rogerclee

:P

Agree with this, and I want to add that I would respond with a yarb, but this hand has just enough so that I don't think we are stealing, but not enough so that I think game is likely at all to make. Also want to add that I think the south hand is about a queen away from opening 2C.

I think everyone would call this a max 1N opener without the T9 of clubs. So...

I once had the auction go (1♦) 1N (P) ? ; 1♦ = precision, 2+ With me having 9 diamonds.

IMPs, w/w AKxxx ATxx Qx Jx 1S 2D 3C P ?

Obviously on average, 4S will work out very badly when partner has a good hand with hearts and/or a spade void. I would not let one hand deter me from what I think is a very winning style (opening 4M aggressively).

Pass seems completely bizarre to me. If partner has a penalty pass of course we want to double, because we are happy to defend 1Hx and can still be on for 3N. If partner doesn't, it's not like we're going to instantly go for a number, and it's not like they judge perfectly; often we will end up pushing them to 2D or 2H or something, which is fine, given that I expected them to make 1H anyway (under the condition that partner did not have a penalty pass). I guess I just don't see what's scary at all about doubling, while I am really scared partner has a big hand with hearts stacked.

3D and 4H Edit: I prefer 4H on the first hand on second thought. Meh, no strong opinion.

What does the last bid mean in each of these auctions? I was surprised there was so much variance in the answers I got. 1S 2N P 3S P 3N 1S 2N P 3S P 4m 1S 2N P 3S P 4C P 4D 1S 2N P 4D 1S 2N P 3S P 4m P 4H As a bonus, how would you bid these two hands after west opens 1S void xx Jxxxx AT9xxx QJx AKQx AKxxx Q

I want to add that "bidding around the shortness" is a very 80s/90s concept that has fallen out of favor for a variety of reasons. First of all sometimes the auction does not always go your way. For example: 1D-1S 3C-3S Now of course you cannot "jump" to 4S so you never end up showing your hand. Also another big difference is that if you play splinters, you get to show your hand below 4M. This is very important, since it gives partner the ability to show a slam try without committing to slam. For example: 1H-1S 3C-3H 4S-? Partner has shown diamond shortness with spade support, and you have Qxxxx Ax xxx xxx. Are you on for slam? Maybe, but we had a very easy plan over a diamond splinter (4H cuebid and respect partner's decision), but now we are in a much more dangerous spot.

maggieb posted something similar over the auction 1C-1H; 2C-2S in a previous thread which seemed like a good idea to me. I think it was something like: 1m-1H 2m-2S 2N = minimum (3C asks shortness) 3m = max, balanced 3om/3H/3S = max, shortness

It is common among good American 2/1 players to play that: 2S = single raise (12-14 balanced most frequently, can have shortness, something like AKxx xxxx Q KQxx would be a maximum 2S raise IMO) 3D/3H = invitational splinters (you can also throw in extremely strong splinters into these bids) 3S = 18-19 bal, or a hand worth the equivalent (I would bid 3S with AKxx xx xx AKJxx and AKxx K KQx Qxxxx), not forcing 4C = 6+C, 4+S, extras but not extremely strong 4D/4H = splinter, slam try 4S = better than 18-19 balanced but doesn't want to splinter. common hands would be strong 4225 hands as well as 4135 hands that don't want to splinter You might ask why you would not want to force to game with 18-19 balanced and 4 card support. Well, these days it is very common for people to respond on sub-minimum values, and anyway most 6 counts and some 7s shouldn't accept the invite, and your slam auctions are also better when you have shown your values at the 3 level rather than the 4 level.

I meant that 1C should be clubs or 17-19 bal and 1D should be diamonds or 11-13 bal, rather than the other way around. The main reasons for this are your transfers in response to 1C as well as the extra step you have over inverted minor auctions. I'm not sure about the impact on 1D-2C auctions that playing this will have, and in general if it has any effect on how you should play 1C-2D, etc. Of course you could play that you open 1C with all balanced hands, but then you wouldn't be doing anything weird.

I've been fooling around with an opening bid structure that includes Fantunes-style 2M openers (10-13, 5+M, not 5332). However I'm having a hard time finding what they play in response to 2M in detail. Does anyone have a link to what they play, or alternatively have their own suggestions? The entire structure is 1C/1D = natural (15-19 bal or unbalanced) 1M = 14+ 1N = 11+-14 bal 2C = strong 2D = multi 2H/2S = 10-13, 5+M, not 5332 General comments are also appreciated. I am considering playing this only in 1st/2nd seat and/or only NV as well. Also in principle I am not opposed to always opening 1C with the balanced hands and making 1D always unbalanced--thoughts on this?

