bd71

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=saxxhk9xxxdxxcqtx]133|100|Scoring: IMP (1♦) X (1♥) ?[/hv] At the table tonight, I doubled...not really thinking penalty so much as showing values with no real direction to go (so clearly suggesting a heart holding but absence of diamond stopper since I didn't bid NT). Others at the table universally thought this "negative double" showed 4 spades. We did poorly in our 3-3 spade fit when we had a 9-card heart fit (pd was 3433 w/ something close to KQx AJTx xxx Axx). Post-match I checked BWS and if reading it right I believe it says this X is penalty (not that we had agreed BWS but wanted to consult some source). So the questions: 1. With Standard American as base and no discussion of anything close to this, what is the right bid here? 2. What is best use of X? 3. With this start to the auction is there any way to find our heart fit after RHO bids them? 4. If pd had passed (as I would have), is there any way to find heart fit?

Here's a request for those overcalling 1H on this hand...for this auction/vulnerability, please give sample hands for both the "lightest" and the "heaviest" 1H overcall you would make. For example, on the light end, would you try a lead-directing overcall with xxx AKxxx xx xx? On the heavy end, is the OP hand it? Or are their stronger hands you would still overcall 1H with (pace Fluffy) and what's a good example? I'm just trying to get a feel for what your bookends are...because it seems like there must be light-years of space in between.

[hv=d=n&v=e&n=st76hdk954ckqj864&w=sa543hqjt875dq2ca&e=skqj98ha9djt7c972&s=s2hk6432da863ct53]399|300|Scoring: IMP (3♣) P (P) 3♥ PO Losing ~7.5 IMPS in BBO/ACBL IMP pairs game[/hv]

[hv=d=s&v=e&s=sa8642hq97d842c98]133|100|Scoring: IMP P - 1♣ 1♠ - 2N ?[/hv] You are playing 2/1, and have agreed NMF. Do you look for a 5-3 fit and a spade game via NMF, or is this just a straight 3N call?

[hv=d=e&v=e&w=skq953hkq973djcq8&e=sa6htdakq95cak976]266|100|Scoring: MP ACBL club game, mostly intermediate field with a smattering of advanced players -- 1♦ 1♠ 3♣ 3N 5♣ P Making 5 when clubs break 4-2, tied with 1-2 others for bottom board. Most of field scoring better in 3N, with a handful bidding/making 6N.[/hv]

[hv=d=s&n=saxxxhkqtxdxxxcax&s=sxhxdajxxckqxxxxx]133|200|2nd to last board of GNT match. We know we desperately need swings. 1♣ 1♥ 3♣ 3N 5♣ 6♣ Making when LHO leads K♠, ♠ ruff, LHO goes up with A♥ on lead towards dummy, clubs split 2-2, and J♥ drops tripleton giving me sufficient diamond discards. Making the unlikely Vul small slam gave us an adrenaline rush going into the last hand...which was flat. And we lost by 50 IMP. But a fun hand... [/hv]

A local club has recently instituted a new rule that limits players to one "psyche" per session. Subsequent bids deemed psyches get a bottom board. Club manager openly admits this was put in place because of one specific player who is an aggressive and (in my opinion) often foolhardy bidder. Problem is that this player's wild bids are rarely what I think of as true "psyches." They are often based on distribution with minimal strength and extremely optimistic views in medium-to-high level competitive auctions. But they rarely are what I think of as "pure psyches" that radically misdescribe his distribution. I have been "accused" of psyching at this club before for 3-level pre-empts without holding 2 of the top 3 honors. This wasn't reported to the director/manager, so I have no idea how she would have ruled and whether this would have been counted as my "one for the session." So have to admit that I'm on uncertain ground at this club now for bids that seem normal to me but would likely be considered unusual by others.

Another fun analogy...let's build on this one. The vast majority of bridge players aren't playing in the equivalent of the Olympics. They've just got to figure out a way to beat the guys down the street. Long-term, becoming a better runner (or developing better judgment in bidding) is clearly the way to beat them regularly. But if the track meet is tomorrow, replacing your cement shoes with good sneakers is probably the best, immediate thing you can do to give yourself a chance to win. I'd say not having clear agreements with your partner on basic bidding issues (like how your partnership plays stronger raises to 1M) is tantamount to getting rid of the cement shoes. Pirate...the Law of Total tricks comment was a side comment and not directed at the bidding issue in your post. Agree that it's irrelevant for what you're asking about.

