vuroth

Interesting. Apparently I've been asking the wrong questions. So is every 10+ point xxx xx xxxx xxxx hand worth a 2♠ bid? Am I even really marginal? For the record, I held: [hv=d=w&v=n&s=sqt4h52dakt8cat94]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] One bad experience with bidding 2♠ with a different partner talked me out of bidding it here, though to my credit the bid occurred to me. At the table, the bidding went: P 1♣ 1♠ 2♦ P 2♠ P 3♣ P P P And I found myself somewhat bewildered. Partner insisted that I must bid 3NT at some point, and I conceded that, with QTx, my stopper was probably good enough. 3♣ made, but for only 33% of the matchpoints, opposite a 3325 13 point hand. The reason I asked here is that I'm trying hard not to let bad results influence my play, but apparently, that's exactly what I was doing here. :P Thanks, folks. I really appreciate the straight talk. Yes you should, and more than 3. I'll take that advice to heart. Thanks. V

Hmm, maybe I'm getting some negative reinforcement from my partners. The last time I tried: P 1♣ 1♠ 2♠ Partner couldn't figure out what 2♠ was. (Though if the suits had been reversed, partner would have immediately figure out that this was "limit raise or better".) If this is really a hand best suited to "limit raise or better in clubs" (with 5 clubs I'd be sure that was right, with 4 strong ones and a flattish hand I'm uncertain), then would: P 1♣ 1♠ 2♠ P ? - 2NT shows a spade stopper and game invite? - 3NT shows a spade stopper and game force? - 3♠ asks for a spade stopper (western cue bid) - 3♣ shows a minimum club opener, presumably 4+ clubs - anything else is GF, and I guess control showing?? Wow, I think I've just exceeded the legal limits for questions asked in one thread. Anyways. I should stop now. V PS - Maybe I just need to read a book or three.

Playing in an indy, only agreement is SAYC/Std Carding. P 1♣ 1♠ 2♦ P 2♠ What is 2 spades?

Playing SAYC [hv=d=w&v=n&s=s???h52dakt8cat94]133|100|Scoring: MP P 1♣ 1♠ ?[/hv] Kind of a two part question I guess. Assuming there are hands that you would bid an immediate 3NT on, what is the minimum spade holding you would do this on? Assuming you held a GF hand with what you felt would be an inadequate or uncertain spade stopper (modify the other suits as needed I guess), how would you expect the bidding to proceed to investigate a possible notrump contract? Hands where I panic/brain freeze at the table are getting rarer (yay!), but this alas was one of them (boo). Thanks, V

This certainly is news to me. I think I've been bidding a lot of these incorrectly.

I realize this is expert standard (raising with 3 cards and a side singleton), but is this the right approach for B/I? I'm personally trying it, and trying to be open minded. That said, I wonder should everyone be doing this? I think I agree with not passing 3♦. It's a bit murky for me, but we agreed on spades as trump, right? Any bid off-suit is a game try, right? I think everything else is ok, unless north has something better than 3♦?

Because bidding without inverted minors in standard is a horrible mess? There exist GF hands with support, you know... Exactly! Ive have been in some horrible contracts without having a forcing minor raise. I'm rabidly anti-system (at the moment), but inverted minors is one I'm open to. I've played SAYC without it, had those awkward strong minor support hands, and wondered what to do. Now I just need to play inverted minors a bunch, and figure out what the problems are when inverted minors are ON, and how to live with them. V

I agree with Javabean. Aside: I'm not terribly comfortable with chosing the best line in clubs in line 2. I spent some time trying to puzzle it out, but it seemed like you often needed to guess whether to finesse or drop on the second round of clubs. Maybe it's not very important, but I've never been able to work these things out. Ace first seems decent, though.

A novice thought - from the time I passed, I should probably have been thinking about what I would do if partner doubled (or bid 3NT, or whatever). Not sure who hesitated when at the table, but I thought I'd share that bit of advice. Of course, most experienced players probably already do that all the time.

The OP goals sounded very socialistic. The US is just about as far the right economically as they come. I'd imagine the democrats could pass as the right wing party in a lot of western nations. As for the automotive industry in north america, it will never be free of the unions. If the big 3 are unprofitable now, a clean restart will not be profitable. I'd like to see Obama send a firm message on terrorism - maybe Afghanistan will be the arena for doing that. Each of the last 2 presidents saw attacks on the WTC. There's no reason to believe that the terrorist won't WANT to strike again. Unfortunately.

