mtvesuvius

2♣ seems right, when I was given this hand as a problem, the first thing I thought of was 2N... lol Having actually considered this a bit, it's a pretty easy 2♣, and definitely not enough for 3♣.

Always 2♥, as Jlall said.

Pass... despite my bad spots, I think this is certainly good enough to defend, and if I can get partner to find a Diamond switch early in the hand, my spots may not matter much. The problem becomes a bit more interesting when after partner reopens, one of the opponents run to Hearts...

LOL

Me and 3 other juniors just finished playing a match against Garozzo, we lost by 2. Of course there were a few other missed opportunities, but this one stood out the most. With the score 47-44 in your favor, on the last board you hold: xxx Txx AK9xx xx Red/Red, LHO (Valerie Westheimer) opens 1♣, partner bids 2♣ michaels, and RHO (Lynn Deas) passes. You bid 2♥, which nets 3♣ from LHO passed back to you. (1♣)-2♣-(P)-2♥ (3♣)-P-(P)-? What is your bid?

=)

Oh, the horror, how dare he ever lead a singleton? Everybody makes mistakes, being an expert or WC by no means exempts you. In individual tournaments you have no choice who your partner is anyway, so it is completely irrelevant what partner's posted skill level is, you have to play with them anyway. In a pairs tournament, you do have a choice who your partner is, so this is irrelevant. If it's not popular with the public, BBO won't implement it. In general, if the public doesn't like something, it won't be used or done. I am not a programmer, and I think such a system is possible... But is certainly not one of BBO's biggest worries right now, if ever. Although possible, it really wouldn't be popular, and then the trouble of what to base the rating upon etc comes about. It's just plain illogical for them to implement it currently.

This again?

Are you seriously suggesting that there is no hand on which opener should bid 2♣? No I am sure I will eventually run across one but in most cases I think pass should be the first option. Again that assumes XX does not guarantee 3 card ♥ support but is instead meant as "this is our hand" x KQJxx xx KQJxx seems like a good example, although even this is a bit extreme. Something like x AQxxxx Qx KJxx is a possibility. I suppose the best example would be something like xx Jxxxx x AKQJx B)

Oops, I forgot to wish all the Walddks a happy birthday... hmm... 12 more threads or something? :)

6♠ is cold Ah, yes. I looked at this too short, sorry. I still wouldn't want to be in 6 though. Of course 5♠ is optimal imo. I'll start from the beginning: LOL @ Pass from west. I would open 2♠ with the North hand. I would double 1♣ with the South hand. I think North is partially more to blame unless your partnership is conservative when pre-empting... I'd go with 55-45. I think that North has an easy 2♠ bid, and South has a relatively easy double, although it's a bit light, I think you keep spades in the picture a lot more when they may be the winning strain. I really don't think after 5♦, either hand can bid 5M unless North doubled first... And btw... Sorry about my original post, I just glanced at it, and missed everything at first.

The director is treating the 1NT overcall as "Natural" and therefore needs to go back to class.

I'm a mover. Of course this is why you don't play regular Jacoby, but that's for another day. Given this is what we are playing, I think that partner can have Ax of a red suit or something... Of course this will be horribly wrong if partner has something like QJxxx QJ QJ QJxx, but I don't play bridge in fear. I think we have 5 level safety relatively often enough to make moving worthwhile here. Give partner Qxxxx Ax QJx Axx or another medium-min and we want to be in slam. It's the times when partner has the Q and or J♣ that we may get into trouble.

Nobody, I'm glad you gave the 9♥. 5♥ cannot make on best defense... and I would hope against contempt defenders they would find it.

Happy Birthday Roland, thanks for all you do for BBO and Vugraph! Hope it's a great day.

Exclamation points are not nearly as common. "??????????????????????" is by far the biggest moneymaker for BBO. I suggest that just like BBO$ and MB$ there should be QM$.

I'm boring, but I wouldn't try anything other than 4♥ on the first and transfer then 3♠ on the second. I really try not to play top and bottom bridge as much as I used to, and recently I have won several matches against excellent players by just playing solid and not taking many risks (of course this is IMPs, but still...). My matchpoint game is usually relatively solid, so taking top or bottom views for me isn't a very attractive option. Of course I don't always play well, and if you're in a big event looking for a win, then I would agree with your decisions.

To add to that, there isn't any benefit to bidding 4♦ instead of 4♣ here. Partner will correct 4♣ to 4♦ always, and you know partner's suit isn't clubs. The only possible reason to use 4♦ as p/c is to protect a tenace, but with a hand like this, not only is there no reason to want to protect your holdings, but often it is better to have partner declaring on hands like this, so the opponents at least have to guess partner's major lengths. The better use of 4♦ is to ask for Shortness as Josh said, which can be crucial on slam-going hands.

4♥! I like Ego-Bridge.

The trouble is you may control both :) I'll lead a small heart, although like Free, I want to lead a spade, but it seems the risks outweigh the possible gain.

4♣ now. The defense has at least 6 major suit tricks if they know how to find them, there isn't much reason to wait until 3NT is doubled to pull, it can only help the opponents.

I generally try not to downgrade any 8 counts, since like Justin said, the precision system in general is so much more effective when in a GF auction. I would certainly treat this as a GF, and I don't may stiff honors much attention when evaluating opposite a strong club opener... Since opener very often has cards in that suit, it is very rarely wasted. With these spots, any 7321 or even 6322 7 count I would probably GF on. Of course maybe not on a Qxxxxx Jxx QJ Jx or something. It just seems counterproductive to play precision and downgrade hands like this. This hand becomes interesting however with one of my partners. We have completely eliminated all minor suit transfers and instead use 1NT/2♣ as the beginning of a long relay for shape/size etc. In order to show this hand, the auction would go: 1♣ - 1NT 2♣ - 2♠ 2NT - 3♥ With 1NT showing 5+m Unbal positive. 2♣/2NT relays. 2♠ showing either 6♣ with a Major Void or 7+m. 3♥ shows 7+♣ This is a long painful auction just to show this hand, and I think playing this relay I may downgrade to avoid having to go through this horror (i.e. Relay fun) :(

I believe GiB's failure to make certain penalty doubles is that almost all doubles are defined as "takeout". Maybe this is a system card error, but when I make a Double of the oppenent's game or slam contracts, the double is explained as "takeout". GiB always leaves the doubles in anyway, but I'm wondering if this may have something to do with it...

An interesting thing I noticed when playing one of the ACBL Robot Duplicate tourneys... GIB plays the auction 1♠-1NT-3♣-3♠ as 10-11 HCP and 3♠. What does GIB do with other hands here?

4♥ seems good to begin with, but starting with 2♠ certainly has some merit. I think I'd probably bid 4♥ then 5♣, which seems like a good description. It's worth noting that with 7♣ and 5♥, then Michaels is correct, followed by 5♣.