sfi

I've played a version of this in most of my serious 5 card major partnerships over the past couple of years, including Precision (which we added 2/1 just for this), Polish Club with 2/1, straight 2/1, and Standard American. The basic idea is that you have 4 possible types of hands: - Invitational raise of the major (typically rebids 4M over an acceptance or 2M over a rejection) - Balanced FG (rebids NT; you can allow a 3NT rebid to show a minimum with a doubleton trump, or use the jump for something else) - Balanced minimum FG with fit (rebids 2M over an acceptance or 4M over a rejection) - FG with clubs (bids something else, including 3M with 5+ clubs and 3 card support) Opener then rebids: - 2D to say "accept game try with nothing special to say" and opener clarifies hand. - 2H (after 1S opening) to show 5/4, nebulous about whether accepting game try. Inv raise now bids 2S or 4H (with double fit, you want to be in game). Bad balanced FG raise bids 4S. - 2M rejects game try. In the standard system, we reversed the 2M and 2D responses and didn't cater for the balanced min with fit (that went into a 3NT response, if I recall). That all worked fine, but I've never worked out whether there was a reason for reversing the bids. Advantages: - You can invite and stop at the 2 level. That's a potential 5-6 IMPs every time you do this. - Responder can easily show strong balanced hands, which is a problem in many systems. - Responder can show strong (say 16+) balanced hands with a fit with a sequence like 1H-2C, 2D-2NT, 3C-3H. Now you are off to slam in a sensible way. - Opener can take over and start a slam sequence by bidding above 2M ("I'm interested in slam opposite an invitational raise"). Responder now cooperates in the slam try rather than trying to show their hand. - You gain a jump to the 3 level, which is typically preemptive, without having to give up other 3-level jump shifts to something like Bergen. Disadvantages: - Opener can't bid 2D naturally. The hand often gets to bid 3D naturally (even over 2S), so the real issue is not being able to show shape with the 5/5 hands since the diamond rebid is actually what gets lost. - It can be susceptible to preemption, but they still need a hand willing to get in the middle of a potentially FG auction. - The opponents get to double 2C for something. - You lose preemptive value with your 3 card limit raises. Overall, in my experience it is a big win. It's increasingly common among Australian players, but I think the ideas came from Europe (Germany maybe?) initially.

What is the actual club position and play up to this point? If the CJ is the only one outstanding, then it's likely declarer was just claiming four club tricks. I wouldn't feel comfortable adjudicating without obtaining further information.

I've been neither a pro nor a client, but I know lots of both quite well so have some thoughts on the matter. There are several reasons why someone might hire a pro, and the best one (from both parties' point of view) is wanting to improve your game. From the pro's point of view, they don't have to distort their play to try and ensure a win, which also means that you will be more involved in the decision-making process throughout the game. From your point of view, the benefits are likely to include: - solid advice on judgement and cardplay, which can accelerate the learning process significantly. You will want a pro who is committed to sitting down after every session and reviewing the hands. - increased ability to understand how the partnership interaction works during the hand. You will be able to trust that a pro can field more of the problems you give them than other partners will. Part of the game is making things easy for partner, but another big part is working with partner to exchange the right inferences and make the right decisions, and that's a skill you can only really work on with a good partner. You will also get increased exposure in the bridge world. This can be a two-edged sword, since being a client can have a negative connotation in some circles. Not sure whether that's relevant in the UK at all though. What you will get is more people recognising you, which means you are more likely to find other partners as part of the process. The pro will certainly be able to advise you in this area. My experience is that pros are often less interested in conventions than other people, at least in their pro-client partnerships. The reason for this seems to be that too many conventions often get in the way of good evaluation and decision-making. Unless you specifically discuss this as a goal, the pro is likely to simply play your (standard-ish) system and look to modify it over time. Key points to consider: - Pros differ enormously in temperament, style, and strengths. When choosing one, arrange a game or two and see if you are compatible. You want someone with whom you are comfortable and who spends time with you after the session. I see lots of pros who berate their client at the table and find this really unimpressive behaviour, but that may not bother you. If it doesn't feel right, then you're probably wasting your time with that particular pro. - Discuss your goals with the pro. You are paying for a service, so make sure what you want out of it is clear. They should tailor their approach to meet your aims. - Don't overburden the partnership with system. You will find conventions are far less important than the logic and decision-making process of the game, and conventions can't make up for faulty logic. Work on that instead - it's more transferable as well. - There's more going on in the cardplay than you know. Listen to your partner and learn from them in this area. - Make sure you are having fun when playing with the pro. It's a game after all, and you're not going to get better if you stop enjoying it. - Be ready to call the relationship quits if you are no longer getting what you want out of it. Do it on good terms though - the bridge world is a small community.

