bluecalm

I think bids which make you play on 3level when you are minimum are silly idea. There is a lot of value in playing at 2level instead of 3level, especially at MP's (because there hands where there are 7 tricks available matter). I wouldn't mind playing that only superaccept is 3M and it shows extraordinary hand for suit contract (with 4+support) I believe the value of superacceptance showing side suit or xx is close to 0 or even negative. Telling them what to lead/don't lead is more important than bidding games/slam on specific dream values.

I think their behavior is pathetic if described correctly. The point of the rule is clearly to give opponent good defense if the needed it. MR played against multi hundreds of times, they clearly enforced the rule to throw off opponents psychologically and did that against spirit of the game. It's even more pathetic considering that they enforced the rule which is very controversial, against what rest of the world is used to and intended to defend lol's not pro players. They also deceived their opponents verbally by suggesting they have no problems with multi. As to their card. LOL. I am happy they got eliminated in R16 by the better team. Served them well. There are icons of the game and are behaving like kids. Shame !

In Poland it's popular to play: 1NT - 2H 2NT = maximum 1NT with 3card support with exactly two out of A,K,Q It sometimes lead to very good 23pc 3nt. It sometimes winds you up to high. I am not convinced either way, just mentioning it's popular here.

I misunderstood you. I thought you are saying that having an agreement that pass promises a stopper is pointless (elementary not to have that agreement). It seems the other poster commenting on it understood it the same way. I think you are right that it's not possible that he said he denied the stopper having KJ9xx B)

In my opinion good rule is: -if we have agreed suit but we didn't bid blackwood at 4NT level then it's blackwood -if we have bid 4NT blackwood now 5NT is some kind of follow up question (king ask, general invite etc.) -otherwise it's pick a slam I think GSF isn't useful at all. I am yet to play a hand which couldn't be bid in other way especially if you play ERKCB.

????? I don't see what is "elementary" about it. The point is to right side the suit contract (play it from the hand which bid stayman) as often as possible. Passing without a stopper can help to achieve that if follows up are right. What's "elementary" about it ?

By "Ghestem and variations" I meant known 2suiter. I didn't want to imply that all those pairs play 3m jumps as two suiters. Just that their 2suiter bids show specific suits and not one specific, one unknown like michaels. Meckwell is interesting because their cc from 2009 shows that: 1c - 3c = strong majors 1d - 3d = strong majors 1s - 2s = H/D or strong H/C 1H - 2H = S - min (classical michaels) I would say they are in "classical michaels" camp though as it seems they don't think having 2 known suits is important. Why, this is how progress happens: expert standard is inferior to something else. It's hard to say what "expert standard" is by the way, it seems to me that most elite pairs these days don't use michaels anymore but probably it depends on how we define "elite" pair.

More more world class pairs doesn't use "micheals" anymore. They use ghestem and variations. I think bidding 2 suiter without known second suit is pointless as you won't know about fit in most deals anyway (if they compete) and you can't make any fast action to make life difficult for them. On the other hand you make it very easy for them in if they end up playing the hand. Some pairs which play Ghestem (or similar) 2suiters: All italians: Fantoni - Nunes Lauria - Versace Duboin - Sementa Helgemo - Helness Brogeland - Lindqvist Garner - Weinstein (other variation, 1H-2S = S/D) Brink - Drijver Fallenius - Fredin (yet another variation) I would prefer to play all cuebids as highest + lowest and to have no way to directly show others than using it as "micheals". Apparently most elite pairs agree about my assesment of "micheals" :)

LOL OP ! Meckwell have one of the best convention cards out there. Most pairs don't fill basic details while they give quite detailed explanation of basic sequences in their system (this at least is true for their WBF conventino card). As someone already noted their ACBL (as well as WBF) convention card actually says "Mixed" for 1H-3H.

Double is "cards" by agreement. Pass wouldn't be forcing. Now I understand that this agreement may not be the best and doubler hand may not be a good doubling hand. So two more questions : How would you like to play the double ? What is the example of minimum hand that want to double ? In real hand the doubler had : Q84 T952 AQ K652 Is it too light a double ? What would you do playing YOUR style ? What would you do playing double as "cards" ? What would do you laying double as "negative" ? If you pass, do you think partner should make a reopening double with his hand ? (or some maximum 5-4-3-1 hands ?). Thanks for interesting discussion so far :P

Final of major polish tournament series. Assume decent opps. [hv=d=s&v=n&s=sakj75hk743dkj82c]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] 1♠* - 5♣ - dbl - pass ???? 1♠ was (9)10-15hcp. I think these are the possibilities : pass 5♥ 5NT 6♣ Thoughts ?

OK, sorry. I see you want to play for Kxx clubs with RHO.

