ASkolnick

On 1, sit for the double, I am not sure what the problem is. Most likely the spade cards are under your partner, and it is likely he has a heart trick, plus you have some minor suit help. The fact your spades are so bad is a plus, not a minus. I think a negative double may have been better. On 2, I don't like 4S. You have a balanced 10 count with KQ tight of a suit. This hand will be more like a limit raise. I double since I sort of have to catch up since partner will never play me for tricks in any suit and this is clearly not a forcing pass situation.

I also like Helen's idea. During the regionals, there are side game series which work exactly like what Helen suggested. You could group 2 or 3 games together and have the smaller time slices as well. The real issue I had with the "speedball" is we tried to play a different system. But if the director gets called, which he always did, you are dead. Hopefully, you can come up with at least a little more time for these types of situations.

As well as Cascade, I play 3N shows that type of hand. I am willing to sell out on when partner is 4-1 on that hand and I am one of the firm believers that the right-siding the hand is one of the most overrated concept. Axxx,Axxx,Axx,Ax Qxx, Qxx, Qxxx, Qxx Which hand do you want declaring? Also, how do you know which hand really can find the better lead. Look at a hand record with deep finesse and tell me how often the number of tricks are maximized by the strong hand playing the hand. I doubt more than 1 out of every 24 hands. And balance that against the hands where the weaker hand plays the same contract. My guess is you are almost about even. We play 2N however as natural, but implies no 3 card spade fit.

I hate experts who give opinions without any valid theory behind it. I can at least see the argument if the "overcaller" is under the bidder. The problem is then your opponents shortness is after your shortness. If it goes 1H-P-1S-2D Now the danger becomes that your RHO can overruff your partner, trump promote etc. because chances are RHO has equal or less length in the suit. Also, your non-ace points are then much more vulnerable to being led through. And as for the result, isn't that a bit timid with a 6H-5C 10 HCP hand to pass 2S? I don't think the result had anything to do with the not overcalling.

I agree with Gwynn. Bid 5C, make them make the last guess. Don't need much from partner to make it and if you are down 1, very good chance 4 of a major is making. I can't really see you getting too bloodied.

We still have invites, but more or less have moved to the 2 point range in our precision club. On the lower end we have a wider range, but it works ok. 17-18 1C-followed by 1N 19-20 1C-1H-1N Kokish 21-22-1C-1D-2N 23-24 1C-1D-1H-2N Kokish

Um, why is this a great slam to be in anyway? You have one sure loser in clubs and need to pick up hearts for no losers, and ruff a losing club. So, even if you can pick up the hearts when they are 3-1 with the stiff honor offsides, if the person who wins the losing club has a third heart, you would be down. I guess you are OK if you duck a club first provided a trump is not led. But its not like this is a good slam to be in.

I'm in the ACBL. I will always call the director at the time of the infraction, even if there is no effect for a few reasons. 1) It doesn't look like you are waiting for a result, therefore taking a double shot at scores. 2) Since the directors are notified, they know there may be an issue. 3) Agreeing on a hesitation. Much rather do that with the director present, so you don't get into petty squabbling. As for the case of the diamond lead, yes you should call the director assuming you feel that the questions led to the diamond lead even though it was a good lead for you. It is very possible that the people were unaware UI was passed along, and it is the directors, not your responsibility, to inform them why there might have been an infraction. As for recorder forms, nobody does anything with them and in this case I don't feel its necessary.

While I do understand the principle you are looking for, to answer the question that is needed, I am not sure how you do it in practicality. There will be many hands where more than 1 question will need to be answered and which one will take priority. I guess you can come up with a bunch of rules to indicate what is priority and what is not, but I am not sure you will be able to do everything. And once you do, my guess is you will be not much different than normal signals or the "obvious shift" principles. For example, let's say you see a long running suit missing the Ace, you are not holding the Ace, but he doesn't want you to continue the suit, what does he do? Tell you not to continue, or tells you he doesn't have the Ace? But, if you can figure it all out, more power to you. Unlike certain people in this forum, I am definitely open to new ideas even if they are differing from the "expert" norm.

Over 1C,1D not sure why you wouldn't just bid natural. Over Wk NT, double with top of the range 14+. What we play is you bid as if you overcalled a NT, since most people's runouts are the same as an opening 1N-Overcall. Play lebensohl, your penalty doubles etc are on. As for overcalls, we play a simple suction 2C bid and transfers. This way you can raise yourself if you have the one suited hand. We like getting our suit in immediately.

