal values (eg Kxxx xx Axxx xxx - this hand is CLEARLY some kind of invite @ imp scoring). Flannery should NOT be used by people who play bridge with fingers and toes (~25 hcp = game), those who benefit most from Flannery are able to use judgement along with common sense to overbid good fitting hands (with minimal hcp) and underbid those with bad fitting hands (with lots of hcp). * I carefully constructed my comment regarding Flannery results, I said "I have never got to wrong contract", I never said I have not got a bad result (yes the default lead of a trump vs 4M after 2D has cost on occasion). Perhaps in my first year of playing Flannery there were a few bad contracts based upon poor judgement (i was also a beginner then) or poor understanding of the convention, but i have played much in high level competition (pretty successfully) with Flannery with no memory of bad results.

I cant believe what I just read, I get the impression that you simply saw the title of my post, made up your mind that you want to argue the anti-Flannery position, and then simply skim my article as opposed to actually read it. 1) I dont think i used the words "compare" multi and flannery, my intention was to argue the merits, risk/reward, and opportunity costs of 2D Flannery vs 2D Multi (I thought although not EXPLICITY said this was very well implied). Furthermore, when I play casually on-line I always ask and accomodate what my partner prefer 2D opener is and inevitably 75/100 times it is Multi. So yes, these 2 intersect and can be compared as alternates within the scheme of a bidding SYSTEM. 2) This argument is typical of someone who already have their mind set AGAINST Flannery. In fact I learned this from a person who never played anything but SAYC and insisted upon playing this, so in this person eyes (and many others, including those that create Flannery in late 60's early 70's)Flannery is not a function of forcing NT. The utility to make a CONSTRUCTIVE shape showing, value limiting bid in the MAJORS is what makes it effective (completely independent of forcing NT). 3) I NEVER said 5/4 preempts frequently go for phone number. Please read more carefully before you respond. Your argument regarding creating an opening for 5 Hearts/Spades and 4 diamonds is rather narrowminded. What value is their in preempting to the 3 level in a minor with an opening hand (5242 11-15)? Isnt the modern game of bridge biased toward major suit games and in the case of Matchpoint biased towards major suit partials? The concept of Flannery arises from the scoring with a higher reward for playing in a higher ranking major suit contract. The reward for a constructive hand (2D/2H/2S) is entirely anti to what Flannery is.

I was prompted to write a small argument for the Flannery cause because of the recent Multi thread (in beginners section). Personally, I have found the gains of playing Flannery far outweigh the risk and my opportunity cost (with respect to other conventions is at a minimum). I have been repeatedly bashed over the years for playing this "archaic" and "simplistic" and "ineffective" convention, but guess what, I have NEVER got to wrong contract because of Flannery. Why do I like Flannery? a) I REFUSE to rebid a 2 card club suit after forcing NT :D I REFUSE to rebid a relatively poor 5 card heart suit c) Constructive preemptive value d) The ability to play 4H or 4S from either hand (via South African xfers) e) Responder has a roadmap regarding hand evaluation f) Constructive game/slam bidding Why do I prefer Flannery over Multi? a) My suits are disclosed (no guessing or asking) :) Luxury of playing @ 2 level in a misfit (4/3 or 5/2) c) I dont really care about preempting a hand with 5 card major and 4 card minor (In the back of every bridge players mind when they open 2H or 2S Dutch Multi, there is the fear of going for phone number - not the case with Flannery). Over my 4 years of playing Flannery and experimenting with different caveats, I have found that a few additional conditions optimize the overall effectiveness; a) NEVER open 2D with a void (4504, 4540, 4603, 4630) B) NEVER open 4513 or 4531 with 2 bad suits (rebid fragment upon forcing NT) c) Have sound agreements with respect to game tries d) Overall, have a good Flannery structure, dont just play Flannery for the sake of playing Flannery And a quick story to support my argument. Playing in a regional swiss event a year or two ago, we were paired against one of best teams in field (Roman/Grosvenor team). My partner opened 2D and as my RHO passed, he commented in his usual jovial, humorous way, "Flannery is the worst convention ever created". We proceeded to have a constructive auction to 7S as my partner was able to describe a picture 4612 hand (AQxx AKxxxx). The pair at the other table (two professional players) got to 4S (obviously not well bid, but I am not sure they will get to 7 even if they bid past 4S).

