vin1990

You have to be a bit careful, the ♥T may not be an entry if the person with 3 hearts holds up to make sure the ♥K covers the trick of the ♥T. I didn't cover this possiblity - if it's 3-0 with west then if they hold up ruff a club immediately and play ace of spades discarding a diamond.

The danger is a spade ruff with the king of diamonds offside. Lead Ah. If kh drops bonus. if 2h show no problem - lead 2nd heart to clear trumps (you can then ruff club loser and discard losing diamond on ace of spades). The main danger is if west started with 2 spades and 3h - when you give west their king of hearts on 2nd trick and they switch to a diamond. If that happens then take ace of diamonds, cross back to hand by ruffing a low spade high then clear trumps by leading to dummy's 10 and cash the remaining spades (ace of spades and 5th spade).

I can't play bridge to save my life :) I know the opening posters comment is not directed at new players like me but is about experts and expert discussions. As someone learning the game I've found the forum very useful. I went back and read a lot of the old posts in the sayc / 2/1 threads. The forum was a lot more active a few years ago - but maybe system discussions are a topic which eventually gets exhausted. The aspect of bridge I like the most are play problems. I really loved one 'phil' posted recently - a 4h contract - where you had to use the bidding to construct some what-if solutions around a few possible shapes - and where a number of experts helped define the parameters of the problem. So while I'd never participate in these sort of discussions I get a lot from reading them and trying to understand them. I like 'real' play problems with 'somewhat imperfect solutions' rather than book hands. I really like mikeh's posts and jlall or lol or whatever he is this week - I also use the names of forum regulars who seem to make sense as 'people to kibitz' (although a couple don't seem to play or use a forum alias). I know experts don't participate in the expert discussions as a community service but as something that has to be enjoyable and of benefit to them - I'm just surmising there is an additional benefit that probably doesn't get appreciated enough. Someone challenged beginner / intermediate players to participate more in the forum with questions and puzzle answers - so I vowed to do this - except there's been a lack of threads inviting that sort of input. I really like jillybeans use of the forum and I find the way the regulars answer her questions really useful. Sometimes it can be a bit intimidating coming here (Ive sometimes posted after a few beers). This is a long-winded way of saying I hope you keep inputting in what I find as generous - sure you may need a break - but I hope you all come back now.

thanks for your explanation helene, and for the other helpful comments and sorry if I over-reacted codo -Im usually pretty agreeable. I dont get the angst especially when its solely about playing for fun.

I really dislike being told my reasoning was not ethical. It is fine and useful to say 'It is considered unethical by the laws to take into account any breaks in tempo by your partner. If partner does bid out of tempo then...' Then I have an ethical and moral compass to go on and some appropriate ways to behave in response when breaks in tempo occur. But to label my thinking as unethical in the absence of that knowledge reeks of the same 'j'accuse' behaviour that I find abhorrent in self-appointed rules experts. I explained my logic very badly. Fact was whatever the breaks in tempo by my opponent or partners, pulling 4s to 5h exposed the psych whatever they did in relatino to tempo - and yes I should not have said the speed of my partners bid influenced my decision. Mea culpa, 100 lashes for me. Any other derogatory remarks about my ethical standards are unwelcome.

Playing online I have had a couple of situations where an opponent appointed themselves as a laws expert and got extremely agitated. Once was when I psyched and was (questionably?) asked about my bid (by an opponent who held the suit I psyched). So I replied what I thought the bid showed in the system we had agreed - and then got a lecture afterwards about 'breaking the rules'. So I decide no more psychs online unless it's with people I know. Recently I had another situation I'm more confused about. Playing with a pick-up partner we were about 50 imps up versus a regular pair who seemed a little annoyed. The bidding on this hand went.. 1h(opps)-1s(partner)-dbl(neg)-my bid holding 4 small spades and a single heart and AK of clubs I bid 4s...(both non-vul). Opener doubled instantly and my pick-up partner pulled to 5h. At this point I suspected ('knew') from the speed with which opener doubled and the speed of my partners 5h bid that he'd psyched his spade overcall. I thought pick-up partnership, no pattern - so I decided to pass with my single heart. Afterwards I got this irate lecture about 'fielding a psych' and the opponents stormed off. (5h doubled was not a good outcome). So my questions are: i) Is passing 'fielding a psych'? Should I have bid 5s? ii) As someone new to the game what is the best way to deal with self-appointed laws experts online? I have no intention of arguing back - and I have absolutely no interest in playing the game if its going to end up like being in a court of law. So how psychologically do you deal with what to me is nonsense. I should point out I play chess at a very competitive level and know all the rules and my ethical obligations. I understand if I take up bridge more seriously that it is my responsibility to learn the laws and my ethical responsibilities - but the situation which is new to me is the number of 'laws experts' whose opinions I find more self-serving or emotional than being factual or informative.

After looking up a number of card combinations (motivated by reading a couple of card combo threads on here) in a hand recently played on BBO this 6nt came down to a card combination in diamonds I'd seen before because of this board. Had to play the diamond suit for 4 tricks. [hv=n=sa85ha3d1053cakq92&s=sq93hk42daq762cj5]133|200|Lead ♥J[/hv] Out of 11 who played in slam (nt diamonds or clubs) 3 made (one with defensive help) - 2 played diamonds 'correctly'.