Thanks for the feedback. I took stayman then 3♣ as game force, while my partner disagreed. Something for us to discuss, for sure. One of the big questions I had was whether attacking clubs was a valid approach. Maybe it's only right if RHO doesn't double the 2♣ bid, I don't know. As it happened, LHO had the club jack singleton and never led it. The ten of spades wa won by LHO, who returned a club to RHO's king. A diamond return put me in great shape, but I miscounted, thinking I had 9 without the spade finesse. :) If nothing else, this hand was probably a good lesson for staying calm even when things seem difficult/hopeless. The opponents stopped in 2NT and made, so pulling off 3NT would have been a huge swing. Thanks, folks. V

For Ken:

One of my howling disasters from the IAC league match on Saturday night. [hv=d=n&v=b&n=st7haq82dqct87543&s=skj86hj76dakj2cq2]133|200|Scoring: IMP Bidding: P P 1NT P 2♣ X 2♠ P 3♣ P 3NT all pass Opening lead 4♦ (3/5, I think)[/hv] I include the bidding not because I want to show it off, but rather because maybe it influence the defense? Anyways, I failed to make 3NT because, in a panicked moment, I miscounted my tricks. Suffice to say that no player will adopt the line that I actually took, because it's beyond ridiculous. That said, my general approach, up to the moment of stupidity, has been called into question. I'd really love some feedback on what my thoughts should be, and what lines seem sane/sensible. I apologize if this hand isn't B/I material. I'm B/I, and it's possible that the line that I intended to follow was vastly inferior, hence I'm sharing it here. V

At a level 1, I think the important thing is to recognize that 3♦ does not intend to change the agreed upon trump. If you're totally lost, bid 3♥. I've seen both natural and help suit game tries, and I have no idea what's superior. At a guess, any agreement is about as good as another, though maybe an advanced player will have some logic as to one or the other.

3♣ is better than 2♦ to be played as the majors. 2♣ usually shows at least five, and 1♦ could be as few as three. Therefore, you give up a potentially useful, natural 2♦ call. This.

Canada has its first black acting head of state, and I only think I've heard the fact that she's black brought up twice in her 3 year reign. By noon on November 5th, I'd heard that Obama was the first black president (elect, I guess) at least a dozen times, and I don't even live in his country. My gut tells me that if his race really didn't matter, nobody would be saying it, but I don't know.

fan13027, do you play Michael's, but NOT Unusual 2NT? A lot of people see them as the same basic idea, and thus conceptually interchangeable. The main reason that Unusual 2NT and Michael's exist is that, over a single bid suit, there are 3 suits to show, and 3 possible 5-5s (AB, AC, BC). Over 2 suits bid, there are only 2 unbid suits, so only 1 possible 5-5 in the unbid suits. So what would Michael's show that Unusal 2NT wouldn't? Ergo, at least what some people are saying, both 2♦ and 3♣ would be natural. Trying to understand here....

Agreed. I would consider myself a decent intermediate, but I had no idea what the right answer was. I agree with han, though, that it's made even more complicated by the fact that sometimes minor suit bids don't show a real suit, so bidding them can sometimes be natural. Good question. V

This space really works best when it's user driven. The compound squeeze and trump elopement problems are probably good for me, even though I can't pull off even a simple squeeze. What would probably be better is if I started posting hands where I missed, or may have missed, simple squeezes, or where I took a finesse instead of a strip-and-endplay/ But that's just me. To someone else, the complex squeezes might be just what they need, either because they're starting to master them, or because they've never encountered the concept in their life, and are having a new door open. On the other hand, if a beginner who can't figure out how to find a 6♦ contract when they have AKxx x AKJTx JTx because all they knew was "use Stayman, bid 3NT when partner shows hearts" isn't really going to get much out of 3 really good endplay/simple squeeze examples. I think this is one of the best resources in the world for improving your game. I feel so fortunate to have high quality players willing to answer my questions. Even when the answers are overzealous, they're a thousand times better than silence and frustration. I've never seen anyone here be so over the top that they wouldn't answer even a basic question, like "what's Stayman?" Furthermore, I think that a lot of VERY good players go WAY out of their way to help, trying to post their own content here, hoping that it will help those of us who are developing. It would be a real shame if that discouraged true beginners from asking questions. If the content here occasionally strays towards the high end, it's more often than not due to the fact that those of us who could best use the resources here aren't creating enough content to keep things moving. 0.02

I'm figuring partner has 7+ hearts and a weak hand. He was trap passing over 2♥, but is now saving over the minor suit contract. I pass. Of course, it's also possible that partner is being a bit irrational. :)

I don't play Walsh. I'd prefer to have a much stronger understanding of SAYC, and its weaknesses, before I go plugging holes. Other than g, they're all 1♦. On g, 1♣ 1♦ 2♣ leaves you horribly endplayed.

Something like that would be my guess. :( 4th hand only has 1 preemptive call - PASS.

Partner's got at least 5 points outside diamonds. Even if it's Q♠, Q♣, J♥, the 3 level should be safe. Plus, partner isn't 5332, so I dont' think I'm in huge danger of a black suit ruff. I'm never sure what to bid in these situations, though. Maybe 2NT, showing my balanced hand?

I think one of the key concepts is the idea of limiting your hand as soon as possible. When you answer once, I assume you have at least 6 points. If you bid again, I'll start to think that you have at least 9-10 points. Similarly, if you bid 3NT after I've only shown 10 points, I'm going to assume you have 16 or more. (26 points for game in NT/majors). I think in both of these auctions, both you and your partner missed opportunities to pass and limit your hands. Granted, pass may have left you in an uncomfortable contract, but: A ) in duplicate, maybe EVERYONE is in the same, uncomfortable contract B ) you'll reap the rewards of passing these weak misfits by knowing that, when partner DOES bid on, she'll have more than a minimum 0.02 V