Jlall

Don't bid game, you have already shown your values. What 655321 said is absolutely right. FWIW most experts play a X here as penalty. I am assuming you and your partner have agreed for it to be takeout, which is fine as long as you have that agreement.

I was going to say a book could easily be filled discussing this topic, but I think I was wrong...it would take several books. I don't even know how to give general rules on this, but here are a few, keeping in mind a negative double is 1x by partner, and then an overcall of something on your right. 1) If ONE major is unbid, a negative double shows 4+ cards in the unbid major (except 1m 1H X which shows EXACTLY 4 spades). If you have more than 5+ cards in the unbid major and choose to make a negative double, you have less than enough values to bid that suit at the lowest level (less than 10 if thats the 2 level, less than a good 11 if thats the 3 level). 2) Over 1C 1D, a negative double shows 4 cards in BOTH unbid majors. 3) Other than 1C 1D, if TWO majors are unbid, a negative double promises 4 cards in at least ONE unbid major. However, if you don't have both majors, you have support for partner's minor so that you can correct back to it if partner bids the wrong major. 4) Negative doubles at the 1 level show about 6+ points, at the 2 level about 8+ points, at the 3 level about 10+ points. 5) If both majors are bid, a negative double shows both minors 6) A negative double is NOT made with support for partner's major, but should be made with support for partner's minor. Majors first. 7) You should play negative doubles through at least 4D. 8) All of what I said has many exceptions, and are just very basic guidelines.

Clee gave me a good hand, I played it differently than declarer...and declarer was Balicki aka god. I am not sure which line is better, so figure I'd post it. [hv=n=skqxxxht9xxxdxxcx&s=saxhadaktxcakjtxx]133|200|[/hv] Assume x = smallest card. You are in 6C on the fast HK lead, but you had a very slow auction. Auction was: 2C 2S 3C 3H 3S 4H 6C I will post Balicki's line and my line later after some people have responded. Some hidden stuff: If you choose to ruff a diamond at some point: . If you choose to ruff a heart at some point: If you choose to play AK of clubs at some point: edit: fixed hidden stuff

Since you are the one making the final decision, and partner has defined his hand very tightly while you have not, you should be thinking of what he has shown not what you have shown. He has shown 18-19 balanced without 4 hearts and at least 4 diamonds. So you have 24-25 HCP. To many, that is already game vulnerable at imps. I don't think you'd do too badly doing all 24 HCP games red at imps when the alternative is two NT (note it's a big difference than the alternative being 1NT, because you are only costing your side 3 imps some of the time that you go down rather than 7), and I think you would be doing TERRIBLY to be playing 2N with 25. But on top of that, you have ATx of partner's long suit which is very positive. Your honors being in diamonds rather than hearts is a GOOD thing, not a bad one, you fit partner well and if a heart lead is the killer they're unlikely to find it. You also have the possibly useful 987 of hearts, and possibly useful S9. Against that, you are not really all 24-25, because partner will probably upgrade the top 10 % of his 17s and 19s, and never downgrade, but whatever... as jdonn said they pay a game bonus :)

None that I know of based on how people say them (seems random). Maybe there's actually some difference though...dunno.

Actually, the sim results say the opposite : a diamond (10.49) is slightly worse on average than a club (10.45) DD, but the margin of error is significant enough that it's possible a diamond is better. (Higher avg # of tricks is bad for the defense, not good.) Misread this, thanks, I was actually quite surprised that a diamond lead came up better double dummy, so this makes sense :)

or bid 3N 5332 choice of games, that is a frequent one. It is probably worthwhile to define the other bids, some people play 2C then 4M as 5332 quant rather than 4N, but I prefer that as light slam try requiring a perfect hand (controls, doubleton, third trump, source of tricks being the thing you look for). In general with the slam try hands you might do better just bidding 2D at imps when you have KJx of partner's minor, but at MP information leakage is going to be really important.

2C then 4N, 5332 quant. At imps I would just bid 2D though.

Perhaps it's just semantics and you have different standards for "simple."

I don't believe this you must have ego thing to be a good player. I think that: 1) People who are good are very likely to be smart and competitive. 2) People who are smart and competitive are likely to have egos. This is for obvious reasons. 3) The population of good bridge players that have a big ego is no different than the population of smart+competitive people that have egos. The fact is, most people have ego for a reason. Sure it may be inflated, but it is completely backwards to say something like "The top 100 players in the world all have ego, ergo ego is necessary to become one of the top 100 players in the world." More like they all have ego because they have been able to achieve a level that very few people can, and because they probably have succeeded in other areas of life because they are smart and capable and have good work ethic (obviously, since bridge takes so long to get good at), and because they have been looked up to on their rise up the bridge world, and because they are looked up to now...etc etc etc.

