bill1157

Couldn't 3♥ ask for a ♥ stopper? i.e running ♣'s Bill

it is gerber if you are agreed "gerber over 1st and last nt"; it is a splinter if you have agreed to play it that way. But if you have to ask what it is, it has to be natural showing 5-5 and choice of 4 !h and 5!c. Bill

It is amusing, but this is where i found other discussion on EHAA (I just looked and there is some discussion of it in general and beginner too). The simplicity of it is what attracts me to it. It is another road to more effective bidding that doesn't require the memorization that most systems require to be effective. Bill

it looks like it is ok to open 1nt occasionally with 4-4-4-1, but if you do it every time you have that shape, it would be a problem. The club directors handbook suggests that if it comes up less than 1% of the time you open 1nt, it is ok. I imagine that if you limit it to 4-4-4-1 with singleton AK, or Q it would be that infrequent. Bill

is it legal to open 1NT with a singleton? Also, does it work well? I guess pass and then jump shift is a good idea, if you have a fit...

I have started playing ehaa with several partners and so far things look pretty good, with the exception that the 4-4-4-1 10-12 pt hand doesn't fit well anywhere, too weak for a 1 of a suit, not nt shape etc. How would people handle it? would it work to stretch to open 1-of-a-suit and hope for the best? I am playing 5 card majors, might i make an exception and allow an opening in a 4 card major for this hand? Any thoughts are appreciated! Bill

to hide answers would completely change the nature of the forums. Ideas develop bit by bit, discussions morph in various ways, new threads are created on top of old ones. I wouldn''t change it, so what if you have to skim over a couple more posts? Bill

I ♦ is the only opening that makes sense here, without special agreements there should be no disagreement about it. Bill

what about some examples of where the sos XX worked? Bill

So what would the invisible cue bid show here (1NT-(P)-4!d-(4!h)? Bill

What?! Surely you must be joking about SOS XX. guess its a different thread, but no i am not joking. What does XX mean? Pd i think we cant make the contract, lets try for something else (i have no good ideas) at a higher level.... Yes exactly. Seems very convenient to me. If you think it has no upside then you have been living on a different planet than I have. I live on Neptune (See my profile on BBF) and we neptunians find the SOS XX extremely valuable! Maybe the martians have something against it? :rolleyes: i guess the sos XX is a sacred cow, just trying to stimulate a little thought... Bill It's not "sacred" but there is nothing to replace it and it's such a valuable tool. I don't know about your partners, but mine open very very light on their weak 2's meaning that an SOS XX comes up quite often... It has taken us from -1100 to -100 or even sometimes making! I'm not sure what you are suggesting in place of it... In fact there was just recently a thread about whether buisness XXs are valuable where Frances posted a beautiful explanation of why they are not. hey i looked up the thread, very good btw. BUT... she talks about when the business xx is worthwhile, nothing about the sos xx. Bill

ok, now that is some worthwhile commentary, thanks

What?! Surely you must be joking about SOS XX. guess its a different thread, but no i am not joking. What does XX mean? Pd i think we cant make the contract, lets try for something else (i have no good ideas) at a higher level.... Yes exactly. Seems very convenient to me. If you think it has no upside then you have been living on a different planet than I have. I live on Neptune (See my profile on BBF) and we neptunians find the SOS XX extremely valuable! Maybe the martians have something against it? :rolleyes: i guess the sos XX is a sacred cow, just trying to stimulate a little thought... Bill

What?! Surely you must be joking about SOS XX. guess its a different thread, but no i am not joking. What does XX mean? Pd i think we cant make the contract, lets try for something else (i have no good ideas) at a higher level.... Bill

the striped tailed ape X is almost as worthless as the SOS XX. Big downside, almost no upside. Bill

I think randomizing works terribly in poker (at least nl holdem) but probably works well in bridge (long team games and rubber bridge). Having said that, what works for Zia may not work for the rest of us, or may not work except in a $1/pt rubber bridge game. He gets by with alot because people probably cave in when they play against him. Bill

