junyi_zhu

1NT, if you get doubled, you should have a good run-out structure. For this hand, 1NT looks better than double because it shows your general strength and shape well. Of course some may play 16-18 1NT, then they have to balance with some rather light values, and they may easily get stolen if responder bids on with not very much. Perhaps in the future, 1NT overcalls can be as low as good 14 I guess, since so many players tend to open and respond without much.

Netherlands looked quite like traditional Germany and Germany looked quite like traditional Netherlands.... Still, anybody else here root for N Korea? I'll support N Korea, then if it got eliminated, I'll probably try Argentina...

I guess they are probably close in single dummy analysis. My lead tends to be single dummy safe if no other obvious appealing leads and I usually wait for opps to blow tricks. Usually they'll blow tricks. If it's a world class declarer, H9 may be the best lead.

I am not surprised at all by the double dummy results. JT9xx may easily cost a trick when you are unlucky (for example dummy holds AK87x declarer Qxx and 98 can almost never cost you a trick if you play double dummy. Still, bridge is a single dummy game. and 98 lead sucks big time playing single dummy, because it would often offer a free ride and make a 50% game to be 100%.

looks like a 3S bid, you may really belong to 4S when partner holds AKJx ATxx xx xxx

I think it's a good combination. Often, the time you can make a lot of money from opening 4 card Major is when you are rather weak. For example: 1S p 2S p p 3C x. When you open 4 card 1M mostly with 15-17 HCP, you just miss the best part of the system. Of course, you can't play an acol kind of super light 2/1 over 1M, which is actually very very bad even if you play weak NT 4 card major IMO. The biggest problem for the super light 2/1 style is that it has too many ways to sign off but few ways to set up trumps and force to game. In some sense, a 2/1 gameforcing with 4 card major and 14-16 1NT is certainly a very good system by nature. Of course, some response structure need to be revised, like 1M 2C as a two way bid to show either true clubs gf or 3 card limit raise. Also, if one decides to always bid the 4-4 suits up the line, he just misses the best part of 4 card major IMO.

seems acol strong two works well here. 2H(8 tricks) 2S(natural) 3H(8 tricks, H one suiter, good suit) 4D( cue) 4S(cue, or bid 4NT if you play kickback) 5C( cue CQ, since 4D denied C control) 6H(CK is a huge card now).

This problem can be solved by transfers over 1M 1N. So 1S 1N 2D shows hearts. responder can bid 2H to show 3 or more( and no extra), then opener can bid 3H to invite and responder can probably bid 4H to accept the invitation. Of course, there are other problems playing transfers, the major problem is how to show clubs, 2S can show clubs with some extra. Then S+C without extra is a headache. Still, the transfer structure is nice in many areas.

seems a clear pass. If partner can't make 6C, that's unlucky. There is no way to expect that partner may hold long D. He may easily hold - Kx xxx KQJTxxxx

It is. 26 People's Republic of China See: Suicide in the People's Republic of China 13.0 14.8 13.9 1999

GREAT IDEA. We could try: Solar power Wind power Wave power Atomic power Chinese slave-wage power - (An idea Apple stole from Union Pacific.) Already 13 suicides from the factory working for Apple in Shenzheng, China in the past a few months .... Statistics is so interesting. Actually this is a very low suicide rate. The expected number in China is around 56 Around 14 per 100,000.... 400,000 work at this factory. Shocked. China has the highest female suicide rate in the world and is the only important country that has a higher female suicide rate than male's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...by_suicide_rate

GREAT IDEA. We could try: Solar power Wind power Wave power Atomic power Chinese slave-wage power - (An idea Apple stole from Union Pacific.) Already 13 suicides from the factory working for Apple in Shenzheng, China in the past a few months ....

I met this hand twice: the bidding went: 1H 1S 2C 2N 3S: the explanation shows 14-18, with 3 spades, indeed, gib shows 1-5-3-4 shape and about 12-13 HCP. In one hand, I bid 4S only found myself in a 5-1 fit. In the other hand, I bid 3NT and down one. For both situations, it's a clear pass over 2NT and 3S should be what it means IMO. So I think there must be a bug in the code.

This is a clear 5H bid, showing no cuebids available, but still slam interest. So partner can safely expect spade shortness, nice hearts and no C control. 4H is way too chicken IMO, slam has some very reasonable play facing Axxxx KTxx x Axx

A typical problem of 4th suit gameforcing. After 2H and 3S, north barely shows a gf hand with 6 spades. No trump has been set up, no extra value has been shown. north is basically bidding in the darkness. If the bidding can go like 1D 1S 2C 3S(set up S as trumps, gf), south can then make a few cuebids and evaluate his HQ better, the life would be much easier.

The worst bid is 4S, it's an overbid, about two levels more than a normal bid. Other bids are OK, although I would most likely bid 1H. 2H certainly can gain quite a few times when they get preempted or they misguess CJ or SQ.

Well, in an indy, you should probably avoid bidding 2H, cause reverse really need a lot of discussions. The most practical bid would be 2NT then. Even playing gib, one shouldn't reverse, cause gib's sequences after the reverse is very messy and incoherent.

