Califdude

Assuming you are playing 2NT Jacoby Forcing, how do you interpret the 3D bid in this sequence? Is opener asking about a help suit, or showing shortness? 1♠-P-2NT-P 3♦ Thanks for your replies.

AWM, thank you very much for your clear and complete rundown on this subject. It should be appreciated by all who read it.

Assume SAYC. I understand that in response to partner's opening bid of one in a suit, a jump of one level more than minimum to a new suit indicates 17+ points and a 5+ card suit. This does not appear on my print of the SAYC card but I believe it is the common SAYC practice. If you do not agree I would appreciate having your comments. Playing in BBO with casual partners I've had misunderstandings, so here are some questions. 1. Partner opens 1♦. You have 17+ points, a 4-card major, and 5+♣. Do you give priority to one of the major or 3♣? 2. Partner opens 1♦. You have 17+ points, 5 clubs and a balanced hand with no 4-card major. Do you give priority to 3NT or 3♣? 3. Partner opens 1♠. You have 17+ points, 4 spades and 5+ ♣. Do you give priority to 2NT Jacoby forcing raise, or 3♣? 4. Partner opens 1♥, RHO bids 1♠. You have 17+ points and a 5-card suit. What would be your priorities between a cue bid of 2H, Double, 3NT with balanced hand and stopper in ♥, 2NT Jacoby forcing raise, or jump shift in your 5-card suit? 5. Do you agree that "overcall" means a bid by an opponent over an opening bid and that in the sequence 1♦-P-2♠ the 2♠ bid indicates 17+ points and should not be confused with a weak jump overcall as in 1♦-2♠? Thanks for your replies and patience.

Playing SAYC and no partnership agreement. White vs red. Partner opens 1♣ and RHO bids 1♦. What do you bid with this hand: ♠ Jx ♥ KJ10xxx ♦ KJ ♣ xxx Suppose Opps bid back and forth in ♦ , partner passing throughout, would you bid on to 3♥ competitively over 3♦ ? thanks for replies.

Assume partner opens 1NT 15-17 and opponent passes. 1. What is your minimum point count to allow a stayman 2C? 2. Holding a 5-card suit, do you play that a transfer bid requires a minimum point count? thanks for replies.

Thanks all for good replies. Not only did you respond re pot odds = risk analysis but you answered my earlier question because risk analysis as you've explained it leads to tactical bidding.

I try to think of interesting general questions to get the thinking of the experts here on broader concepts rather than individual hands. When I posed the question whether the concept of tactical bidding was in the bridge toolbox there was very little interest, so I guess the answer is generally, no. Today I'd like to ask whether expert bridge players have the concept of pot odds in mind. (For anyone not familiar with poker, having good pot odds refers to the situation where the ratio of the pot to be won to the bet needed to stay in, is greater than the odds of drawing a card that will essentially guarantee a win.) The application of this principle to bridge is inherent in a quotation from a bridge authority that I once read, referring to rubber bridge and assuming you bid rationally, "If you aren't going set half the time you aren't bidding enough." Makes sense with rubber bridge scoring where the game or rubber bonus vs a part-score gives you very good pot odds. So, do expert bridge players consider the pot odds when playing IMP's. Suppose a hand comes up in which you are very sure of making 2H, probably 3H, hence you have 140 points in hand. If you make game you will score 420 or 620 so the pot odds are attractive, 3 or 4 to 1. Do the favorable pot odds influence your decision whether to bid on? Does this question deserve a wtp answer? thanks for replies, as always.

Awkward bidding situations can arise when partner opens the bidding with a weak two-bid, opponents pass, and you have a void or singleton in partner's suit and a strong hand. How would you handle these sample hands? A, You are playing SAYC, which includes RONF for weak two-bids. B. You are playing Ogust. Partner opens 2D, opponents pass throughout. 1. ♠ AKxx ♥ K10xxxx ♣ AKx 2. ♠ AKxx ♥ KJxx ♣ AKxxx 3. ♠ AKXX ♥ AKxx ♦ x ♣ AKxx Thanks for your replies.

Got it, thanks, Cascade.

How would you bid this one? ♠ AK109xxxx ♥ x ♦ x ♣ K10x Partner deals. 1C-1H-2H-P 2NT-P-? Was my cue bid of 2H appropriate? Was there a better bid? Given the above what should have been my next bid? As always, thanks for replies.

Actually two related questions I'd like to ask of the expert players here. A. Do the players who post on this board play BBO tournaments, including the ACBL sanctioned tournaments on BBO? Almost never? Now and then? Frequently? B. Bridge columns occasionally report on situations in which international teams make tactical bids, by which I mean bids that they would not normally make but do so because they are down in the score and hope to catch up with a big score on the hand. These bids usually take the form of gambling stretches to game or slam, possibly played redoubled, sometimes gambling doubles of vulnerable opponents. (The bridge equivalent of what we call a Hail Mary pass in American football.) Assume I am playing in a BBO tournament with IMP scoring and with only two hands to go am not looking good. Do you think it is reasonable to make a tactical bid: 1. Playing as an individual. Do you see an ethical problem here in that if the bid fails I have dragged partner down with me? 2. Playing with a familiar pard. As always, thanks for replies.

What is your approach to Michaels in the balancing seat, as in 1C-P-P-2C or 1H-P-P-2H? Do you bid Michaels pretty much the same regardless of which seat you are in? Do you make this bid with a weak Michaels, i.g. 6-11 points? Would you be influenced by vulnerability? As always, thanks for replies.

Playing SAYC, what is the best response to a 1S opening by partner with these hands? I have in mind the general rule that 1S-2H indicates 5 hearts. 1. S xx H KQJ10 D xxxx C AQx 2. S xx H 98642 D AQ10 C AJX Thanks for replies.

In this sequence is the 3S bid considered non-forcing, invitational, or forcing? 1S-P-2H-P 3H-P-3S-P ? Thanks for replies. ;)

Given IMP scoring, what is the expert player's thinking about overtricks vs risk when playing part-score contracts? What would be your opinion of a strategy to invariably make the safest visible play to guarantee making the bid against any bad trump of side-suit break, basically giving up any thought to overtricks unless they are 100% risk-free? How would you characterize your general approach to taking some risk in order to make overtricks undoubled and in a part-score contract? As always, thanks for your replies.