kfgauss

Ah well, I had to post again sometime.

Not exactly what you asked, but a work around if it is illegal and/or if you want to bid it often: Perhaps you're supposed to say 3♥ "asks whether opener has 3 spades". Then there's no psyche (how do you psyche an asking bid?). Of course, you don't get the full effect of a psyche, as your opponents are never told it shows 4 hearts. Similarly, I don't think Stayman can be psyched. It's an asking bid.

I know they'll probably go up on the vugraph project site after the event, but is there some place to find the files while the event is still going on (does BBO save vugraph files for a brief time somewhere?)? Side question: Is there a way to find out who will be on vugraph when (or at least next)? Thanks, Andy

I consider non-serious superior (for non-disclosure reasons) not just at MPs, but also at IMPs as frivolous cuebidding sometimes leads to them setting your game. Andy

One could (and many do) play as you describe (3S = non-serious, 3N = spade cue). I play 3S = spade cue (serious or not), 3N = non-serious (denies spade cue). The two are reasonably equivalent in any case, and mostly it's done for ease (I don't tend to play 4S = kickback with hearts agreed either). Like playing kickback, playing non-serious 3S requires extra discussion. For example, what are 3S & 3N on the auction 1S-2H;3H-? (I'd want 3N non-serious and 3S natural even if I played non-serious 3S usually)? Andy

Pass doesn't look right, and so, not really wanting to make the underbids of 2♦ or 2♥, I'll bid 2NT -- in competitive auctions, notrump rebids can be somewhat offshape. 3♥ has some merit, but I don't think one should jump raise with three -- I'm closer to 2♥ than 3♥. For those who bid 2♠, this is (generally played as) game forcing. Andy PS. I fail to understand jillybean's "clear but boring" 2♣ -- perhaps it's a typo?

While what you write is very relevant to the discussion, I feel obliged to point out that the opening bid was 1♥ and thus making 2♦ show 5 only requires 2♣ with 3 (and only 3-3-4-3 distribution), unless, of course, they also play Kaplan Inversion (ie 1N shows 5 spades) and thus must bid 2♣ on 4-3-4-2 as well (in addition to 4-3-3-3 and 4-2-4-3). Andy

A pleasant bridge-like 2 player game I like is: 1. Shuffle and place the deck between you. 2. One player draws a card and either a. discards it face down and takes the next card (which must be kept), or b. keeps the card and discards the next one face down (neither player gets to see it) 3. repeat step 2, alternating turns, until all cards are used up (you'll have 13 cards each) 4. Bid & play "bridge" (use rubber scoring preferably). (So two cards per trick, opening leader is the defender, etc.) ---- This game has some similarities to bridge and stresses certain skills (e.g. endplays and strip-squeezes are very important), and it's also fun. Andy

Weren't you of the opinion in my thread that pass over a double of 2♦ shows extras? Why is this different (we're still below 2♠)? (I'm not necessarily taking issue with your conclusions on this hand, just trying to clear up this murky situation.) Of course, on this hand, we should be able to ask our opponents how they play it. Andy We are speaking of different auctions. After the cue bid advance gets doubled, passing out the auction is impossible: the overcalling side is not about to play in the cue bid. After opener bids 2♥ over the cue bid, the force is off on the overcaller. So the bid of 2♠ after the double can (and usually is, at least in my part of the world) played as the weak bid. But after the 2♥, again in my part of the world, overcaller can show the worst hand via pass, reserving 2♠ as a real overcall, albeit not a strong hand. Could one play the two situations identically? I can see why one might, but that is not the common expert approach in the Pacific NW of NA... and I can't really speak for elsewhere since, while I have played with and against a lot of players from elsewhere, I have not discussed nor recall seeing this auction on those occasions. I've always played that 2♦ sets up a force through 2♠ and so you're not allowed to let them play 2♥. (If geography is of interest here, I've played in new england and northern california mostly.) Andy

Weren't you of the opinion in my thread that pass over a double of 2♦ shows extras? Why is this different (we're still below 2♠)? (I'm not necessarily taking issue with your conclusions on this hand, just trying to clear up this murky situation.) Of course, on this hand, we should be able to ask our opponents how they play it. Andy

I'll be there for most of the tournament, starting Saturday for the collegiates (playing for Berkeley). I'm 6', have curly hair, and am 25. See you there! Andy

The story on this hand is that I jumped to 4♠, liking my diamond shortness given lefty's now real diamonds and thinking partner probably has a bit extra for his pass. It turned out partner had Qxxxxx xxx KJx x and they doubled, taking the first five tricks plus the ♠K still to come. (Note to protect my partner: he'd simply decided to take some very swingy/experimental actions, starting with this board. You needn't comment on his bidding.) The story doesn't mean much, and mostly I was wondering how my hand evaluation was opposite a real overcall. The other interesting point, though, is that I'm not so sure pass should promise values in retrospect. I like to play that when we've found a fit, pass shows extras, but when we haven't found a fit (more clear in the auction 1D 1S P 2D; X when playing NF advances), I think pass should probably deny much to say and bidding should be descriptive and show mild extras at least. Any opinions? Andy

You pick up, 4th seat red vs white, imps: A1083 9864 8 KQJ10. 1D* 1S X 2D X** P P ? *: precision, 2+ **: you ask and get the explanation "penalty" What now? [Edit: regarding any questions, your partner is a good player, but you have no agreements.]