Well, some bids may not look pretty, but they are more effective than you perceive. How to judge whether a bid is good or bad is not based on whether it looks pretty, right sided, blalba, it should be based on whether it is effective. Here, 2NT to show a stopper is certainly effective when partner holds club support, because it would save 3C for partner and allow you to bid your pattern out, and even allow you to rkc with a void as shown in this case. I am not saying position issue isn't important. However when partner didn't make a certain number of NT bid in the second round, it becomes a minor issue. Still, traditional 4th suit gameforcing isn't very effective. However, within the ineffective framework, some bidding accuracies can still be achieved. Anyway, improving bridge bidding really need an open mind IMO. I agree with the sentiment that one should evaluate system choices (such as whether to rebid 2N on 4=0=3=6 with Axx in diamonds) on how effective the choice is, compared to alternatives. Where I may differ from you is that I see 2N as usually ineffective. I concede: it is effective opposite AQx Axxx xx AQJx, but I think you will agree that that hand type is rare. I also suspect that you would agree that you'd bid 2N with 4=2=2=5 shape where you chose not to rebid 1N...maybe because you generally show the 9 black cards rather than bid 1N or because, perhaps, you are out of range (15-16 as examples) and with 4=1=3=5. Partner will usually just blast 3N over 2N with most hands with 3 good clubs. Thus, for example, we'd likely play 3N opposite AQx Qxxx xxx AQx. I think you'd agree that your 2N was ineffective, even if you get lucky and make it. Now, I see that your 3♣ call showed 3+ clubs, so you may argue that N should bid 3♣ rather than 3N....but opposite the usual 2N, why on earth would anyone look for an 11 trick contract, or a club slam, with 3=4=3=3 13-14 hcp opposite most 4=2=2=5/4=1=3=5 shapes? And you cannot effectively argue that he should bid 3♣ just in case partner has 6 clubs and a heart void. Firstly, that seems improbable even if allowable systemically, and secondly, you need to reserve these 3-level probing auctions for hands on which responder has uncertainty re either or both of level and strain opposite the more common 2N hand-types. In addition, since the way most play 2N, partner can infer that you are not void in hearts, so may insist on playing in hearts. Or he may be coming in spades, with weak hearts, and you may never get to show either your 6th club (a source of tricks in a spade slam) or your void heart (a control in hearts plus maybe ruffing tricks). In short, I think that 2N is an incredibly bad choice precisely because I like to maximize the effectiveness of my bidding choices over the range of hands partner might hold, rather than the hand he actually held on the problem posted. what you are saying is that you think 2NT shows a stopper in D and balanced or semi-balanced shape. Therefore, any other treatments are ineffective and bad. That's why I said an open mind is needed. With AQx Qxxx xxx AQx, responder should really show club support at some point of the bidding, once he hears partner rebids 1S after 1C opening, because it doesn't require much to make a slam or excellent 5C and 3NT may not be very safe. Suppose your partner holds KJxx x AKQ Kxxxx, if you bid 3NT, your partner may not really want to bid more when you didn't show your excellent club fit, because you may hold something like AQx AKxxx xxx xx and 3NT can easily be the limit. Or your partner may hold KJxx x AKx Kxxxx, where 5C is decent and 3NT would go down after a heart lead which isn't unlikely at all from Kxx or Axx. As I said again and again, you guys really like those bids that look pretty, but proved to be ineffective, like this hand or the faked jumpshift in another thread. These two examples are indeed very similar. In both hands, responder need to bid to the 4th level to show his fit in clubs and has no idea what the pattern opener should have. And one modern bidding principle is that bidder should try their best to set up their trump fit at 3 level. Also, I am not saying 2NT is a great bid, but it's way better than your seemingly pretty bid of 3C or 3D. For those who really like 4th suit gameforcing, a way better treatment is to play 2H over 2D as waiting, which is better than the 2NT showing stopper stuff. Still, the overall structure of 4th suit gameforcing is still bad in some other area which I don't really want to show here.

Well, some bids may not look pretty, but they are more effective than you perceive. How to judge whether a bid is good or bad is not based on whether it looks pretty, right sided, blalba, it should be based on whether it is effective. Here, 2NT to show a stopper is certainly effective when partner holds club support, because it would save 3C for partner and allow you to bid your pattern out, and even allow you to rkc with a void as shown in this case. I am not saying position issue isn't important. However when partner didn't make a certain number of NT bid in the second round, it becomes a minor issue. Still, traditional 4th suit gameforcing isn't very effective. However, within the ineffective framework, some bidding accuracies can still be achieved. Anyway, improving bridge bidding really need an open mind IMO.

