Quantumcat

When 2 over 1 bids are nonforcing after a double, how do you make a normal forcing change of suit?

Hmmmmm I'll have a go If it's 3-2, lead small to jack, let west have the king if he wants (win A, Q, little), or if it's east, play a round of little ones, then the Ace takes the King, 3 tricks (J, A, Q) or if he takes it before your Jack, 3 tricks (J, A, Q) If it's 4-1 with the king onside, finesse couple times, lose the last trick. Same if 5-0 (only win if king onside). Low to the jack can only give you 2 tricks unless east is kind enough to take king on first lead. So finessing wins if 4-1 or 5-0 with king onside: 28% + 4% = 32%, but times a half because king has to be onside: 17%. Also wins when 3-2 and king onside, 68*1/2 = 32%, Both together = 49% Low to jack wins on all 3-2, 68%. Low to jack wins 68% of the time, finessing 49%. So choose low to jack! I hope this is correct. Then I'll be very proud of myself :lol:

Why the hearts? You would get 3 club tricks then only? Declarer has 3 diamond and heart cards. Maybe he has 2 hearts and 1 diamond, or 1 heart and 2 diamonds (He wouldn't bid 3♠ with a void). If he has 1 heart he can just play ace, ruff, a diamond to dummy, (partner has 1) discard other diamond on heart. If he has two hearts, he can play diamond to dummy, discard heart, (partner has 2 now) and ace of hearts. If you discard your hearts, declarer can draw as many trumps as he likes, then enjoy two hearts and a diamond or 1 heart and two diamonds, whichever his holding. Seems cold!!!

I agree with pass: partner will reopen if west passes and NS have anything, if west bids 1 diamond and east bids 1NT, you can double for takeout (or N might double before east) N might even overcall a major after west's one diamond if you're lucky. If west says 1H or 1S north will double with 4 of the other major and a couple of points (if all of east, west and you don't have diamonds, north has got to have some that will allow him to double) I can't see how pass can possibly put you in the wrong. But, a double right away will land you into doodoo when N bids 3D or the like... What am I missing that makes doubling right away better than pass?

If you overcall on 4 card suits, if competition forces a reply from partner at a high level, might you not often end up in many 4-2 fits? Also, if you overcall with 4 card suits, will partner maybe reopen often when it's wrong (less hands you are forced to initially pass with)??

I really want to learn how to be a good partner - does anyone have good advice and tips? I've realised I sometimes do things that in various posts, people have said are awful habits for a good partnership. For example, asking partner, "why did you do such and such?", and various other bits and pieces that perhaps lots of people do without realising. What is a good strategy for going over the hands together after duplicate sessions, avoiding sounding like one person is being blamed, and for both of us to learn as much as possible from each hand? (I kind of turn off if partner says things like, "what on earth possessed you to lead that?" or "Can't you count? The contract should have gone down" etc. I imagine partner does too when I say things like that - we don't learn how we should have handled the hand when that happens) Any other advice much appreciated! This is my first proper partnership and I'd love it to develop into a good and solid one.

Nobody said 2C followed by a diamond bid. Why is this? Don't we have eight and a half playing tricks? Might go 2♣-2♦ 3♦-3♥ 3NT - pass ?

Problem with doing that though, what if they were going to stop in 5M anyway?

A book I just borrowed from a friend that I have found bloody excellent is Card Play Technique by Victor Mollo and someone else. Maybe it is too simple for you perfect for my level (green beginner). Shows everything you need to know about basic contract planning, basic defence thoughts, everything for the everyday you'll need in 29/30 boards a session. Mollo writes as to be perfectly understandable, clear and concise, Everything is perfectly logical and can be followed without too much trouble. The little quizzes are great, easy enough for me to figure out most of them without looking at the answers, but only after a good think about. He also uses such engaging language so is quite fun to read at the same time. I recommend highly as the one book you buy if you are ever going to own only one bridge book. But anyhow, don't you ever play at a club (a real one) that has a library? If yours doesn't, go play at one that does! I own 2 books, almost all of stuff I've read has been borrowed from there or from friends trying to make me non-pathetic enough that we can play together and scrape at least 40%. I am a uni student and pretty poor too. Plus, I recently went through all the play deals of the learn to play bridge programs (free) from bridgebase, I didn't realise all the super basic stuff I had managed to forget in a few months, it is excellent practice playing learning hands! Go download it. Even if reading it seems boring because you know it all already, there will be little bits that pop up that make you go, oh!!!! Edit: Yes, join BIL!!! It's great! Everyone is actually happy and friendly and there are no horrid, rude, boring "Expert/World Class" (in quotations for a reason) people, just people wanting to have fun and learn a bit. My only problem is that they're all americans so there are never any tables when I'm there! Pooh!