Depending on whether partner is a passed hand, I think this hand should make some "noise" and michaels or some 2 suited action should be taken. I think there is too much risk in passing then balancing for a few reasons (as cited earlier in post); a) Partner is unlikely to raise with appropriate hand :D You will be entering an auction in which opps have already exchanged 1 or more round of bidding c) Your partner may ultimately double H contract Although I tend toward the conservative side of bidding and not bidding with bad hands and/or bad suits, the fact that I have the spade suit gives me some comfort in bidding michaels. Partner will not expect much defensively (hence lowering the risk of him/her doubling). Partner will now have better knowledge of what kinds of hands to make game try with (spade fit/fitting spade values and controls). I also have the preempted the opps 1 round of bidding. Note: Very neat in that this is an ENTIRELY different problem if suits are hearts/diamonds and opps opened 1S.

What helps me is that I am a fanatic with count defensively(as I have already said a trillion times here). I pay such close attention to count defensively, that inherently the spot cards are registered into memory keeping an extra emphasis on (a) master card in each suit and (:) WHAT layouts or HOW can I promote a spot into a trick (if a card can NEVER be promoted, dont waste to much energy registering into memory). As declarer I will concentrate only on relevant suits, cards that could be a future trick. a) What is the master card in each suit? :) What cards MUST be played before a spot is promoted? Once partner gives an authentic count card defensively in a suit, you should be able to, within a high degree of certainty, visualize combinations of cards that the remaining concealed hands (partner and declarer) have. This helps you visualize trapping plays, smother plays, surrounding plays, and a host of other more simple plays. The key for myself is maintaining high concentration of count as to what cards have been played AND CREATIVITY (with respect to remainder of cards left in suit) AND FLEXIBILITY (how to attack those different layouts). As declarer, this is a little more difficult for the opps arent always obiding by giving you accurate information (count, attitude, etc.). My suggestion is to perhaps take an extra 10-15 (or more if required) seconds before you adopt an approach to the play of each hand, and study your lengthy suits (either in hand or in dummy) then visualize what layouts of cards CAN promote you an extra trick(s) in that suit. By planning/visualizing you will be more prepared to handle the different layouts of a suit as the cards fall. DONT WASTE TIME CONCENTRATING ON SHORT SUITS IN WHICH TRICKS CANNOT BE ESTABLISHED (eg - Ax opposite K9x - you will NEVER promote the 9, not until you become adept @ squeeze layouts at least). As one gathers experience, alot of combinations and layouts are automatically recognized. Examples; Ax opposite K10xx (for 3 winners)-> @ trick one visualize the ONLY relevant holding in either opps hand is QJ doubleton or tripleton, when the Q or J does not fall on second round you arent winning 3 tricks with this suit. Ax opposite KJ8xx (for 4 winners)-> @ trick one visualize the ONLY relevant holding for 4 tricks is Q109 onside, when on of those cards does not appear you KNOW that layout is not the case. These are very simplistic examples, but the general picture is concentrate on suits that are IMPORTANT to you as declarer, envision different layouts you HOPE for, envision different layouts you CAN do something about, envision different layouts you CANT do anything about and as the cards fall eliminate some of initial options you envisioned.

Play for 2 diamond ruffs and concede heart. Win CA, 2 rounds diamonds ruff diamond high, return to hand with trump, ruff diamond high, high trump from hand, heart to ace, draw trump and concede heart? This certainly seems safe, this only loses when East start with singleton diamond (and you can still resort to heart finesse or club/heart squeeze). I am not big into percentages, however this line is percentage of 6/1 missing 7 cards plus a little added for HK onside (can resort to 2 hearts for 12 tricks then). The other line only loses when clubs 5/1 AND trumps 4/1 AND HK offside AND hand with HK have 1 spade/5 clubs. Perhaps someone can calculate that mess. * I dont think any inference can be drawn from C10 lead missing QJ1098 unless the 9 appears in East.

12 tricks - 4 trumps, 2 hearts, 2 diamonds, 3 clubs, and 1 diamond ruff Win club lead with Ace, cash 2 high trumps, when trumps are 3/2 draw trumps and finesse heart (when heart finesse win now plays for 13). If trumps are 4/1, after second trump ensure that you are in hand that has AJ9x trumps and finesse heart, now ensuring the opps cant win heart and play spade to kill your diamond ruff (why only 2 trumps if trumps).

