vuroth

One of the reasons I shied away from this was clubs being 5332 around the table. I think LHO is a touch more likely to have the A♠ than any other specific card, so I'd kind of like to put him in now. If he returns a club, I now no longer have to worry about RHO beating on clubs later. Sure, I'm always going to need some luck, I'd really hate for it to go: Q♥ K♥ A♥ x♥ x♥ J♥ ♥ ♥ ♣ or Q♥ x♥ x♥ K♥ ♣ Because now I know that I'm toast. Ok obviously I'm probably wrong, but I'd like to understand why.

I think the point Yeti: EDIT - sorry you're right. I forgot my plan on that line. :) I was defend for a long time, but I think double dummy I can always see a way for declarer to bring it home.

Never mind. They're playing precision. That makes it much more likely that a red suit will break well for us.

Too complex for me. I'll start with the K♠, though. Assuming it holds and both follow, I guess I'm shooting at LHO having 1345. With 11 HCP. Ugh. That or 2245 or 1245. QH. If it's covered, Ace and low to the ten. If not, let it ride, then running the ten if possible. Something almost has to fall out of LHO's hand in hearts, though. 0.02 V

Agree.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/sendler.asp I actually came across that by accident the other day. I have no idea how many people are like her, from Korea, Vietnam, Darfur, Rwanda, South Africa, Columbia, Georgia, and god only knows where else. But I bet there are a few, anyways.

Wait, bacteria, fungus and yeast don't contaminate vegetables? Happy day!

No worries. I'll let the ladies know that it will be back someday. Thanks! V

A little backstory. I taught a few friends how to play bridge back in high school. A couple of them have since moved out west, but Sunday evenings we usually sit down on BBO to play bridge, and chat. It's a very social game, and a great way for us to stay connected. We generally rotate between rubber and IMPs scoring. The guys prefer the IMPs scoring, but the ladies prefer rubber scoring. After a summer hiatus, our game resumed this weekend. The windows clients we used to use by and large did not work, so 3 of us had to switch to the browser client. No problem. 2 questions, though: 1. When I tried starting a rubber bridge game with the old client, nobody on a browser client could join the game. Is this true for all browser/client games, or is it just for rubber games? 2. Since the browser client doesn't seem to offer rubber bridge, is rubber going the way of the dodo on BBO? Right now, my plan is to introduce them to total points next Sunday, and hope the ladies like it. If rubber bridge isn't popular enough to continue to support, I'll be sad, but I won't complain. I'm far too grateful to BBO for helping keep us connected to complain about progress. Cheers, and thanks. V

Actually, I can handle any trump split if ♠s are 4-3.

Math question in hidden. Not really relevant to the problem

The hand is easy if ♦ are 2-2, which is < 50%. If I unblock ♠s, cash the KQ♦ then discard a ♥ and a ♣ on the KQ♠ (then ruff a ♥ back to hand), I can pick up ♦s 3-1 if ♠s are 4-3. ♠s are 4-3 over 50% of the time, so that's good. If RHO has short ♠s and 3♦s, I'll be able to overruff the ♠. I can then try a ♣ towards the Q. I think I can promote the queen unless east has the AK♣, which gives me a 76% chance of success. If ♦s are 4-0 with east, then I'll follow something more like MattieShoe's line - after one round of trumps, I'll ruff a spade back, return to dummy, and play on in spades. If east trumps in, my trump loser goes away. If he doesn't, I get some round suit discards. I just have to hope, again, that spades are 4-3 so that they're running.

I don't play many club games, due to distance. I've played with this partner a half dozen times over the last year, but we've hardly hammered out much in the way of agreements.

The reason I shared this hand is that, once upon a time, I would only have considered 2 bids - 4♠ and 4NT. Today, I considered things, and while I was leaning slam, I decided that it couldn't hurt to ask a question or two along the way, so I bid 3♣ (agreed HSGT). When partner continued 4♠, I felt much more confident (slam was 50%, and came home). I had also missed that we were playing short club. That might have helped a bit. Just wanted to share, in case it helped someone. V

You can get awfully good not playing any of that stuff. I know most people rush to add conventions, but there are other, often better, ways to improve. I also strongly disagree with the notion of not playing with beginners. If games came easily for Novice/Beginners, we'd probably have a lot (ok a few) less experts on BBO. Sorry, I'll get off the soapbox now.

Much better hand to open than [hv=d=e&v=b&s=sk85hadjt93cqjt64]133|100|Scoring: IMP (P) ?[/hv] which I think is a clear pass. As others have said, I prefer 1♣/2♣ here. 1♦ feels better on a hand like this: [hv=d=e&v=b&s=sk85hadjt93cqjt64]133|100|Scoring: IMP (P) ?[/hv] In other words, i don't hate the distortion with xx45, but this doesn't feel like the right time to use it. V

Hopefully this is an instructive hand for B/N. Or hey, maybe it'll be instructive for me. :) Club game, MPs. Don't recall the vuln.[hv=d=n&s=skqxxhaxdaqxxckxx]133|100|Scoring: MP Playing 2/1, short minor.[/hv] 1♦ 1♠ 2♠ ?

2NT. This is MPs, after all.

Only an intermediate, but I like michaels. I would also bid 4♥ over 3♠. I just love the distribution FAR too much to not be aggressive on this hand. V

Agree. Passing 1NT on hand 1 shouldn't be too awful, as partner should have at least 7 minor suit cards. And by not too awful, I mean no better or worse than most 1NT contracts. :angry:

I agree with Justin that this is an excellent example hand.

Don't I know about those. Right now, I feel like I just need to play a ton more hands, and I'll start to recognize the situation a half second sooner. Longer term, though, I'm sure I'll have to improve my mental toughness. As for the hand, I tried to play "by-the-book" SAYC for as long as possible. The first thing I had to give up was the meaning of 1m-2NT, since everyone seems to think it's invitational. The second thing I gave up on was adding inverted minors, because having no forcing minor raise was maddening. Good on you for how you bid, though.

I admit, I'm surprised by all of this. I would have thought that opponents would be more likely to balance opposite a known fit (raising 1♠ to 2♠), than opposite a suspected misfit (1NT, or passing 1♠).

If we could always find those 11hcp vs 13hcp games after a 3♦ preempt, 3-level preempts would be a lot less common. Also, I don't see why the shorter hand has to bid. If I have 16+ HCP and 4-5♦s over 3♦, I can figure out that partner is short all by myself. On the flipside, if I'm short on diamonds with a weak hand, I don't really know whether partner or responder is the power hand.

I agree that it depends on the meaning of a direct 3m.