What does walsh mean? And canapé (besides tasty treats)? I have seen that with a box on convention cards ... my partner and I missed 3 heart partscores in a row the other week: I was bidding up the line and he liked to rebid 1NT whenever possible, while I liked to bid the 4 cd spade suit. It's just style to agree on right? So for my other questions, if you will probably have to reverse to show the major too, don't bid the minor first unless GF strength. But, you can if you probably won't have to reverse, like 1♣ 1♦ 1♠ 2♠. That makes sense! Thanks!

Why does a change of suit followed by a spade raise show slam invitation? Was what I have been taught wrong? Which is, that change of suit then 3♠ is invitational with 3 cards, and change of suit then 4♠ a game raise with 3 cards, direct 3♠ is invitational with 4 cards, jacoby 2N is a game raise with 4 cards. If a change of suit followed by a spade raise is forcing, how do you invite with 3 cards?

If 1NT is this "sandwich" thing, what is a double then? Does it replace the natural 1NT? Why swap them around ;)

You have 4 cards in a major and 4/5 cards in a minor. Your partner opens. I am very sure I remember someone telling me that if you have a major you say it first and forget the minor. But also remember someone telling me to always bid up the line. And someone else saying bid longest suit first. Which do you follow? I suppose your choices depend on your strength. If you have a longer minor than a major, (say spades) and partner opens a heart, how strong do you need to be to say 2 of minor followed by 2 spades? With hearts (6 if necessary), 2 of minor followed by 2/3 ♥ (pard opens spade)? If you have 4-4 M/m and pard opens 1♣, are there any times you will forget the diamonds and say the major first? What about when you are 5-5 (and pard if minimum will always support a major with 3 cards) or 5-4 (M>m). What should you do with a 6-4 or 6-5 (m>M) with differing strengths? Thanks for your help :-)

This is my logic, maybe it's wrong, but anyway: If you already have longer diamonds than hearts, and pard chose to raise you rather than say 1H or 1S, won't you be unlikely to also have an 8 card heart fit when you already have a 9 card or longer diamond fit? If you want hearts to be a natural suit it has to be five cards at least (cause pards would say 1H with 4) and if you have longer diamonds that has to be 6 cards or more, and if pards chose to raise you he'll have at least 4 cards, and not a balanced hand with 3-3 or 3-2 majors or he'd have preferred to say 1NT, so he has an unbalanced hand with say 6 clubs and 4 diamonds and 2-1 or 3-0 in majors, how likely is it he'll have support for your heart suit? I don't think it makes much sense to have 1H be a natural suit because it would work nicely with a very small number of hands (you have 6-5 diamonds-hearts, and pards has 6 clubs 4 diamonds 3 hearts no spades or similar). It makes more sense to me to be stopper-asking for notrump, since you often would rather play NT if you can than a minor partscore. 1S would be best as "yes I have a heart stop, but have a spade hole what do you think pards" Is my logic wrong???? (probably)

Is there a lower limit on the 2N bid? What if pards has a 1 count? But then I suppose opponents have a slam/game on so its ok ... ?

I have never heard of Netlog, but Facebook is really a lot of fun, and is great for keeping track of what all your friends are doing - I think its worth joining.

jilly, yup that was the hand, isn't it funny that I remembered it a little stronger than it was. Now that I think of it, I don't think partner did make the hand but could because the nine of diamonds drops and the KQ are onside, I think.. thanks everyone for your advice, I guess it is an area to discuss with my partner!!!