IMO, it seems better to put the strong balanced hands into 1C and then play transfers in response to 1C. 3145 and 1345 minimums can be ugly opposite transfers to hearts or spades respectively, but thats always been a problem, and a possible bandaid might be to just open 1D on 3145/1345 minimums. I think it would be good to play that breaking the transfer to 1N shows 17-19 balanced. Also with regard to inverted minors, I would definitely want to play a method that allows me to stop in 2N opposite a 1D opener (or whichever one can be weak and balanced). After 1C-2C I would play 2D shows 4+D and responder can keep bidding the cheapest step to ask, which actually seems to be able to time out pretty well unless I'm missing something.

To call you "in the minority" would be an understatement. If I disagreed with virtually 100% of expert 2/1 players on the value of a bidding agreement, I would hope that I would be able to reconsider my position.

I think 2C would be unanimous, so post the next round of bidding please.

They may be well on the way, thanks largely to Patty Tucker. The new youngest life master (9) Richard Jeng, and his brother Andrew Jeng (12), apparently have completely non-bridge playing parents. They learned exclusively through the Junior bridge program in Atlanta. I also have non-bridge playing parents and learned completely from various people who took an interest in me.

I don't think the 2/3 odds people are using for a 3-2 heart break are accurate, since LHO chose to make what looks like a passive lead rather than a possibly stiff heart. With the ♣A he probably wouldn't try a heart, but without it he certainly might. Also I'm not sure why my opponents are so good that I would credit them to play their heart spots randomly if I play a heart to my king at trick two (though either our heart spots aren't given or we are missing precisely QJT98).

w/r imps void AKT9xx AKQ8xx Q 4S P ? Partner is me, who opens 4M on an extremely wide range of hands (some 13s with 7 spades).

r/r imps 9xxx Axx Ax Axxx P P 1C 1N X 2D P 2H P P ? 2D = xfer Theoretically I think doubling 2D should just say you had a real opener, but you weren't playing that. Also your opps don't play 2-suited runouts or anything. edit: fixed everything

Are you trying to conclude that this is due to some sort of bias? I don't inherently see any evidence from this. Is your implication that talented young women who show promise don't develop as players because less-talented men are favored? If so, as someone who has been through the fairly rigorous process of trying to come up with the best possible teams to play in junior events, I can tell you that skill level and talent are the only traits under consideration. As far as I can tell, IMO, for the past few internationals, the U26/U28 team has been as strong as possible (more or less, "strong as possible" is of course incredibly subjective). Is this a reference to the rule that if a junior teams wins a world championship outright, they are entitled to play for USA1 the next time around if eligible? I don't even understand what possible pro-male bias could be inherent in this rule. You seem to think that the absence of women is a problem for junior bridge. Maybe it is, but I am more concerned with the team being as good as possible every year. Due to the overwhelming percentage of young bridge players being men, it happens that most years it is an all men's team. Are you arguing that there was anyone except Justin/Kevin/Joel/Johnny/etc who was even remotely as qualified to play as USA1 during the string of medals for America? If not, are you arguing that the team should have just been worse to accommodate much lesser players who happened to be women? Just look at their successes, both as juniors and as reputations for being some of the best open players period. I thought this would be proof enough for anyone that the USA junior program works, and I think they would agree that the junior program was instrumental in making real players out of them. Anyway I am hoping Debbie Rosenberg at some point can weigh in on this, since she can probably speak from first-hand experience from a different point of view.

4C for me, maybe I downgrade for doubleton heart too much on these auctions, but if my opponents are "somewhat crazy" this definitely seems like a good reason to me.

What? Adam it would not surprise me at all if someone in the ACBL junior program at some point was treated poorly because she was a woman. However it would surprise me if what you heard was said in complete seriousness, rather than just a bad/crass joke taken the wrong way, but let's assume that what you said is true for the moment. As far as I can tell you do not have first hand knowledge of the way the ACBL junior program is run, while it would be safe to say that me and many of my friends do. The volunteers and coaches and captains of the USA junior teams change every year. When you make inflammatory statements like you do without first-hand knowledge of the way things currently are (or were) in the ACBL junior program, you detract from all the great efforts made by people like Jan Martel, Ron Smith, Howard Weinstein, etc. who as far as I can tell have done nothing except their best to promote junior bridge and really have a positive impact on people like me. Maybe in the past there was one, or even multiple, bad coaches who were biased or unqualified for their positions in some way or another, but from what I've seen in the last few years, the ACBL junior program does not have any of the problems you seem to think it has. I am not saying it's perfect, but it is hard to criticize it, given that much of the work is done essentially by volunteers. I think it is unfair for you to continue disseminating the idea that the ACBL junior program is corrupt or biased in some way against women. In my opinion it is not.

1. fred 2. uday 3. reisig 4. ritong 5. nickf