The sim constraints you are running are very biased towards a spade lead fwiw. They do not contain any hands where LHO is 4-4 majors. They also don't consider 5332 with 5 hearts. Of course this will vary widely based on who your opp is, but I often bid 3N with either 4-4 majors or 5332 majors (well, I have a bid that shows 5332 in my preferred methods without info leakage, but not playing that I often bid 3N). A spade is gonna cost a lot more when LHO has 4. Still, looks like a spade is best.

I would guess that in practice a club blows a trick way way way more often which is not represented by double dummy, like when partner has Jxxx etc. Double dummy analysis does not account for a club lead picking off partner all the time because it plays...double dummy. Also, if the entry position is tenuous in dummy, and you lead dummy's long suit, you may blow tricks by force in that layout, like dummy having QTxxx of clubs and one entry, and partner having KJx, or dummy having A9xxx of clubs and 1 entry, and declarer having Qx(x) etc. The fact that double dummy likes a diamond better than a club shows in my mind that a diamond is going to be much better lead (which also backs my initial judgment that a diamond is much better than a club). Then there is the fact that I think leading either minor will get your jacks picked off very often against a good opponent since a doubleton club and a diamond are so bizarre. Of course double dummy doesn't notice this :) This is a big mark for leading a spade. edit: Somehow I didn't see Eugenes post above Gnasher, apologize for basically saying what he did.

Hi Debbie, Nice post. WRT players opting not to be placed on a list in which they are eligible, I think this is legal in the ACBL because I remember someone winning the Richmond trophy (Canadian race) like a million times in a row before opting to not be placed on the list anymore. IMO at the time, I felt like people should not be able to opt out of being on a list. I think the races should be for the fans and for accurate record keeping more than anything, but I respect that that is how the rule is right now, and as such people would be able to opt out from being listed on the women's race. If you wanted to alter my system, perhaps the women's only race would be for points won in womens events only, with points won in open events counting only towards the regular list. I'm not sure, I'm sure you would have great insights into how to devise a better system than the one I outlined and I'm sure I overlooked things etc. You have the perspective of being both a great player in general and a woman, so I'm sure you in particular would understand some of the issues that would have to be addressed. To Debbie and others who said something about the mixed and how it should count, I would be open to pretty much anything wrt that, I honestly didn't think it through very much and it seems murky. The WBFs system does seem messed up based on what Debbie said.

2S, not only do I think it rates to be a better partial than 2D by far if the auction were to always end, I also think we might often make 4S if partner is going to try for it. If he bids 3H I might regret this...or I might not...but that's one scenario.

Thx for your very comprehensive posting Justin, it helps to understand mechanisms in the ACBL land for an outsider like me. One thought about your above paragraph... The entire team Gromov seemed to be hired for the swiss event, I think it's for the first time they did not play in Reisinger. Surely it doesnt reduce alone the value of this BAM in any way...but what if several "major sponsors" follow this example, not only Reisinger field will be smaller, but the number of the top stars too...= quality and/or value? Robert Sure, this has been happening more and more even, the swiss is more and more infested with players you would expect to be in the Reisinger. Carolyn (Lynch) in particular has had two fantastic teams the last 2 years as you note. I would say that making the Reisinger a Titanium point event (in my example) would cement it as the premier event. However, you also have a long standing tradition (sure that could change), and the super significant that Reisinger performances count toward seeding for the US Team Trials. Recently on this forum there was a bit of a stir that Nickell got a bye to the Semis of the trials. For sure, seeding can be extremely important. Most of these top tier sponsors hire the very best teams in order to win the very best events. Most of them have the eventual goal of respresenting the US in the world championships, and winning that. So basically, the way everything has been set up, the Reisinger is the important and prestigious event, calling it a Titanium point event will simply add to that. That is of course not to mention that playing a 2 session 1 section BAM for the event has inherently far far less luck involved than playing 8 matches of 7 boards VP 20 in a swiss in a 30 team field. A big reason the Reisinger is more prestigious is because it is certainly a truer test of skill even if the teams in both were equally good. Also, I would like to say that I think Carolyn (Lynch) is an anomaly in hiring truly top tier teams because she is a relative new comer onto the national circuit compared to her competition. She is improving very quickly (as seen by her amazing successes recently), and I will not be surprised to see her confident enough to play the Reisinger next year.