1C 1H 1S(at least 4-5 in black suits) 2D(4th suit gf) 2N(D stopper) 3C( C support) 3D(pattern) 3H(HA, no point to cue HK since partner shows shortness in H) 3S(S control) 4C(4 clubs, slam interest) 4D(RKC) 4S(3 or 0) 5H(we have all KC, no point to ask CQ with 10 trumps (5D should be CQ asking), do you have extra?) 5S(SQ, usually it should show K, but since partner has show SK by 3S, this 5S should now show SQ) 7C This may be the kiss of death... but I like your auction . It is important to rebid 2NT ( showing stop in 4th suit, Diam), when no 3 cards Hts, just in case Responder's real mission is to support Cl. My only question on the 3C bid -- does it show at least 4 cards ? ... or could it be 3 cards since the 1S bid showed at least 5 cards . Also, when the reply to Redwood shows 2 or more key cards, is 4NT next really "to play" ? ... or should it be cQ-ask ? ( I agree it is "to play" when 0 or 1 keys are shown ). I also agree that it is important to show the sQ in partner's suit ( his 2nd suit in this case ) --- either during a trump Q-ask or Specific K-ask. yes, 3C only shows 3 clubs, 4 C confirms 4 cards in clubs. In the kickback auction, I don't have very detailed agreement on when 4NT should be natural and when 4NT should be Q asking with my regular partner. We generally play 4NT as sign off. Of course, it makes sense to play 4NT as Q asking here, but I am afraid that we might not remember this all the time.

1C 1H 1S(at least 4-5 in black suits) 2D(4th suit gf) 2N(D stopper) 3C( C support) 3D(pattern) 3H(HA, no point to cue HK since partner shows shortness in H) 3S(S control) 4C(4 clubs, slam interest) 4D(RKC) 4S(3 or 0) 5H(we have all KC, no point to ask CQ with 10 trumps (5D should be CQ asking), do you have extra?) 5S(SQ, usually it should show K, but since partner has show SK by 3S, this 5S should now show SQ) 7C I would be interested in seeing how many expert players would opt for 2N at their third call with 4=0=3=6! Surely this shows either 4=2=2=5 or 4=1=3=5? I would have thought that shape was a critical piece of information over 4th suit. A point on which I am less clear is whether, after opener asks if responder has extras, responder shouldn't show Ax in spades as extras, since Ax with 4 chunky trumps may be all opener needs: KQxx x AKx K1098x opposite say Ax Axxxx xx AQJx You may well be correct in your assumption that the 5♠ shows the Q, but I still don't call this a realistic sequence due to what I see as an oddball 2N. In my regular partnership, we don't play typical 4th suit forcing. However, it makes a lot of sense to bid 2NT to show the stopper situation because it saves a lot of bidding space and make latter decisions of 3NT easier. Basically you lose nothing by bidding 2NT with a stopper, cause you have pretty much shown 9 cards of your hand. 2NT may look ugly to some, but it is a very practical bid which both shows your stopper and keep the bidding level rather low and you may still have a chance to show your shape later. This is also a good example showing that standard 4th suit gameforcing treatment isn't very effective, because you can't show both your shape and your stopper situation at low level.

1C 1H 1S(at least 4-5 in black suits) 2D(4th suit gf) 2N(D stopper) 3C( C support) 3D(pattern) 3H(HA, no point to cue HK since partner shows shortness in H) 3S(S control) 4C(4 clubs, slam interest) 4D(RKC) 4S(3 or 0) 5H(we have all KC, no point to ask CQ with 10 trumps (5D should be CQ asking), do you have extra?) 5S(SQ, usually it should show K, but since partner has show SK by 3S, this 5S should now show SQ) 7C

basically, gib plays based on a double dummy analysis of some random simulated deals (the number of deals are very limited). When gib leads, most likely, it can't simulate enough hands to find the killing leads, because those situations are generally rare events under normal bidding constraints. Therefore, among all the leads, gib would choose the most passive leads based on a double dummy point of view, in which case, stiff honor, singleton, low doubleton, low three(four or more) are all very passive and unlikely to cost a trick based on double dummy. The solution is to override the double dummy simulations and make some leading rules as what human players do instead IMO. Also, once a human player makes a lead, gib should also adjust its simulation constraints and take the lead more seriously, that's the only solution to avoid horrible switches after human players make a killing lead and only find gib partner makes an very low percentage switch to allow the contract to be made. Of course, the above is easier to be said than to be done. Still, the program can be improved a lot if the change can be focused on the leading and first trick play. Another potential huge improvement is a signal system. Of course, it's not easy to implement an attitude or suit preference signal. However, a counting signal is very simple and should be implemented IMO to improve the defense and make the mbt or mb more like normal bridge.

it took your 4S as 19+ because of the wide range of 3S. So 4NT is automatic for gib. Of course the wide range of 3S is ridiculous, but it's actually everywhere in the system IMO. A more reasonable range for 3S shouldn't be based on points I think. It should be based on the length of spades and the playing strength and also the defense potential. Still, it might not be easy to program.

5!h is the most natural bid to describe this hand IMO. It shows a decent hand with a lot of playing potentials but not enough HCP to overcall at 3 level, and need partner's extra value to bid slams. Partner should apply his hand evaluation to decide whether to bid 6H. Using 5H as an asking bid for spade controls would be simply misleading and very illogical, because there is no hand in this world that justifies a 5H bid that as long as partner holds a spade control, 6H can be made. Actually, a jump to 5 level as a asking bid for a specific control is one of the most abused bids. Slam bidding is usually not such a simple black and white matter and there are very few hands that justify this convention.