Inquiry and I played the other day and had a 4D diamond RKC auction in which I followed up with specific king query (at least what I thought was the standard for specific kings). Everything worked out and we arrived at the proper contract however Ben asked me to post this to see if any feedback available. For those that play minorwood (4C=RKC clubs, 4D=RKC diamonds), how do you ask for specific kings? I learned 4C/4D RKC such that the 5D/5H are the corresponding king ask, respectively. After an RKC query for club, 5D is specific king ask (where 5N = DK) and after an RKC query for diamond, 5H is specific king ask (where 5N=HK). Here are some examples; 4C=RKC clubs, response = 1430; ...4C-4N-5D-5N (5D=King ask, 5N=DK) ...4C-4N-5D-5S (5D=King ask, 5S=SK) ...4C-4N-5D-6C (5D=King ask, 6C=No kings) 4D=RKC diamonds, response = 1430; ...4D-4N-5H-5N (5H=King ask, 5N=HK) ...4D-5C-5H-5S (5H=King ask, 5S=SK) ...4D-5C-5H-6D (5H=King ask, 6D=No kings) a) Does anyone else consider this the "standard"? :) Are there any other ways to accomplish this? c) Are there any other ideas?

I dont think one can base this argument solely on "frequency". You must also consider (a) risk, (B) reward, © utility. I have prepared my own Multi 2D risk/reward matrix (I have assigned a value for risk, reward, and utility on a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being worse and 10 being best); Rewards (I rate multi 2D a reward factor of 7/10) a) Frequency :) Ability to open hands not otherwise opened c) Gain in security of having a second suit for 2H/2S preempt (alternate place to play) Risk (I rate multi 2D a risk factor of 4/10) a) Ambiguity of preempt (eg 2D=H or 2D=S or 2D=20-21?) :) Lack of security of six card suit with 2H/2S level c) Difficulties after opponents overcall Utility (I rate multi 2D a utility factor of 5/10) a) Multi vs weak 2D B) Multi vs Flannery (* My preference) c) Multi vs Roman/Mini-Roman d) Multi vs 4/4 major preempt (dont know name) Above is my analysis of Multi 2D for risk/reward/utility. Obviously I believe that Multi 2D is a more liberal convention with a high reward with a rather high amount of risk (although I think the reward outweighs the risk). My personal approach to the game is that I prefer to have a lower amount of risk with not so much emphasis on reward, but rather an emphasis on utility. Please feel free to add your own thoughts/analysis on the above, and remember this is just my personal analysis.[/[/size]quote]

Looks like a started a war (perhaps it because i am ill and being provocative). My point is not to degrade those that use Multi or similar conventions, my point is that before embarking on such things I think that bridge basics should be fully understood, including but not limited to the following; a) What is purpose of 2 level preempt B) What is purpose of systemic bidding agreements c) To fully understand the risk/reward of introducing new bidding methods/conventions into a system I have personally witnessed too many people who do not have much experience, or have not played bridge for very long try to compensate at a competitive level with bidding "gadgetry". Before substituting natural bids with totally artificial bids a player must understand the risk/reward of the replacement as well as a full understanding of what he/she is giving up. My original argument was the abuse of the multi 2D that I have witnessed. It was cited that some people abuse normal 2H/2S preempts. Well that is fine, if they abuse those bids, guess what, if they are abusing natural bidding means they are not ready for abusing artificial bidding either. My argument remains the same; artificial bidding conventions/methods for the purpose of making ones self more competitive are NOT constructive unless there is a full understanding of that artificial bid, and its counterpart natural bid. And regarding the card play portion, you will NEVER be successful at bridge without an understanding of card play however if you are able to overcome that obstacle, you CAN win an event with or without fancy bidding (although your chances may not be as great). Sound understanding of card play (along with all the caveats of card play, (a) table feel, (:) technical play, and © flexibility) AND good partnership skills will always be the cornerstones of good bridge.