Ah, but what if you have poor/undeveloped bidding judgment and know it?!...then you better have a well-defined system. No, I disagree. That's kind of like saying if you're a really bad driver and you know it, you better get a really big SUV so that you can get away safely with screwing up. Bidding judgment is not some voodoo magic that only a lucky few can obtain. It's a learned skill just like everything else. If you want to be good at it, you have to work. Not sure that's a great analogy...poor bidding judgement doesn't put lives at risk (unless your partner has a heart condition). But to remove things from the analogy and try to make my point clearer (maybe we don't even disagree)... Good bidding judgement and a well-defined system are obviously not mutually exclusive. Best to have both. And I agree that developing better judgement is certainly feasible for all/most (i.e. it's not "voodoo"), but I believe it's a slow process of gradual accumulation over a long period of time.* So for those who are still early in the process of developing judgement (me included), trying to define clear agreements and having good definitions to your bidding system (which is how I took the OP) seems critical and can have a better immediate return that anything you do to try to kick-start the slow osmosis of judgement. *Kudos should go out to whoever's tagline (can't recall who) is something like "God judgement comes from experience, which in turn comes from bad judgement."

Ah, but what if you have poor/undeveloped bidding judgment and know it?!...then you better have a well-defined system. Reminds me of comments to the effect that the Law of Total Tricks is a poor replacement for bidding judgement in competitive situations...perhaps true, unless you have poor judgement in which case it's an EXCELLENT replacement for the "random whim of the moment" decision tool.

So you had a foolproof set here...one that I wouldn't have seen and I think is pretty hard to see. But didn't partner miss an automatic diamond return after taking the A♣ that would set them anyway?

A few questions about or related to 1444 (singleton spade) hands: 1. I routinely open these 1D, planning a 2C bid over 1S response. Is this best, and are there good reasons at times to deviate from this? 2. Would you ever rebid 1N with any 4441 hand (i.e. singleton spade, heart, or diamond...can't really happen w/ singleton club I don't believe)? If so, under what circumstances? 3. After sequence of 1D-1S-2C, is it correct that responder shouldn't expect any more than 44 in the minors from opener? A pickup partner yesterday told me he expected 55 for this sequence.

Maybe I'm missing something (or maybe all other paths are worse), but getting 12 tricks (8♦, 2♠, 1♥, 1♣) on cross-ruff requires: 1. RHO to have 2 spades (meaning LHO bid 2♠ with 5), AND 2. LHO to have 3 hearts OR no trump to over-ruff This combo seemed really unlikely...are there truly no other better options?

OP now edited to reflect vulnerability and scoring. If you double, what is your response to 3♦...

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=sakxxhajxxxdakqcq&s=sxxhxdjt9xxcat8xx]133|200|Scoring: MP (2♠) X (P) 3♦ (P) 3♥ (P) 4♣ (P) 4N* (P) 5♦* (P) 6♦ (P) *Standard blackwood Ignore bidding, as it's another thread.[/hv] Typical club game opponents. LHO is unlikely to have bid 2♠ with 5. LHO leads K♥. What is the best approach here?

[hv=v=n&s=sakxxhajxxxdakqcq]133|100|Scoring: MP RHO deals and bids 2S. What's your call?[/hv] Edited to reflect scoring and vulnerability...moving too fast.

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=stxxhtxxdxxcj9xxx]133|100|Scoring: MP 2C-2D 3D 2D is waiting, double negative option not discussed[/hv] What's least bad here? Among the options that occur: 3H or 3S - Seems like the only way to get to 3N if that's where we belong, but also seems like fast way to end up in game with 4-3 fit. 4C - If you take "cheapest minor as double negative" to it's logical conclusion, seems like this would be the bid. But we hadn't discussed double-negative (first time we played together), and I've never been in this situation where the cheapest minor is at the 4-level...would that still be the understanding here? Pass - May be best spot, but could easily be wrong and seems like it will ruin partnership trust. I had no idea what was best, and in the end made the losing choice...

