CSGibson

The hierarchy of rules are because information about potential shifts where dummy is weaker but with length is inherently more important than where they are strong or short. Having your "always the higher suit" rule means you might be giving attitude about a suit where dummy is void, or where they have 3 consecutive honors, or other things where it is next to pointless to shift to most of the time. It would be completely awful - the standard attitude signal is based on a suit that partner's holding and the bidding made it appear worth attacking, and the obvious shift signal is based on several factors, but all designed to identify the suit that seems most worth attacking for the defense as well. Your suggestion of higher suit gives up all of the intelligence of the signalling design/partner for no real benefit. I don't think you have really thought this through. Based on your questions, it seems like a better use of time might be shoring up defensive fundamentals rather than fooling around with different signalling systems. Oh, and for the record, I completely disagree with the poster who said obvious shift is best for intermediates. I think it is best for experts, but only as a part of a complete carding system. To do obvious shift well, I think you really need to understand defensive signalling in general.

[sigh] If only I cared more, or wasn't too lazy, I might look up those citations. [/sigh]

As I understand it, sighing is not against the laws, and neither are South's comments - what they do is restrict partner's future actions to logical alternatives. South has no logical alternative except pass, and North will not get another action if it passes out. Where it gets interesting is with East-west, if they decide to compete further, then both N and S have opened themselves up to a world of hurt on subsequent judgment calls. If they do not compete further because of the comments and actions of their opponents, then they might be entitled to redress - I'm not sure how that works, other than N-S had to know that their UI could have misled opponents or something. So anyway, if E-W were not competing further, and it was clear, then I'd let it slide, maybe talking to the person afterwards, because there is no damage. Otherwise, call the director.

But you know what I mean - our hand is limited in nature by our pass in the first round, as there would be certain hands where we needed to act the first time.

Partner is in balancing seat, and has a right to expect some values from our hand already since the ops aren't in game. I think that 4♣ or 4N is reasonable, but that blasting slam is not especially reasonable. A good partner knows you have to have something exceptional to move over 3N as a passed hand, and will accept aggressively.

We combined obvious shift principles with Smith echo against suit and NT contracts, and our signaling was based on what we needed to do to set the contract. If we could stand an obvious shift, we discouraged, if we could not, we encouraged. Then we would continue on with our attitude toward the opening lead. Playing this style you have to make a lot of early decisions in the defense, though, so its important to take a consistent amount of time before trick 1 to decide how you want to signal, and then to signal in tempo. We also shifted our priorities to a normal attitude signal when a bath coup position potentially existed, with attitude toward the obvious shift suit now being conveyed with the Smith echo. It was a very complicated defensive scheme, and tough to explain to opponents because the signaling was very fluid. I like my current, simpler signaling scheme better - attitude at trick 1, lots of suit preference in the play where others would give count, count only in a hold-up situation, or in other very specific situations.

Actually, since they aren't playing lebensohl here, why not a two-places-to-play 2N?

East. yes, it looks like 3♠ is going down, but his initial sequence showed diamonds and a take-out double of spades. His next double doesn't change the take-out nature of his hand and transform magically into a penalty double just because that's what he wants it to be. He's got his plus vs no making game, and if he acts, he risks partner doing exactly what he did. W made the last decision, which proved to be wrong. E gave him the permission and information that led him to that decision, though.

I would probably bid it as 1♥-1N, 2♦-2♠, 3N. I'm not worried about spades, because lefty had a chance to overcall them, and righty had a chance to double 2♠, I want to force to game, and I don't want to make partner worry about a club stopper in case his hand is something like Qxx Qx KQxxx xxx. In general I play jumps to 3N as 15-17 ish in auctions like this, which informs my decision to bid 3N instead of 2, but I don't have any real objections to 2N.

I have a monetizing idea for BBO - what if they offered a subscription service where they would (for a fee) keep track of specific player results in a way that allowed for inquiries/provided some analytics. For example, I would certainly pay somewhere around $5 a month to have my hands kept in a format where I could sort all of the hands that I opened a weak 2 spades, for example, and the results from that. I imagine that programming for this shouldn't be that difficult...I'm not talking about the current bbo my hands functionality, but something more player specific, which would keep stored hands in offline storage until a player stopped paying for the priviledge.

except that hands with 12-14 points are 5 times more likely than hands with 17-18 points, and approximately 3 times more likely than hands with 16-18 points, so passing is clearly suggested over bidding on if it comes to a choice between the two. (numbers taken from RPbridge.net's hcp probablility calculator, does not take distribution into account for this hand)

Its hard to say without knowing more. Do you mean that partner took advantage of UI? Does this mean that you aren't playing transfer XYZ in this partnership (if the answer is no, then do whatever you can to burn the partnership anyway, maybe meaning that you always or never call the director, depending on the mindset of your partner)? If I know the opponents are inexperienced, I might call - I have before - but if I'm playing a real event, or an event with teammates, then I'm not going to call the director over myself without some comment from the opponents indicating that they think they might have been damaged.