Did you simulate this with a diamond lead? I would lead a diamond over a club for sure, not sure about a spade vs a diamond. Wouldn't lead a heart.

DING DING...tell him what he's won!

Also, full disclosure as I don't want it to seem like I am saying I always play in the premier events or anything like that. I have NEVER played in the Reisinger before. I have played the swiss every single time, when I was younger it was because I wanted my first national win and that seemed like an easy one, and the past 5 or 6 years I've simply been hired onto teams that have played the swiss. Naturally I would like this to change someday! In fact, I should DEFINITELY have mentioned that similar to how I feel like 1st womens > 2nd open etc, In the swiss for 2nd place I won 120 points. My former partner and great friend Kevin Bathurst was 3rd in the Reisinger and won ~112. That is really an LOL, and it follows the same pattern as the womens LM pairs vs the open LM pairs (2<1, 3<2 etc for good event/weaker event). Honestly I do not care at all about this as long as the events give out DIFFERENT masterpoints. In my proposed outline, I would have gotten 120 platinum, and Kevin would have gotten 112 titanium. This would accurately reflect that he did FAR better than me. But for the sake of perfection, the scaling should be different to adjust for this problem. I see no problem with just awarding something like 500 points to the winner of the reisinger/spingold/vanderbilt etc and going from there. Seem out of proportion? Good, it should! They are the premier events of a national championship! They SHOULD be worth 10 times as many total points as a regional knockout. The ACBL seems gunshy to do something like this for some reason. But total points are pretty meaningless for people competing at these levels, so I don't think it matters. Much more important is to create meaningful masterpoint races by having different colors for The Reisinger, The 3 day swiss, and the women's.