Bd 1: I double and bid spades several times until partner gets the idea. There is no reason that it can't go P-P-1S-All Pass, so I have to take an action. Bd 2: 1S. I assume that's forcing. Keep cuebidding until you stop.

Minor structure (ignoring NT) 1m-2m Raise (I tend to hold simple raises more often than most people) 2m+1 Constructive, promising shortness 2m+2 Constructive, denying shortness 2m+3 Limit+

I'm with the club return as well. Knock out West club control. Your spade is always coming and you can't give two ruffs with no outside entry.

OK. So a hand where my partner is concentrated in the minors with a 12 count I miss game. Isn't it just as likely or more likely that my partner will have useless cards in the majors. If partner is short in one of the majors, he can always take an action with his hand if appropriate anyway. It only works if you know partner has working cards. He must have Aces in the majors and help in the minor. what do you want to do when partner has KJxx QJxx Kxxx x Not sure you like your 5C now.

OK. I'm a dummy. Why should I bid with this hand? I am sitting with 1.5 defensive tricks and no spots in my suit. If the get to a major, it could be splitting badly and I have defense. I could get lucky and partner have a great fit for me, but why can't he have 1 or less clubs? If you force me to bid, I would bid 3C.

"You are correct that I know almost nothing about Ken's specific methods. As such I have been careful not to draw any conclusions about the merits of these methods from a bridge theory point of view. Yet you did by stating you would rather listen to other experts than him. I expect to read Ken's book one day. Maybe then I will offer my opinion on what I think. Even if I don't like Ken's ideas, for sure I expect that my opinion on the "natural vs cuebid" question will be more informed after I have read Ken's book." So now you are backtracking and making the statement that your opinion is uninformed. This is sometimes why I have problems with experts. Its the arrogance that I have a problem with. A courteous expert would not have dismissed Ken's theory, but would have said: A) Let me take a look. Maybe there is a point of validity to his theory or although that's not quite right, maybe I can use point X for something else. :) Maybe its not a bad idea, but I am comfortable with what I am using now. There may be multiple schools of thought and I am more comfortable with School A than School B. C) I have at least looked at it and it really does look like a crackpot theory (Not saying it is Ken) because of Point A, Point B etc. D) I don't have time to look at it since I am busy doing something else, I can't look at every person's possible theory. Therefore I won't make any comments on it. If someone took the time to do A-D, then maybe you wouldn't get panned. And if I ask someone "why should I do x?", most experts would have a reason. I would bet if you asked Jeff besides personal experience, you can continue the questioning "why would a suit contract be better than NT?". "Well, the reason to run xxx,xxxx,xxx,xxx is you have 0 tricks in a NT contract, at least in a suit there is potential for a 4-4 fit, ruff in a suit etc." So, accepting "because I said so" at face value still seems silly. Anytime I have had the time to ask for why do you do something, most experts would give me the reason. I forgot who the expert was. For example, he held KQ98x of a suit and led the Q. I was curious why not low? He explained to me that it depended on who you believed had the 4 card suit. I am trying to remember if its on your right its one way, left other. But the point was, the expert did explain his reason. Not because "I said so". We were in the Schenectady area when Lynn Deas was around and we were just learning and we asked if there was a problem raising a preempt with a singleton and the response was "The problem is if your partner has only a 5 card suit, and I know you guys do." Once again an explanation, not a because "I said so" I am not asking an expert to give me every reason for what he does, but even if he can't come with theory, he might say Here are two hands of what happens if you bid it one way versus the other. So, yes I do expect an expert to give me a reason "Why x may be better than y"

1♦-1H♥ 2N-3♥ 3♠-4♣ (Cuebid, we do cuebid Kings or Aces below games not singletons 4NT-5♦ (3 Keycards) 7♥ Same except I can't count 13 tricks with AKxx of diamonds. So 6♥ instead of 7.