Bidding went 3♣ from opp, pass from pards, 5♣ from opp's partner. I have something like: [hv=d=w&v=n&s=sakjt72hakt95dajc]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] I chose to say 6♣ with the idea it must be michaels, but the others didn't think so (we were in BBO so there was constant discussion as we played). What's the right bid (I can't just pass right?). A bit illegally, I told partner what I meant and he bid 6H, making. Another question, I don't remember the exact hand but I think I had 8 hearts to the KJT, AKxx of spades and 1 club, I started off with 1♥, opponent overcalls 2♣, partner says 4♣, which he's done before, and had a void each time rather than a singleton, opponent's partner says 5C. I could make six or seven depending what partner has. How can I ask him his level of support? I bid 5H which stuck and we made six :(.

My grandmother told me that if you have the choice of a major or minor in an auction like that, choose a major because neither has length there and it is more likely to be the right suit. (so I pick ♥)

I'm sure I read somewhere that length in the opponent's suit is the sign of a misfit hand, and that you should refrain from bidding? Maybe this isn't the right context, I don't know. Looks like it though. By the way, with east dealer, how did he get to bid again afterter four passes? :P

I sounds to me like the experienced partnership are just looking for extra points by taking advantage of the newer players. It's not the op's fault! In such rulings they should always take the benefit of the doubt for newer players ... they are unlikely to know how do benefit from cheating, it's so much more likely to be a simple mistake! If I were the director I would say score stands.

Hahahahaha, I was replying to helene's post, not yours! Sorry for the misunderstanding :)

Yes, the pink elephants exist, like hallunications and dreams do, what I meant is real -> existence but existence does not -> real. Is that what you were asking? I'm not sure.

I thought I might provide a small amount of info to those who are unfamiliar with quantum mechanics, perhaps it may help. Particles can be described as waves as well as particles, and waves can be described as particles. In order to observe wave-like properties however, the arpetures need to be on the order of the wavelength of the objects, and the size of the wavelength is disproportional to the size of the object, which is why we can only see wavelike properties for particles up to the size of small atoms (and only relatively recently, at the beginning electrons, or "cathode rays", were as big as we could go) and not for macroscopic objects. Quantum mechanics is about studying wavefunctions of particles. Wavefunctions describe the wave that a particle is. A particle is located at one specific point in space, but a wave is spread out through space, so this doesn't seem to make sense. But what a wavefunction describes is the probability of finding a particle somewhere, were a measurement to be made. Often wavefunctions look like standing waves on a string (if it is prevented from going outside certain boundaries: this is the infinite square well) or like a bell curve. The thing that determines what the wavefunction looks like, is the potential the particle is in. When you insert this potential into the schrodinger equation and solve it (it is a differential equation) it gives you the wave function. When you measure a particle's position, and you find it to be some value, the particle no longer has a 20% or 5% chance of being there, that wouldn't make any sense. It has to have a 100% probability. So what the act of measurement does, is "collapse" the wavefunction into a specific point: it becomes a large spike around that point (since the measuring instrument has certain error margins) instead of being the shape it was prior to the measurement. We cannot know what the particle was doing prior to the measurement, since we would obviously have to measure the position to find out. There are three interpretations of this: The realist postion The interpretation is that the particle really was at the measured point, yet quantum mechanics is incomplete and counldn't tell us. This interpretation says it was only our ignorance that led us to believe it had less than 100% probability of being there. But not many subscribe to this view since the mathematics of quantum mechanics is pretty solid. The orthodox view (the Copenhagen interpretation) This view, which most physicists subscribe to, is that the very act of measurement forced the particle to "take a stand" and decide upon the point we found it in. It's this view that led to Schrodinger's thought experiment about the cat, that it is both alive and dead prior to the measurement, but then decides which it wants to be when we do measure it. The agnostic position This position refuses to answer. It claims it is pure metaphysics to try to know what something is doing before a measurement, and that it makes no sense to try to speculate. There is a quote from Pauli (author of the Pauli exclusion principle you might have heard of?) "One should no more rack one's brains about the problem of whether something one cannot know anything about exists all the same, than the ancient question of how many angels are able to sit on the point of a needle". So, anyway, hope that might have helped some people with their debates :)