Just a few additonal comments/thoughts. The North American (acbl) approach for bridge play/bidding is explicity opposed to DESTRUCTIVE means of bidding, where destructive means systemic or agreements such that the other three (3) players at the table are in doubt as to what a bid means. Some examples of destructive bidding include (in the eyes of the acbl); a) Multi 2D B) Forcing Pass Systems c) Frequent or Systemic Psyches d) Defensive Bidding structures in which bids => 2D in which one suit is not known. These apply to Mid-Chart and below tournaments/events. I have personally walked the fence on this issue and currently find myself more in favor of the current approach (disallowing these in Mid-Chart). Why? These do not promote the REAL strategy of bridge - CARD PLAY. When I learned to play bridge, I learned EXACTLY what I just said, to play BRIDGE. I did not learn bridge under the guise of "decieve the opponents, and opps". I learned (a) how to count a hand, (B) how to visualize hands (defensively and as declarer), © play inference and defensive inference, and (d) sportsmanship. If a persons sole intent upon using these conventions is to injure/decieve the opposition and/or partner it is a gross violation of the game. The real "good" players do NOT need this stuff, they need 52 cards and a partner who they can TRUST (both bidding and defensively). Bob Hamman, Bobby Wolffe, Tommy Sanders, Charles Goren, Zia Mahmood, Eric Rodwell, Eric Greco, Geoff Hampson, and a host of other players who win regularly because of superior card play, not because of fancy bidding. Within their established partnerships sure they have sophisticated means of bidding, but they use it the context of parternship bridge. For a casual bridge player to adopt some of these more "ambiguous" means of bidding will forever ruin the impression of REAL bridge upon these people. I know very many self-perceived expert bridge players on the basis of they know "more" bidding techniques then the population. Guess what, that is NOT winning bridge. I may sound like I am concretely opposed to multi, that is NOT the case. Upon a person competing in and succeeding in organized tournament play, then that player can start researching means of "competitive advantage", but to congest the mind with the fallacy that sophisticated bidding = winning bridge is just to produce inferior bridge players for the future.

Just a quick comment on multi, IT SUCKS! I dont say that because the multi structure is not effective, I say that because it is the MOST abused convention in bridge history (with Bergen a close 2nd). For some reason, players that would otherwise play along the lines of "disciplined" find that now that they have a "destructive" bidding tool at their disposal have a license to bid like an idiot. Furthermore, the 2H/2S/2N bids get abused to the point that sometimes I dont even recognize what is being played, Bridge or Go-Fish. I will play Multi with some partners, but inevitably my blood pressure reaches about 500/250 because of the non-stop abuse of all the bids from 2D to 2N.

1) You MUST have a good runout system. The odds of finding partner with a 4333 0 count are slim AND you have the added possiblity of having a fit in his/her 4 card suit. For hands such as what you described, you NEED a runout/escape to find your fits. * Of the many (perhaps 5000+, not alot but enough to comprehend 'trends') deals I have played in top level regional/national competition my partner and I have only twice went for =>800 (believe it or not). I cant count the 380's (1nt->reX) and 500's and 800's I have tallied up because inevitably good players like to bid (over weak NT). 2. My partner and I play 2 things to facilitate over interference. We utilize negative doubles (yes this means that even at times we open weak NT and balance with X after direct bid by LHO and Pass,Pass). And we play a modified version of Lebensoh (detailed below). These 2 in combination with each other are GREAT, the system has NEVER let us down but the judgment has (there is that judgment word again). * Further notes - You have advantage YOUR partner knowing the limit of your hand, and the opps NOT knowing the limit of their hands. So opps are ALWAYS bidding with some level of doubt while your partner can take action with some level of certainty. * More notes - You have the added luxury of having the opps having to make a lead. Often, this is worth a trick (if not many when they hand you a whole suit). So the positional value of YOU playing 1nt (without opps having ANY information from the bidding) is worth a moderate number of hcp. New lebensohl notes (this is single greatest system modification we have made in last year); After 1N-2S (for sake of argument); 2N is relay to 3C for (a) clubs get out, (:) slow stayman, © slow lebensohl, or FORCING hands (after 3C relay 3D and 3H create game force with 5+ card suits) 3C is relay 3D for (a) weak get out in diamonds (pass), (B) weak get out in hearts (correct 3d to 3h), © mild slam try in diamonds (correct 3d to 3n), or (d) mild slam try in clubs (cue bid 3S) 3D/3H are invitational

I play weak NT with an assortment of partners in real life and utilize many runouts. Here is what i play in order of preference; a) Cooperative Runouts (http://www.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff/system/coop.html) :) Brozel Runouts (Cant find reference off hand, but try - http://home.nikocity.de/kwiese/konvent/ALLKONV.HTM) - 2C=C/H - 2C=D/H - 2H=H/S - 2S=S/minor (long S) - reX->2C for one suited runouts - Pass->reX for business or C/D, C/S, D/S c) Christian (simple runouts - cant find documentaion) - 2C/2D/2H-> xfers - reX->2C for clubs or stayman (if bid 2D after 2C) - Pass->reX for runouts into 4 card suits d) Moscow/Reverse Moscow e) Swine