The result has more to do with West not bidding 2C than East's opening. This is the downside of playing Drury that promises a fit, and one of the reasons to stop using it. The alternative is to play 2C as clubs or an invitational raise (which is, I believe, Drury's original idea). If you're not a passed hand you can throw balanced FG hands in as well, but I suspect this will be banned anywhere that doesn't allow system innovation. What's the downside to not guaranteeing a fit? Both opponents have had a chance or two to bid, so they're unlikely to get in the way now. You don't get to jump to 4M on hands that will accept a limit raise, but that hardly seems a loss (you can always have a sequence like 1S - 2C; 2D - 2S; 4S). And you can still open sub-minimum hands to the same effect as now. If you can bid clubs at the two level, you pick up 5-6 IMPs. Side note: If you regularly open South's hands, give up playing Drury - most of the time you will have already opened if you would want to use it.

If you don't open 1S on these hands they stop dealing you spades and give them to someone who deserves them.

Two relevant examples: At university, our soccer team was down 10-0 at one point in a match. One of the opposition players started playing for our side and even scored a goal. We knew they were better than us - there would not have been any respect in continuing to play at full pace. They still won 20-1 and he was joint leading scorer for our side that season. An international team who will remain nameless played in the PABF bridge championships some years ago. It was their first international tournament ever, and it was clear they were thoroughly outclassed - to the point where their scores were eventually removed from the calculations to determine who would make the next round. One of the Australian pros playing against them was offering them advice at the table to try and improve their game and experience at the tournament. I didn't hear anyone say this showed a lack of respect, and their players would have improved more from that than from losing another match 100+ - nil. At some point you just need to stop trying to beat the opposition. If the coach didn't realise this until halftime in the original post, he really wasn't paying attention.

That doesn't work since the upgrade. I now have to turn the sound off every time I log in.

Even so, it was well done to find the key to the hand.

Declarer erred by discarding the S9 rather than a red card. So the defence did have a chance.

I'd try leading the DJ. Maybe LHO has the ace but not the ten and thinks you have a guess in the suit. In fact I would have tried that at trick two, so the opponents don't have a chance to signal if trumps are 2-0.

Indeed it does. This seems to have been changed in the last update.

Diamonds are the new clubs. Who needs to actually show minor suits?

It's really not if you're used to it - it's lack of familiarity that is the real problem. Beginners at our club play multi-twos and others play much stranger things. I taught my partner an effective defence in 5 minutes for her first national event 10 years ago and we've never seen the need to change it. In a new partnership among two good players, the discussion of a defence is generally much shorter than that. My feeling is that the incidence of strange (brown sticker) two-level openings has actually dropped in Australia over the years because most pairs handle them quite well now. Of course, you could use the defence of one top US player, where page 26 had the chapter title of 'Doubles in fourth, sixth, and eighth positions.' Anything can be made complicated if you try hard enough.

There is no requirement for the director to assign a procedural penalty (Law 90 says the director may do so). It seems to me that intent should be the primary determining factor in the decision about whether or not to do so, but I may be out of step with current thinking on this point. As I said, I've never seen anyone actually receive a PP, so I don't know when good directors around here would apply them. As a first step in the actual situation, how about the director simply point out that North should not be asking questions when it is not that turn to lead. And then point out that anyone asking about the auction should ask about the entire auction. This requires two things though - that the director actually know the rules and how to apply them, and that players call the director at the appropriate time. Without these two things, it is hard for players to learn correct procedure. I still see your comment as a far more flagrant violation than North's action, no matter how much it was intended in jest.