Agree, not a politically correct opinion probably but I think it is absurd that womens events get platinum points. I think it absolutely tarnishes the few masterpoint races that should be meaningful like player of the decade and player of the year, ie the races that involve platinum points only. Sorry, but it is a joke for a player who almost always plays womens or mixed events when they are available (almost always) is ranked ahead of someone with the successes of say, Claudio Nunes, in player of the decade. It makes me not take the lower rankings of that race seriously (and if somehow someone dominated the womens scene to the level of WINNING player of the decade, how do you think the bridge world would react?). I do not mean to denigrate the achievements that these women have had, I would strongly advocate giving womens points a seperate color and would definitely watch the Women's Player of The Year race, and the Women's Player of the Decade list. The fact that these races do not exist is also terrible. In my view, there could be a seperate color for mixed events, womens events, and open events. All of these would count towards Women's Player of the Year. Additionally, women would continue to be ranked on the Open Player of the decade list, so someone like Rose Meltzer, who I won't look it up, but I am 100 % sure would be ranked #1 on Women's Player of the Decade for 2000s would also have a very high ranking on the Open Player of the Year race as she deserves. I do not even mean this to be disparaging to the top players on the women's circuit. Almost all of the top players in those events are bridge professionals, many of whom I respect as bridge players, not just women bridge players. I would never say they should not make a living playing in these events, which naturally they're in higher demand for, and thus can make more money in. I do not even mean to discuss whether you think women's events should exist at all. I understand if you think they should not. However, it is a travesty to have women's events but no masterpoint classification or seperate races for those who participate in those events. For starters, if you have done the best in the women's events, that should be acknowledged, and should be a source of immense pride. But to not acknowledge that these are different events, of different calibers of field, and are limited based on something, just seems unjust, like the ACBL is trying to hide this fact. It is unfair to both the open players, and the women players. Hell, if I was Rose Meltzer I would be quite pissed about it, not because I am not overtly recognized as the most successful woman of the 2000's, but because if you simply glance over the list it will look like the other women on the list have achievements close to her caliber. And again, I am of course not saying that this makes Rose Meltzer the best woman player necessarily. But the platinum point races are not about who is the best, it's about who achieved the most. Obviously it is not a rating system. If we are recognizing achievements, it is terrible that Rose Meltzer's name can be close or even below someone who dominates the woman's circuit. She may or may not be as good as the woman's circuit player, but she has certainly achieved more and it's not even remotely close. So the fact that women's events are colored the same as open events is really bad to me, but one might argue that it is OK as long as they get far less points for winning one of those events than the premier events pay. I think that would be a bad argument, but that is not even remotely close to true in the current environment. For instance, the Life Master Pairs and the Women's life master pairs. 2nd in the open LM pairs got 93.75 platinum points (full disclosure, this was me, but that is completely irrelevant to this point, hopefully you will believe me!). This was based on 164 tables. 1st in the women's LM pairs got 100.00 platinum points. This was based on 52 tables. 3rd in the LMs was ~70, 2nd in the womens was ~75... etc etc. These events almost pay the same, where the women's event is not only less than 1/3rd the size (so 3 times easier to win if the pairs in each event were equally good), but also obviously in much weaker competition. Notably, many of the top women play the open events during pairs, as it's far more common to get a professional engagement for teams than pairs. For instance, Auken/Von Armin played the open pairs, and I'm sure they're on anyones top 5 pair in the world for women. Hopefully you can see how ridiculous the current state is. (Sorry if I offended anyone with that part of my post, I have great respect for a lot of women pros, for instance Mildreed Breed and Jenny Ryman especially as I have played with them both on OPEN regional teams, and consider them my peers, these are just a few of MANY, and obviously I have great respect and even envy for the achievements of Rose Meltzer). I agree with the general point of the OP; there needs to be some pigment of color that measures your success in the toughest fields. What events should classify? -This pigment MUST exclude events that are restricted for these reasons: No juniors, no seniors, no women, no 0-5000. Arguably the NAOP could be excluded, but I don't think so. -After that, there is judgement involved. I would say any event that is the premier event is obviously in. Any event that is significantly detracted from by the main event being played should be OUT. What is significantly detracted from? Well, I would obviously include the 3 day LM pairs in the summer even though the finals/semi finals of the GNT are being played. I would also include the 2 day swisses at the end of the spring/summer nationals, despite being concurrent with the semis/finals or finals of the spingold/vandy. Missing the "best" 2 or 4 teams from the event hurts the overall field, but there are so many excellent teams I don't think 4 missing teams is enough to take away premier event status from these events. -Maybe these rules are too loose for the litigator types, but you get my point. I believe this leaves a list of premier event pigment (let's say Titanium) events as: Spring: -NAOP Flight A -Platinum Pairs. -Vanderbilt -2 day swiss Summer: -GNT super flight -3 day LM pairs -Spingold -2 day swiss Fall: -2 day pairs -2 day BAM -Blue Ribbon pairs -Reisinger. All other unrestricted national events will retain a different color, let's say this is platinum. Seniors will have their own points/races. Women's will have their own points/races. Mixed will have their own color, but count towards the women's races. The 0-5000 events can have their gold etc as they are now. This will solve the masterpoint race issues. Everyone will be recognized for their achievements in their fields. There will be new exciting women's rankings (not tongue-in-cheek, after Rose I'm not sure who is the most successful woman player of the 2000s including open/mixed/womens, I would guess Jill Meyers or Shawn Quinn). There will be more legitimate measures of success in premier events to actually see who is achieving the most. You could then add a "Platinum Player" race, to show accomplishments in secondary open national events. This might breed new competition and excitement. The other idea I had was a simple "Open National Player" race if you don't like the Platinum race. This would be titanium + platinum points. I think this is a bad race because it will basically be a duplicate in the top spots at least for the Player of the Year race and the Open National Player of the year race. It's true a Platinum Player race might incentivize people to play secondary events, for instance the 3 day swiss rather than the Reisinger. But why is that such a bad thing? The Premier events don't have to be bigger, small fields of the top players in the world are very exciting. If you read all of this, I'm impressed. If you are not impressed with the details of what I'm saying, then I just ask you to think my basic premises: 1) Masterpoint races should measure achievement in the field that you play in. 2) Women's events and open events are different fields. 3) Ergo, having the same color of points for women's events and open events is absurd. That is something I feel strongly about, and tbh I really doubt any top woman player would disagree.

Ya, and why you think there are others who play this way Oo

If it went 1H p 1N then I would bid 3D followed by 4C over 3N I think. Partner is either 4-5 in the minors or we have a 9 card club fit. This could work very poorly when partner has like KQx of spades and out though. If it went 1H p 1S I would bid 3D planning to bid 3N next.

You are showing 18-19 balanced with a prime unbalanced 21...

With 4 spades and 5 hearts there is no problem, you can bid 1H and partner can bid 1S if he has 4 spades. The problem hand type is when you have 5S and 4H/5H, and partner has 4 hearts, it can be impossible to get to your heart fit sometimes and stop at the 2 level (obviously not a problem if partner bids 1N, but if he bids 2 of a minor then 2H is forcing or 4sf and you could be screwed).

Definitely disagree with keycard, the trump jack is gonna be really important and a minimum 6-5 could be quite weak. If it's possible to just make a slam try, I would prefer that.