lorserker

I find this kind of quite hard. When thinking about it, I would like to distinguish two cases: case (1) partner has the !SA case (2) partner does not have !SA in case (1) when p has !SA i expect to make most of the time (maybe 80%), but I think p will have the !SA just about 30% of the time. In the other 70%, case (2), I expect it to be harder to make as we have to build 3 tricks in the minors. Maybe i will be successful about 25% of the time when we miss the !SA So, the total chance of success i estimate 30% x 80% + 70% x 25%, which is just above 40%, indicating that we should pass. All the probabilities above I estimated from intuition. The question is how accurate they are. We can check it by simulation. Simulating, I gave south 16-18 hcp, at least six hearts and no side suit of four or longer; the results. - p is 55% likely to have !SA - when p has the ace, we are about 60% likely to make - without the !SA we make around 40% of the time - our total chance to make 4 is slightly above 50%, so we should bid Important takeaways: - the initial probabilities i came up with from intuition are very wrong - i figured p is less likely to have the spade ace because the opps have more spades than p, so they are more likely to hold that card. seems that i didnt consider enough the strength partner showed. - i overestimated my chances in the happy case (with the spade ace) - i underestimated my chances when we don't have the spade ace - it seems better to bid, but the decision is very close.

usually when i talk about system, i am happy if we can quickly agree that 2SHD are weak, so we can move on and talk about some other parts of the system. maybe playing 2D as stronger than 2C is also good, but then there is a lot to talk about responses, so i usually don't suggest this. is this strong 2d still used by many people? in natural, i think weak both majors is nice. in precision, a loose three-suiter which can contain 5431 and is short in diamonds is nice.

i think that everybody i know plays a) i live in slovenia

he had Kx AQTxxx Ax Axx

thanks for the answers. i passed like a chicken, making 5 :) it was mp, so it seems that it was not completely unreasonable.

i think both are forcing. in both sequences responder will have four hearts. the first sequence maybe shows a hand that does not want to be passed in a takeout double, something with little defence like: x qjxx xx kqtxxx, or possibly something with chances for slam. anyway, opener should not think too hard about this, he just be descriptive and let his partner figure it out.

i agree, i was just thinking if we can justify playing the ten of clubs at trick two. if it loses to the stiff queen, and hearts are cleared we can fall back on the diamond finesse. i guess it's just the question of which is more likely: west being void in clubs, or west having stiff queen plus diamond king i don't know :)

on trick two, if you run the diamond jack and it loses, how will you get a second entry needed to pick up the clubs if west has something like: Axx AJTxxx Kxxx -

the line of defence is quite strange. cashing one lonely ace, then caashing another lonely ace the switching back to the first suit. what does west try to achieve by cashing his spade ace? im suspicious. what is the most likely type of hand for west?

is 2NT (instead of 3C) lebensohl?

the question is also how to tackle the clubs. if you play A then 10 you won't be able to pick up the suit if east has four clubs.

i also have this tendency of making the "clever pass". i dont remember gaining big victories like this, only looking silly on several occasions. i still remember that 10 years ago i passed a forcing bid in a relay precision sequence playing with gwnn. the reason why i made an account on BBF is to poll about it because i thought it was clever :) another time, playing against a top international we all looked up to i alerted a bid, he asked, and i explained "forcing" after which i immediately passed. everybody looked very disappointed at the end. the pointis that if you are covered by the system it will not be your fault even if it's wrong. otherwise you will remember your "cleverness" for a long time :)

I voted 5♦, but I like 4NT. IMO 5♦ rates to be a better contract even if partner does have four hearts because partner is very likely to hold at least three diamonds. Going for the higher scoring major game is not as relevant after this auction, is it? and undertricks are scored the same way in both major and minors :)

[hv=pc=n&s=sj763hk98dq8543c2&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=3c3hp]133|200[/hv] Are we good enough for a raise? What range is standard for the overcaller to have here? Thanks :)

http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?d=e&n=sqt753hq9djtcat76&s=sk2hk74daq6ckj854&s=e&a=p1n2h2np3cp3sp3nppp We end up in 3NT after a Lebensohl sequence. West leads the ♥J and the queen from dummy holds while East plays the eight (standard count) How do you plan the play further?

Hi! If you are a complete beginner do this: 1. dont worry about understanding the "logic" of bidding, just learn a simple system (SAYC) by heart and start - the logic will become clearer later. 2. play a lot with the computer and take your time to think. also let the computer replay the hand, use undo a lot to check alternatives. Wbridge5 is a good program, but there are others, like GIB, etc. most of your training time should be spent on this point. 3. learn about cardplay technique - this will gradually increase the number of "moves" you are capable of making during your practice sessions. here you could use books, cds, teachers, the internet, whichever works for you - but go easy on this. 4. most importantly - don't give up. you will be quite bad at the beginning, the progress will not be very fast, but it's worth the effort. you'll have to invest at least a few months. When you graduate from what i described above you'll be a reasonably competent player, about average level if you are talented. Your bidding will still be a bit wooden, but no problem. You can find a partner who has some ambition to improve and an experienced mentor who can take you throuh some hands and make the thought process clearer. I hope this helps :)

3D

i would pass, i think. but now that you have given partner's hand in your other post, i have to bid 4S :)

2NT is a two-suiter with any two lower ranking suits X is takeout (similar to doubling a weak two) overcalls are natural over a direct double, partner's 2NT is lebensohl (like over weak twos) over a reopening double, partner's 2NT is scrambling showing at least two places to play

i think that 2h shows 5 hearts with some 8-11 points, or 6 hearts with some 6-9. the example hand is a bit too weak for a 3c raise, imo.

then it's even easier.

It would be very welcome to have the database of the hand records of all hands played by all players for all time available to download (or send a disk by mail if it's too big to download). I would pay for that.

After the cards are played, we put them face down in front of ourselves one after the other with a small offset. If the part of the table where we align the cards could read bardcodes, like the table of the lady at the supermarket, then the play of the hand could be reconstructed by the order in which the cards are put facedown. Usually cards already have barcodes needed by the dealing machine, we just have to add the barcodes on all four edges of the cards, not just the top.

I often have a feeling, an intuition or a thought both at bridge and outside of bridge. I can get quite convinced by these thoughts, but they are not always correct. If a thought happens to be wrong, i can usually immediately tell that it's wrong as soon as i try to articulate it into speech. It goes as far that if the thought is seriously flawed i start to stutter and can't really explain it :) The entire time the thought was not uttered, it was very convincing. I think that speech is tightly linked to logic. I'm not sure how the brain works in general, but i think that it often doesn't use logic. Logic is computationally too expensive. If i was talking in my head all the time when playing bridge i could play much better, but it would take very long to play a board :)

i would pass.