bluecalm

Yeah I also find it bizarre but who suggested it ? :) I agree with everything you wrote.

Why not 4NT in 2nd ? Maybe 4♠ is better but for me clearly 4NT >>>> 5[clubs}

No it isn't. I mean it wasn't alerted but still it was clear for everybody at the table that it is scrambling.

5♠ - I prefer my crystal ball than "the law".

Interesting, my friends are convinced that double is 100% action on 2nd beacuse partner doubled 2NT bid expressing his desire to double them. Well, we are vulnerable and it's matchpoints so we have to play much tighter than at imps. I think 1♠ is a bit too much especially at MP's. I dunno. Usually it's better for 12-14balanced hand to be dummy imo but it doesn't matter anyway in polish club you have no choice. I don't get it all. I can't see how it matters that much that partner is going to declarer and I don't know what "DT's" are but if you mean defensive tricks I think partner suggested them by doubling 2NT.

Of course there is tons of luck in this game. Luck factor is much bigger than skill factor in every deal. It's only in the long run where you can hope skill will prevail but obviously it's not always the case. This is just as obvious that for example in matchpoints tournaments the luckies win almost all the time. If the field is 200pairs almost always there are at least 15 which played well enough to win if they had winners luck. That's how bridge is. Being able to cope with unlucky deals is part of the game. Live with it.

1. decent opps; both vul: AJT43 97 9753 98 1♥ pass 2♥ 3♦ 3♥ ??? 2. Q7 KJT8 A872 Q84 We are vul; Pass 1♣* pass 1♥** pass 2[hearts***pass pass dbl pass 2NT dbl pass pass 3♣ pass pass ???? *polish club ** 7+pc, 4+hearts *** 12-14pc and exactly 4 hearts, balanced What now ? Especially the first one is interesting to me. I suppose I know what the correct action is in 2nd but just want to double check this.

Probably he didn't realize what is going on. People who never saw this 2C and then SOS rdbl sometimes panic :) Also this sequence is very bad for light 3rd openers (or for people who don't open 11's in first seat) because they often have us if 3rd opener is light as the balance of strength is easy to assess for them. I think good treatment is playing rdbl as $$$$$$ by 2nd hand here (after dbl of 1NT) and the best treatment is to play dbl as some kind of t/o and either open or shut up after 1NT now with balanced 10-11.

If you play "normal" reverses (which are 15+hcp) then of course it should not be forcing according to the basic bidding principles. If however you play American style of "strong reverses" see this post: http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/18177-a-primer-on-reverse-bidding/ Anyway you can't expect any kind of accuracy in those sequences so just settle for some simple solution and hope it won't come up too often. If you have more time at your hands to develop bidding system, don't play standard (at least you really have tons of time, for example if you are sentenced to 5 years in prison, then untangling those sequences in standard can be worthwhile task) :)

I have already screw up by not doubling round before. 2♦ should deny 4 hearts. Now there is no way partner will ever believe I have 4 heart so I just bid 4NT cause it looks like what I have - strong balanced hand with ♠ stopper. If play this as blackwood then it's time to bid 3NT and promptly apologize to partner for not doubling round before and change our agreements regarding 4NT.

You could just make a poll: a)penalty b)not penalty (t/o, points) That way you wuold convey what you meant :) Anyway, modern style is "points" and lack of better bid (so probably not 6hearts nor good ♣ stopper with game going values)

Or just every pro is just playing and getting there on sheer talent and playing volume alone ? From what I talked to some good polish players most of them just played and got really good. One of the best polish players ever said that when he was young he "drunk vodka and played cards in the dorm". I've never heard about people really doing any training. I mean regular sessions with focus on specific things, preferably directed by a trainer. Something like you see in any other sport and/or intellectual activity (Koren pro-gamers for example train ridiculous amount of hours almost every day). I was playing chess as a junior and it was common among my peers to train quite a lot and it was impossible to win anything without a lot of training. In bridge I am yet to see someone who would say "I trained really hard this season, hope it will pay off". Do you know anything about pro's routines ? Or maybe some thoughts from your own experience ?

Winning = defeating the contract on given layout assuming double dummy play. My assumptions about the bidding are somewhat simplistic and of course could be different if there is something more specific in the system but it won't change the results by much.

Assuming imps in first hand (N has no more hearts than spades, 5-10hcp and not freakish hand while S has 18-19 balanced with 5hearts): Winning lead (1000 hands sample): 3♠ - 56 9♥ - 40 8♦ - 131 K♣ - 94 Clear enough...

Probably better to open this 1d and then 3NT is 4-4-0-5 min which is missing from you structure (and 4C is 4-4-0-5 max as just it was) Yes, standard is to pull to 2S with 4-3-1-5 every time.

Could you explain how did you arrive at those figures ? Playing for drop is bigger chance than finesse and you have added bonus of heart play.

Clubs 3 times. If they are 3-3 claim. If they are 4-2 ruff last club and: a)LHO has 2 of them, play for AK in RHO's hand (not too likely) b)RHO has 2 of them, play for 6-Hx-1-2 with LHO

Maybe it will because we are raising spades and even if we will stop in 3♠ still spades partial >>>> clubs partial.

I think it should be 0-4 with 4♥. 1NT could be passed and it wouldn't be good. By the way, what about continuations after: 1♣- 1[diaomnds] 1♠ - 2♣ 2♦ - ? Is it forcing ? (can responder pass with something like say 2-3-6-2 ?) What are the continuations ?

nice play imo :)

Matchpoints. [hv=pc=n&n=shkq2dat3cqjt8753&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=pp1s2c4s5c5h]133|200[/hv] Is pass forcing for you ? Would you take different action at imps ?

Wishful thinking. Axxxx xxx xxx xx gives excellent game and partner won't "know" to show his major.

2NT here could be used as 5-4+ minors but I am not sure if that's the right hand for the bid. It also could be used for something like: Kx xx AKQxxx Qxx; not sure which meaning is better but from what I remember Meckwell tend to use it as minors.

This is really quite ridiculous that some people have unfair advantage on coaching/self advertising market due to bad policy before. I mean I know that bbo stuff have more interesting things to do than reviewing star applications but just cancelling all of them would be better than current situation imo, even more so because star system doesn't fulfill its role anyway as most stars aren't world class/kibitzing worthy players as of now. I also don't agree that there that much work to do with reviewing applications. If criteria are strict and clear it's about 3 minutes google for each person. There could be even requirement to give a linkg to result of required tournament so it's easy to verify. There won't be that many stars with current criteria and I guess identity verification work is already done anyway.

Yeah, too many stars for mediocre players. Even I am better than some of them and I am yet to win anything in bridge. I would like very strict policy like: a)only open events and women world championship counts b)only place in first 4 counts If you: a)were in semis in BermudaBowl/Olympiad/WMSG b)were in finals of Vanderbilt/Spingold c)were in top 3 in World Open Pairs or European Teams Championship d)won the lesser but still major tournaments (Yeh Bros Cup for example, or European Pairs Championship or USBF or European Champions Cup) then you are a star. If you haven't you are not. (obviously details could vary, but should be strict and public) And one thing which I think is very very important to restore star status: Remove all existing stars. Please do that, too much abuse going on those now. (by abuse I mean that people who got a star when it was easy to get one can now profit by having more students/recognition while people who won more can't just because policy has changed).