Fred is (as usual) dead on on his points. I do think though that bidding is what separates bridge from spades etc. I am working with my wife and another couple on learning bridge. We have been bidding (natural altogether) and they can see how it works. After several sessions i made the remark that now the next step is to get to game when it is appropriate, i.e. develop bidding judgement. Maybe take-out X's next and later we will get into slam bidding. Also, again i will say: simplify the scoring also: you dont need vulnerability to make the game enjoyable and rewarding.(and popular) Bill

Having read most of the posts here, i have an idea for a TV show on Bridge. The show would be called: "Poker Beauties Learn to Play Bridge" and would star Shannon Elizabeth, Vanessa Russo and 2 other Poker beauties, with commentary by Phil Gordon. The ladies would start out playing mini-bridge (maybe add a slam bonus to spice things up, and the partial could be a minimum of 8 tricks rather than 7). Score 400 for bidding and making game, 900 for bidding and making slam, 150 for partscore. Also, undertricks and overtricks are counted only if X or XX. Do a pilot or 2 on you-tube and see how it goes! Bill

for favorite nt range it should be split somewhat close to 50%-50% between 10-12 and 10-13 (i prefer the latter because i don't need things to be quite so precise). kBoth ranges are truly a blast. I have played 10-13 with one pd (combined with undisciplined weak 2's: sort of EHAA i guess) and have had wonderful results with it, and so far (approx 200 deals, havent gotten a bad result. I know, don't try it in the spingold etc... 3rd/4th seat we use 12-15 nt, since 1st/2nd passes limit the hand more or less to 9 hcp max. Bill

I am surprised no one has mentioned the DVD set of "Championship Bridge with Charles Goren" {a tv series froms the 50's/60's}. I got sets for my wife (who is now decided she wants to learn bridge) and for my brother and another couple who are all learning and playing rubber bridge with us some. The show is pretty good, has great players and celebrities (Chico Marx strikes me as the worst bridge player of all time). Anyway that might give you some ideas for a future TV show. Bill

yes obviously there are several very good ways to do it. If it is 1 table, 4 hands per round it would be 12 hands (play everyone else as pd once). the 2 table imps, though is probably close to what you have already on BB? Bill

2♣. transpose the ♥'s and ♣'s and 1♠ is right Bill

and yet you comment...

Actually, if the self rating took on more of the way a person plays bridge rather than the "achievements" it might be a better indicator. i.e. it is less important how long a person has played than how much: 1 year 24 hands per day is much better than 5 years once a week etc. As an example i might rate advanced as: I regularly count the hand as it is played and can draw inferences about location of important cards. intermediate: Playing live bridge, if i had pulled out accidentally 9 cards instead of 13, i would notice my error before trick 9. etc. Bill

No, not quite: this would be a money game so: each player buys in for say $5 (+.025 for the site), and in a 1 table sng play starts as soon as 4 players sign up. 4 deals, then partners change, 4 deals, then partners change again so each player has played with each of the other 3 once and against each twice. At the end, the scores are summed and the prize pool is paid out. This would be an alternative to the money games where robots are currently playing 2 or 3 of the 4 compass positions. My suggestion on the score is that vulnerability be dropped, since it doesn't serve a purpose in 4 deal bridge anyway (or at least not a necessary purpose), also if you don't score overtricks, for example, it greatly speeds up the play. Bill So you play a 1 table tournament with 4 boards per round 4 rounds and Chicago / Rubber scoring. Mor tables wont make a lot of sense, since, the above scenario already assumes, that 16 boards get played without interruption. The main problem is, how to protect the players against cheating. The robots scenario ensures, that there is no way to cheat, since only one human sees the cards. With kind regards Marlowe The cheating issue, while important, may be over emphasized. I believe that if you want to cheat badly enough, you will find a way even against the robots. A little monitoring (could be lookiing for people playing at the same table repeatedly, etc.) would probably catch most cheating in this format. What you would really need is enough players involved so that players couldn't hook up with other cheaters at the same table so easily. I have tried out the robot money game (fun-money only) and i dont find it nearly as good as playing against real people (although it does have its own appeal). Bill