Not even as simple as standard or UDCA? 3/5 leads or 4th best? Only takes 10 seconds. Seems better than random carding.

I knew 4♦ was forcing - i wanted to see it in print because I'm losing confidence. I also think if I was playing with my Dad Id bid 4♣ or 4nt without thinking - but BBO 'experts' have me totally spooked. (I know there are lots of legitimate experts here but generally the 'experts' you meet when you use the 'help me find a game' should generally be classified as 'may go down in 3nt in IMPs when holding 9 cashable top tricks' (yes it happened and it wasn't a misclick)) I mainly play poker and chess - and just want to drop in and out of BBO for quick games of bridge. However, IMHO bridge is a way better game than poker or chess - it combines some of the bluff and deception of poker (by card play rather than body language) with much more difficult 'if-this-then-that' problems than chess because unlike chess where 'everything is known' half the cards are 'unknown' and the range of possibilities way greater. I know to get better I have to play lots of hands - but my biggest thing is I have to count every hand from when the bidding starts and learn to visualize possible holdings. Doing that makes bridge exciting and a challenge (a big challenge for me anyway) - but so far I've sat down with about 15 'experts' with just 'advanced 2/1' on my profile and not one of these experts has discussed carding... its hard to count without signalling - it's like you're not even playing the game for what I think is its main challenge.

For 4 tricks play A then low to 9 (Not listing all combos - for 5 tricks depending on entries it's either run 10 or play low to 9 then ace; for 3 tricks play low to 9 then A)

Playing with partner whose self-description is advanced+. [hv=d=n&v=b&s=skhajxxdkj10xxcakx]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] The auction 1♦-pass-1♥-pass 3♥- so at this point Im thinking 6-7♦ 6-7♥ or 7nt. It continues 1♦-pass-1♥-pass 3♥-3♠-? So after the 3 spade bid by opps Im thinking we might be off the ♠A but a grand is still possible. I don't wan't to bid 6d or 5nt(choice of slams) in case (dont even know how 5nt would be taken). So the best bid to me now seems to be 4nt (rkc for hearts) - and then offer a choice of auctions later. However silly me chose 4♦ thinking it was forcing and could establish diamonds as an alternative suit. It got passed ;). So i) what was my best bid? ii) Is 4♦ here forcing?

After the 'where are all the B/I players' rave I will have a go. i) Needing 5 tricks There are 16 cases. In half of those the king is offside. Except for a stiff king offside that makes 7 where making 5 is impossible. Making 5 is also impossible when KJ96 is onside and when the stiff K is onside and J96 offside (the J always takes a trick). That leaves 7 cases when 5 tricks are possible. KJ9 6 - finesse to 10 wins 5 KJ6 9 - finesse to 10 wins 5 K96 J - finesse to Q wins 5 (and refinessing the king) J96 K - playing ace first wins 5 KJ 96 - finesse to Q wins 5 K9 J6 - finesse to Q wins 5 K6 J9 - finesse to Q wins 5 That means you cant win 5 whatever you do 9/16 of the time. Finesse to 10 wins 1/8 of the time. Finesse to Q wins 1/4 of the time. Playing Ace first wins 1/16 of the time So finessing to Q works out twice as often as the next best option. ii) Needing 4 tricks Now there are only 3 cases where it is impossible to win 4 tricks. KJ96, KJ6 and KJ9 offside. There are also a number of cases where you will always win 4 playing ace first, finessing to Q or finessing to 10 (provided you cover any honor that appears) (KJ 96 K9 J6 K6 J9 J9 K6 J6 K9 K J96 KJ96 - KJ9 6 KJ6 9 K96 J (assuming if you play to 10 you will always finesse 2nd time around) J K96) That leaves J96 K 96 KJ In both of these playing ace first works best. Not sure of this is exactly right but the lecture above made me feel compelled to have a go. I read this board a lot and find some of it really helpful. However I'm only 19 and a bit of a bridge novice. For me bridge is just a hobby - not a life - and I find the level of skill and knowledge of some of the experts here really intimidating. I also tend to post late at night after indulging in some favorite student past times - and it shows - so I resolved to only post occasionally. It's also the Internet - a place that seems to release a few inhibitions - so I don't think you should be so down on B/I players for not venturing into exercises like this - it's sort of scary.

Sorry I'm not good at making posts - think Ill quit while I'm behind. Dummy was something like ♠xx ♥KJ10x ♣AQx ♦AQxx The auction was 1♦-pass-1♥-pass 2♥-pass-4♥ In terms of leading a low spade this partner has a thing about not leading from Jxx(xx) unless theres no choice and usually leads low from strength.

Playing on BBO: 1. a) I held ♠A ♥Q102 ♣AQJ9 ♦AQJ102 The bidding 3♠-pass-pass-my bid? (I doubled and opener redbld?) :rolleyes: It went 3♠-pass-pass-dbl redbl-4♣-pass-my bid What do I now bid? (I bid ♣5 - dont know if the redbl made me timid or not - the hand made 7♣ - but we got 6 imps for it because a lot of the field played in ♣4 - and none in slam) Edited to correct hand