[hv=d=n&v=b&n=s654h987632d872c8&w=s2hakt4dq43ck9752&e=s9873hqj5dj5cat43&s=sakqjthdakt96cqj6]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv] Is there any way to make 4S on this hand if the defense insists on playing hearts at all chances? This came up in the club, and our consensus in the aftermath is that it cannot. But...it was made by at least one table by a local pro. Could easily be that the defense gave him a trick by leading clubs twice, but I wanted to ask this expert crowd if there is something else we might be missing?

80-90% of these hands are ACBL robot tourneys where it is me and 3 GIBS...and where I get the best hand, explaining why I declare more often. And I think the right conclusion from the "Sit" vs. "Dec" comparison is that my bidding is better than the field bidding when GIB is declarer (probably because I don't hog contracts) by MORE than my declaring is better than the field (which isn't much). Anyway, appreciate the advice from all.

My growing dataset of matchpoints/pairs hands that I've played on BBO -- 80% of which is in ACBL robot tourneys -- leads me to the conclusion that opening leads is a big shortcoming in my game. So, what advice can people give me on the best ways to improve on opening leads? Are there specific books you would recommend? Specific exercises or ways to practice? Any advice would be appreciated... For what it's worth, data below shows hands when I am declerer ("Dec"), dummy ("Sit"), defending on lead ("Lead"), and defending but not on lead ("Def"). # MP Make% 1713 52.4% 68.0% Dec 843 52.1% 66.8% Sit 387 54.4% 73.9% Lead 182 45.8% 70.9% Def 257 55.1% 55.6% PO 44 50.9% 100.0%

Why are we trying to show our hand shape here instead of just bidding 3N? How good a shot do we really have at slam? I'm relatively inexperienced at hand visualization during bidding, but using the general guideline to explore/invite slam if a perfect minimum for partner makes slam laydown...then what is that perfect minimum hand here for partner? I can't find one.

Recently played with a new partner, who overcalled 2C after opponents had bid a Precision 1C. He intended as Michaels showing the majors. I interpreted as a decent hand with good clubs to overcall at the two level. Understanding that long-term partnerships should probably address this question specifically, what would the "standard"/default interpretation for new/pickup partners be here? P.S. This was a rare instance where our bidding confusion fixed the opponents. My partner was bidding on KT9xx T8xxx Jxx void. With Jxx Jx xx 97xxxx, I raised partner to 3C after RHO bid something (can't recall what). With our confusion contributing, opponents couldn't sort out that they had 34 points and 13 top tricks, and they stopped in 3N.

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=saqjt9843hk3da7c4&s=shq9854dkqcakq973]133|200|Scoring: IMP Our simple bidding was: 1♠-2♣ (NOT playing 2/1) 4♠-P[/hv] This hand led to many questions between my partner today and me: 1. Partner questioned whether I should have rebid 4♠, crowding him out of the auction. Granted that 2/1 works much better here; but NOT playing 2/1 I don't think I had a choice but to bid 4S because I had no forcing bid and I had to bid game once he has the strength to bid at 2-level. 2. Not that it likely would have gotten us anywhere useful, since no slam makes, but I thought partner should have done something to explore slam, like 5H. Any thoughts on what is the right way to approach this hand in Standard American, whether or not it gets you to the best place (which we were in)?

Correction...the bidding sequence was 1D-1H-1S-3D if that matters.

Partner and I had a different take on this bidding sequence today. Two questions about this: 1. What is strength/range of the 3D bid? 2. Is the 3D bid game-forcing? The hand where I jumped to 3D, which I valued as worth about 12 points, was... [hv=s=sj83haq32dkj76c86]133|100|[/hv] We ended up in 6D, making, when the opponents didn't cash their top two clubs. Partner says we ended up in the bad spot where we needed to get lucky because he thought I was stronger with this bidding. I simply wanted to be in game, and thought that this sequence would show 12+.