Unless E can come up with a significant and convincing reason why he would NOT have doubled with a correct explanation, when he did double with the incorrect explanation, then I am ruling table result stands.

loser counting single dummy is different than when you have a full hand. Generally, you start with a maximum of 3 losers in any suit, if you have a 4+ card suit, the 4th and longer cards are not counted as losers. In this example hand, you have obviously counted 3 spade losers, but in a spade contract, do you really think those extra small trumps are negative features to your hand, or assets? How about in a NT contract? Those are tricks waiting to happen! Anyway, the most losers you can have in a suit is 3, and that is only if you have 3+ cards in a suit. In general, you subtract one loser for each A, K, or Q in a 3+ card suit, each A or K in a 2 card suit, and each A in a 1 card suit for a very simple evaluation method. If you want to refine it, you might note that aces are more likely to be winners than Q's, and that honor combinations often take more tricks than their loser count - for example, AQ tight is 1 loser in a simplified loser counting system, but 1/2 a loser makes more sense because the K will be onside 1/2 the time when the opponents have it. Similarly, the simple evaluation says that AJT is 2 losers, but 75% of the time when missing both honors, one will be onside. Heck, when they are both offsides, they sometimes lead it. Anyway, using a very simple loser counting system, I would say that your example hand has 1+2+2+2 for 7 losers. Specifically, we are missing the Q of spades, the KQ of hearts, and the AK of both minors. When you actually see dummy, then you should evaluate losers again, this time using the combined assets of the hand. Fluffy gave a good example of how to do so in one of your previous threads.

AK of hearts, heart ruff felling 3-3 hearts, J of spades catching K 3rd or 2nd onside.

I like kickback, especially for minor suit contracts - in fact, we just play redwood, not pure kickback, in my main partnership. I suppose its playable as diamondwood, too. The one issue you have in transitioning from minorwood to a diamond keycard ask for clubs is that when you get a 4♠ response, you have to decide whether 4N is an offer to play, or a Q ask. Personally, in that one circumstance, I prefer a Q ask. Obviously in minorwood you have the room for both an offer to play and a Q ask because of the extra step. On the other hand, I think the ability to be more nuanced in the auction - being able to suggest slam with 4♣ without asking for keycards or cue-bidding immediately, and having partner still be able to ask for keycards with an appropriate hand type more than makes up for any loss of a natural 4N in one specific sequence.

2N seems perfect. If partner raises to 3N, I'll bid 6. If partner bids 3 of anything else, I'll force to slam in that suit.

Sorry, this is blatantly wrong - if you always ask no matter what your hand type, then partner is not constrained, because the question does not suggest one action would be more successful than another. Partner may think that an action is suggested, but partners get weird thoughts in their head all the time, none of which matter one whit when it comes to what the UI actually suggests in context.

Pass as an offer to play is just bridge, and it is a negative inference anyway that he didn't want to be rescued - like negative inferences from passing when a support double is available, this is not alertable, but would be disclosable upon question or upon winning the auction. E-W were stung by not having clear agreements, and NOT by any MI. Table result stands.

and the type of thinking is resulting. To be fair, though, the result is a concrete data point, I don't think it should be entirely ignored.

Always count both winners and losers (along with considering the information from the auction and lead) before making a plan. Always make a plan before calling a card from dummy. Try to do all of your counting without using your fingers or moving your lips, because the opponents can and will use it to their advantage if they notice. Both winners and losers can change your plan - if you have too many quick losers, you need to be aware of that before surrendering a tempo - you might even have to risk one of your winners, or risk creating another loser to make one of the quick losers go away. On the other hand, if you don't have enough winners, then you have to make a plan to create more. In making that plan, you frequently have to manage your entries. Declarer play at its base is about tempo, entries, and, when playing against humans, psychology. A big part of managing those factors is counting winners and losers, as those bring into focus what your objectives are on any particular hand. If you fail to consider those factors at once, you may inadvertently limit your resources by playing an ill-considered card. As for the rest, Fluffy gave a great answer.

Just to further this, at the table I saw the following pros and cons of each choice: X: Pro - 4♥X could be the right contract, partner is liable to leave it in with a flat hand; I may be able to survive a 4♠ call by correcting to 5♣. Con - I really don't want partner to bid spades, and if partner does bid spades, she might not be content with just a 4♠ call. Even if partner does bid 4♠, I think double and pull to clubs shows a stronger hand. 4N: Pro - Highlights the minors, most likely to get us to our best playable minor. Con - Gives lefty the same information as partner, he's more likely to do the right thing when choosing to play or defend, or even double. My suits are also not near equal quality, even if there is only a 1 card disparity in length. 5♣: Pro - its the primary feature of my hand, and my concentration of values. It hides the diamond suit from lefty/opponents, which may have value in bidding and play. It will be harder to double because lefty won't have more than a J behind me in my suit, and won't know about my other suit lengths. Con - the least flexible call - partner will expect a different hand type, with more clubs. If we do belong in diamonds, we will almost never find them after 5♣. And, for fun, the Pass/bid debate in my head: Pass: Pro - no call describes my hand well, and all calls have a lot of risk since we are vulnerable Con - Pass doesn't describe my hand well, either. If partner balances, I will still have no idea what to do. Bidding puts some pressure on opps, and relieves some pressure from partner; opps might very well get this wrong in a competitive auction. Anyway, as I said, I see pros and cons for each. Feel free to call BS on any of my freely given thoughts, or add your own pros/cons for a favorite auction. I still don't know what I prefer.

I have no idea if it is legal, but I would hope for split results. If W had the hand S was playing him for, he would have led his singleton. S was playing for an extremely unlikely layout, and I think he earned the table result. On the other hand, with correct information, I am sure he would have not made that mistake. I do not want to give the dutch pair a reward for UI, so I would rule 2SX and making for their side. I think that the evidence regarding their actual agreement is basically a wash, except that the information in their system notes was presented after a sufficiently long time that it could easily have been altered, which makes me give it less weight than I might have otherwise.

[hv=pc=n&s=s4hk84dkt85cakqt3&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=4h]133|200[/hv] Playing cross-imps on BBO. I know that pass would likely win the most votes, but I am more interested in what people's choices are if they were to take a call other than pass, so I would like you to consider the merits of choices other than pass if possible - I saw arguments for X (take-out, but with convertable values), 4N, and 5♣ at the table. There will also be follow-up questions.

It has two flaws by my count: Poor suit quality, and a first round control outside of my suit.