Even if the discussion continued: East: It's not your lead. North: Sorry. You'd still assign a PP? Because that sort of thing happens all the time. In this scenario, North committed two infractions - asking out of turn and asking about a specific bid rather than the entire auction. Even so, I would guess the situation occurs at least once a session. That's a lot of procedural penalties, especially given that I have never seen one actually being given.

I used to think that until I saw it work in practice. Now I actually prefer not having them. But this is off topic and I don't feel particularly strongly about it one way or another. So this thread is probably not the place to discuss their merits or otherwise.

True enough. I don't agree that the question warrants a penalty, but that's probably because I ascribe different motives to it. If the question is intended to focus leader's attention on the club suit, then I would agree.

You're both right. No skip bid warnings exist and no change in tempo is required or expected. Despite the lack of rules regarding skip bids, I rarely see director calls that would have been prevented by a mandated pause (although I almost never direct, so my experience may be skewed). It feels totally normal if a player takes a couple of extra seconds to process the information relating to the skip bid, and I've never seen a director call for a 5 second pause instead of 3 seconds.

No. Skip bid warnings are unheard of, and most people here wouldn't know what to do if they came across one. They were introduced for the PABF in 2008, but completely ignored during that event (not just by Australians) and we've never heard of the concept again.

Serious error was not meant in the legal bridge sense, but in the sense that the CA is the standout play. I've now polled two other people who play at a high level nationally. One said the CA was the only lead worthy of serious consideration ("everything else is too likely to give up tricks"). The other said a spade might be a possibility (they grudgingly said 3-4/10), and would not adjust in an appeals committee had the CA been led ("it's such a standout") - even before I mentioned UI. In neither case did they think the UI suggested a club lead, and in both cases immediately said it was 100% to lead a club after declarer's comment. My questions after giving them the hand: - What would you lead? - What logical alternatives are there? - Partner asked about the meaning of 5C before you choose a lead. What does that suggest? Does it affect your choice of lead? - Declarer warned about calling the director if a club is led. What do you lead now? The first person I polled expected partner's question was to find out whether they were playing 3041 or 4130 RKC. The second person raised the idea of a procedural penalty for declarer for the comment.

We're leading into the strong NT hand and there's a distributional hand on our left. There's a real danger that the CA is going away and we have two potential tricks in diamonds and hearts. I still think any other lead would be a serious error. And the data Bird and Anthias presents strongly disagrees with your assertion.

To me (and to someone else who had no other context), this comment simply says 'I have weak clubs'. If I had any doubt about a club lead beforehand, your comment would have convinced me.

What was 5 clubs? An explanation of the auction might have a bearing on my lead. Assuming it was some sort of a key card sequence, I don't see anything more than a very minor infraction. It sounds like partner forgot about the transfer and simply wanted to know what was going on before they led. The only UI I have received is that partner wasn't paying sufficient attention to the auction. Given this assumption, any lead apart from the CA is IMO bizarre.

There is the 2010 version, which you have to pay for. There is another published Polish Club version around that someone played against me recently, but I don't remember the name of the author. I haven't played much Polish Club lately so I can't give many specifics, but I played it quite regularly about 10 years ago. We started off with the WJ2000 version. About 6 months into playing it, WJ2005 came out and I went through the book quite thoroughly to compare versions. We adopted a few treatments (I seem to remember liking the responses to 2C better for example) but stuck with most of the earlier system. It seemed to be more cohesive and many of the changes were not clear improvements. From memory, WJ2000 was an attempt to describe standard expert practice while WJ2005 included a number of the author's preferred treatments, and that detracted from the quality. That could simply be because I was used to the other one though. I've read the 2010 version and it looks an improvement on both. I do have to play it in a couple of weeks so will have a much better idea after that.

The meme may be new (and I found a very amusing cartoon describing it) but it's an old technique. The tactic was perfected by the tobacco companies and has since been co-opted for any number of other retrograde causes since then. Edit: I found the same cartoon on a different site. Still amusing the second time.