Justin, you don't have all the clubs :)

Man, you are really out of your mind. You are trying to mastermind a solution to conform expectations of small group of players (it's safe to say that if you can use term "moron" to any group probably that one is the best candidate) breaking law of bridge and sense of justice of majority of others. Your idea is based on this : "some people probably would like to have some cards in every tournament". What about majority of players want to: -safe feeling that hands are random and nobody manipulated them -a chance to get all the cards (or majority) of hand in the tournament to finally have chance to win (they are very good at bidding and declaring, weak at defence) -chance to get all the cards in the tournament to have the best bridge evening in their lifetime -be sure that previous (or following) hands don't affect the one played What about : -people who are good at "going to the next hand"; I guess Hamman and Meckwell would need to reconsider their approach :) Thinking all the time about previous hand would be crucial -people who think randomness itself is valuable part of the game -people who are developing their judgement and methods in bridge assuming that all hands are independent events Most players want at least one of the above. Some small group of usually uneducated players wants "justice" (in the very false sense) in EVERY tournament played. Why would you want to conform to this unreasonable demands sacrificing all the above ?

Yeah we didn't have that agreement and we don't want to make it. On (our) general principles double would be for penalty. Maybe not the best but at least no disagreements possible :) Why ? It's matchpoints.. people stretch to overbid if vulnerable... I agree, that's why I passed :) Haha... Yeah but your only hope was to find good ♠ fit which partner would have doubled with having his share of high cards. My hope is to find ♦ fit which he can very possible have even having quite a strong hand. I tend to agree but 3♥ is not used by us a lot. How do you play it ? We play 4♣/4♦ as leaping micheals but we didn't really discussed how good the hand should be for it (just use common sense which probably I don't have much of:) ).

Seriously guys, spend your energy elsewhere. It's pain to watch this thread unfold. The idea is super dumb and if you actually provoke some td's to try it it will be great shame. Do you really want superstitious players say "I knew it! We had too many cards to have game once again" to the face of opponents fixed by their stupid bidding and ACTUALLY BEING RIGHT about it ? The world is full of people not understanding randomness and not appreciating it. The last thing we should do is to conform to false expectations and unreasonable demands. The lesson cannot be understood by bankers and economists of this world, maybe bridge players should be one who can ?

[hv=d=n&v=e&s=st8764h5dkq9843c8]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] We are S. pass - 2♥ - pass - 4♥ pass - pass - ???? How do you rate 4♠ with the intention to go to 5♦ if they double now ? I know I can go for 1100 but they are almost surely making and we need only 8 tricks to make it worthwhile + they will be reluctant to double in this vulnerability. Thoughts ?

I think partner is 7-5 with something like x xxxxx - KQJxxx; looks like 4♥ is the game to play opposite this one. My partner would be in for looong talk if he bid 4♥ if any of those, especially second one. I mean, c'mon we didn't bid 3♥, how the hell he is bidding 4♥ now ? I also don't believe he would open 3♣ having Kxxxx or better on the side.

Imo you need to play Gazilli in those sequences to obtain reasonable precision. GF jumps with either 5-5 or 5-4 are not playable in my humble opinion. Having to jump with : AKxx AKx KQxx x Is enough for me to never agree to play such system.

QFT. Please stop this topic. Anything bu truly random hands is ridiculous. People are building their methods and bridge judgment based on the assumption that deals are random. If you change it it will pay off to have skewed judgement in direction you skew the deals. People who are like : "well i got my share of 3NT's now, gotta be careful" will benefit while sane players who think : "it doesnt matter that I wont 5 games so far, gotta play normally" will lose.

I think it's only ok for small club tournaments where nobody cares and you still probably should tell people that this tournament is going to be "wild". Setting computer to deal "wild" hands is unfair. Rejecting bashes of hands is also unfair (because it makes some hands more likely to occur than others). I know some td's in poland do that I think we need more education about randomness and fairness. If you change setting from "completely random" to "somewhat random" like you did you are hurting some players and their methods and you are rewarding superstitious types who think: "N can't have all the cards", "This tournament has wild hands" who based their play on those assumptions.

There is chance/gambling element to bridge. I think we need to accept it. I am for one happy that is the case :)

I think 1 is the most safe and fair. It's not that bad either, it's not like conventional defence makes big difference in expected value anyway. Other options are not acceptable which 2nd being the mildest offender. With 3rd you will just waste opponents time: "What do we play partner ? - DONT - damn i hate it, something else ? - CAPP? - I hate it too, something else ?" I hope you see it doesn't make sense :) 4th and 5th are against spirit and rules of bridge. I think people doing that on BBO (many of them) are either morons or clueless beginners. One interesting option which is not mentioned is to ask opponents to suggest the defence for you :). We use it in live friendly home games. Unfortunately I don't think you can do that on BBO. It won't be understood.

Yeah, I think low from Ax is better than the line I gave. I missed it.

Standard 2♠ for me.