4th seat, white vs red, you hold: AK3 AK9 5 KQ10964 P P P 1C 1D P 2D X P 2S 3D ? A. Do you agree with double? B. What now? Andy [Edit: I forgot to add the form of scoring in case you care. This is imps.]

I play with some partners that over a game try you're supposed to bid 3NT with an accept, to leave room for partner to show a slam try. (We use 3NT so it can't be doubled for the lead.) We use 3S in these sorts of sequences as a general (power) try. Andy

I don't actually agree with this. What about: Ax AKx AQJxxxx x and many other similar hands (make the hand slightly better if you're comfortable bidding 3D on this). I'll note that I think this hand bids 2H and follows that up with 3C. Andy

Silly me, I swapped clubs and diamonds... opener's hand was in fact: AQxx AQx Qxx AJx. This makes slam prospects a bit better, with K10xxx xx x KQxxx making for a cold slam, for example. I do like the 2NT asking suggestion, but I don't really think 2S denies 6 spades (I don't want to feel obligated to open a weak 2 for fear of losing my ability to fit jump, but maybe this is the sort of thing that depends on your weak 2 style). Andy

Not to seem crazy by continually arguing against this bid even though it both works well on this hand and is the choice of almost everyone else, but: 1. 3♥ immediately would be GF 2. 2N..3♥ is a good way to bid non-GF hands with 4 hearts, but... 3. If partner is 3-3 in the majors you'll really have preferred to have rebid your spades if you're 5-4, followed by bidding hearts. (Possibly the spade fit is findable over 2N..3H anyways, though, in which case that's the way to go presumably, and my ramblings are crazy.) Andy

You make a good case for 3♥. If partner expects a 5♠-4♥ hand, though, you'll essentially never get a 3♠ bid on a doubleton honor or a 3N bid unless partner happens to have only 3 hearts too. It does seem reasonable to play that it can be only 3 and have partner originally account for that (you then correct to 4♥ if you actually had 4). There is a slight flaw in this plan, though: partner may have had only 3♥ (I get queasy when either partner can have 3!). Then you can't afford to correct over partner's 3NT, e.g., when you do have 4. (Yes, it won't be so terrible and will sometimes be right, but it won't always, or really even most of the time, be right. When it is right, you'll likely find it if 3♥ promised 4 anyways.) Of course, maybe this is not so big an issue and finding the correct place to play on hands like the one above is more important. Andy

Mike -- we play that 2S is unlimited. Not sure what's best, but that's how we play. Theo -- 3C was GF. Also, why bid 3H with only 3? Last round 3H would've been GF, and a non-GF hand with 4 hearts but without 5 spades would bid 2N..3H, and a non-GF hand with 4 hearts and 5+ spades would probably bid 2S..3H. I'm not sure it's reasonable to bid 3H on this auction without 4, but apparently this opinion is in the minority. Andy

Given the replies, I'll add something else to ponder: What does 4H now mean? (Or for that matter, most of my other possible bids.) ---------- Also, Winstonm seems to have missed that 3C was an (artifical) generic GF. Andy

You hold, all red at imps in 4th seat: AQ75 AQ2 AJ6 Q75 With opps silent, partner passes, and: P - 1C; 2S* *: fit jump A. Do you think 3S now should be forcing? B. If 3S is NF, what do you bid now? Andy [Edit: Our style is for 2S to promise constructive values, but not necessarily invitational values. For example, K10xxx x xxx KQxx would be fine. Also, 2S is forcing, and higher spade bids would not be fit jumps.] [Edit 2: Actually, opener's hand was AQ75 AQ2 Q75 AJ6 and I was silly and alternated colors for everyone's viewing ease (I'm so nice).]

Playing imps at favorable, you pick up (in 3rd seat): K107542 Q98 -- A653. Partner opens: 1D - 1S 2H - 2S 3C - 3S 4D - ? What now? Feel free to comment on previous bids as well, but in any case try to give an opinion on the current bid as well even if you disagree. Notes: Style is mostly standard, 3C just a generic GF. Andy

I like: 3N = choice of games 2N = slammish, balanced so essentially reversed from the suggestion you found, yes. I hadn't thought about rebids over 2N, but your suggestion sounds reasonable (or even better something with a bit of artificiality to allow us to show various things at lower levels perhaps, if you want the memory strain). Most of my current partners like to use the 3-level bids (ie 2M+1 through 3M-1) as over 1M-2M (we use 2-way game tries) and so 2N is subsumed in this (but 3N is still cog). I prefer a scheme where all game tries start with 2D (and then responder can bid 2M or make his own 2-way game tries, and then over 1M-2C;2D-2M, again we have 2-way game tries) and the 3-level is slammish and natural myself. Andy

There are issues with clicking on the bid too -- then your partner has UI that you asked a question. (I suppose if you click on it instantly then your partner won't know whether the explanation was given in response to a request or not.) Anyways, in f2f bridge you can't hide who's asking the question from the opponents, but e.g. behind screens partner won't know when you're asking a question (and without screens, the fact that you asked is UI). Andy