Cuebidding vs Shaping Out. Very Interesting thread. I happen to be one of the few who had been have been playing cue-bidding at low levels for years with one partner and have not found a problem with it, even though some partners I play with prefer shaping out. I have no idea which is theoretically better, but I do believe no matter which way you play it, I can't believe there will be any significant statistical difference since judgement and good play will override the bidding as well. If I find a terciary squeeze to make 6 and get to 6, does that make the bidding better? I also don't believe a 24 board match will prove anything either way. As for Fred, I lose a lot of respect for people saying "Because I said so, or the expert next to me said so". I have not read Ken's book or claim his theory is right or wrong, but there is no reason it can't be right. Many people can come up with excellent systems who may or may not be that good (Not trying to offend you Ken) at actual play. You have never heard of a great coach who was a so-so athlete? Actually, it usually is the so-so athlete who becomes the coach since he knows he can't necessarily do it on talent alone, he is the guy who may not run really fast, but will hustle down the first base line on every play. Or even though he is not really fast, will steal the base when the pitcher isn't paying attention. That's the coach which says "I understand my players can't be your players straight up, so I have to figure out how I can get a theoretical advantage." So, I would say it is more likely for the superior system to come from an OK-Good player than the expert player because there is more of a need. As for the expert community, it seems to me that they don't always agree among themselves. Isn't that what the bidding articles are for in the Bridge magazine? If the expert community doesn't even always agree with what's right, how can you say I will go to the expert I trust? There may be other experts who make an entirely different bid. Does this make them wrong? No, just a differing of opinion. I tend to play around with systems I like as well. I run simulations and sometimes I will prove my hypothesis wrong, but I am at least willing to test my theories or other theories, rather than assume the expert is always right. I am sure there are many conventions which are now mainstream because someone took the time to prove that their system or conventions (Stayman, Blackwood) were more useful than the bids used at the time.

Well, if the opponent has Jx opposite Axx. Don't want to give up trick 9 on opening lead.

I know I am late and already saw the answer, but why is 3N so clear cut? You have a 10 count, with no aces. The no fit with partner makes the call even worse since, you do not have any real source of tricks. How am I going to get to 9 tricks without hearts breaking well, which they probably don't since I don't think he has to have a solid suit.

GCC Rules: You may play artificial responses to any strong opening bid provided it shows >15 HCP. I have cleared this with ACBL directors. Currently, we have a system which is artificial for both 1C and 1D We play 1C (Shows 15-20 HCP, unbalanced hand) and 1D shows 3+ Hearts, 1H Shows 3+ Spades and denies hearts.

Here this is reasonable playing leaping michaels. 2♥-4♦-4♥-X-P-5♥-P-7♦ When partner bids 5H over 4H, he rates to have a heart void. You are sitting with the AK of his suit, AK of an outside suit and the KS. I do not think my partner has a heart.

Simulations are useful if you are trying to prove/disprove a point that may be useful later on. For example, the auction 1S-X-2S- when 4-3 in the minors with appropriate values should you bid your 4 card minor or bid 2N as choose a minor since 2N natural is very unlikely here. I always thought you should bid your 4 card suit, but after using the simulation, you get to the better fit more often by bidding 2N. Another one is with a weak hand and a 5 card major, should you rebid your 5 card major after 1N or how strong does your suit have to be to rebid it. But simulations are similar to PHD's in some instances, where the scope may be so narrow, it helps in 1 in a 1,000,000 hands. Also, in a simulation, you will NEVER be able to determine all of the factors since you can't account for every possibility.

While I don't agree with Meto's post, which is certainly not a good example with 5 tricks in hand, there is some argument to opening sounder than lighter in certain situations. In general, I don't think you gain by opening 1 of a minor light in most standard systems. Majors on the other hand, will be more preemptive and get you to game more easily. BTW, AKQJx, side Q is not light. I agree with many of the principles of ZAR points (I have a system based on some of his ideas), but the ability to double gets compromised if you do not promise Quick Tricks. For the most part, aggression works. That is why people play pre-emptive 2 bids instead of strong 2's. But there are plenty of systems where opening sound would work just as well. As for IMPS versus matchpoints, you don't have to compete as aggressively at IMPS because +50 versus +110 is not much of a difference, but you also don't have to worry about the fear of a double. So, it is probably about the same competing in partials. As for IMPS, we all know the rewards for aggression, especially vulnerable. While at matchpoints, the goal is just to beat most of the field, so bidding games in itself is not a reward unless most people are in it.

I'll work backwards. I think he has 4-3-6-0 hand or 4-3-5-1 with stiff AC. Let's say 3C isn't natural. His bidding indicates short diamonds, so he rates to have longer hearts. The other person's bidding has indicated 5 Hearts regardless of whether clubs showed clubs, since there was no support for the diamond suit. At most 2, chose to raise spades but not immediately so probably 3, Clubs rate to be short <3, therefore, Hearts have to be 5+.