foo

Some do. I've proven it in a few. Obviously, their owners have dealt with the legal issues to their satisfaction.

1= The simplest way to deal with unwanted communication devices in the playing area is to JAM THEM. That is exactly what many bars and restaurants now do. The equipment involved is cheap. 2= Some folks have a legitimate need to be reachable at all times. And it is not even just for work. If my pregnant wife needs to reach me, Bridge comes a distant second to her. If the ACBL makes it impossible for my due wife to reach me, I will not be playing in ACBL events where that situation exists. I'm sure we can all easily imagine other circumstances that are similar in importance. 3= Being polite takes no more than PUT THE D@MN PHONE ON SILENT OR VIBRATE AND DO NOT ANSWER IT IN THE PLAYING AREA. 4= A regulation banning communication devices is not going to stop, or even slow down, premeditated cheaters. If the real goal here is to reduce cheating at the NABC level, we should do what casinos do. A camera watching every table. A camera in every bathroom. The cameras involved can be very small and dirt cheap. Suspicious results or suspected attempts at inappropriate communication will then be consderably easier to confirm or deny. At national and international events, every bid and card at the table should be recorded as a matter of course. Even for those events where screens are not used.

I don't have a problem opening this. Even at IMPs, you have to contest the partscore and the OP hand fits Peterson's Rule of 15 (HCP + number of Spades >= 15) I try to avoid raising Responder with only 3 trumps, and this board demonstrates some of the reasons why. Responder is going to be expecting 4 card ♠ support and very likely evaluated their hand based on that when they had to decide whether to make a game try or not. We could easily be too high already because of this. Just as bad if not worse is the fact that Opener has never mentioned the best trick taking asset of their hand in this supposedly constructive auction. Why are we hiding our KQxx of ♣'s? ...1D-1S;2C-2H avoids this whole mess since 2H by a Passed Hand can not be 4SF and must be Natural and Invitational. Opener can now take a preference to 2S and We are done. On the days where one or both of Us have better hands, the more descriptive sequence I'm suggesting helps get you to the all important Red IMP game when it rates to be odds on enough (>= 34%. That's a 32 Trump break + a finesse or better in the play) .

And what, pray tell, does the overcalled do holding a 2=2=5=4 hand or some such? Forcing advancer to redouble with Hx in support of Diamonds seems suicidal. After this hand partner specifically asked me if I thought that he should redouble or bid 2♥. I told him that I thought that his pass was quite well considered. Partner shouldn't distort his bidding because I made an ill considered overcall. Hey, =I'm= not the one making these overcalls... But if you are going to consider doing so with any frequency, you must put System in place to help manage the risk. If you overcall 2D with =2254 and it goes (1M)-2D-pa-pa;X-pa-pa-XX;pa-?? ...you bid 2N or 3C in tempo and take whatever lumps you earned by making an overcall that =rated= to get pushed to the 3 level.

This is not as easy to evaluate as some might think. A lot depends on a= your systemic agreements as to what hands open a 15-17 1N and b= what tools you have available to you. With "a gun to my head" and no other information or tools, I'd bid 4N Quantitative because I think it is against the odds to bid a quiet 3N. Regardless of other stuff, Opener should pass with a min, bid 6N with a Max, and bid 4+ card suits up the line with an intermediate.

E's hand may be too good for a simple 4N unless you have the explicit agreement that 4N here is Asking. Better may be for E to cuebid 4S with that moose.

After Responder converts the T/O X of 2D to penalty, Advancer should XX. If Overcaller has 6+D, they sit. If they have 5 ♦'s and 3+H, they bid 2H. I don't think overcalling 1S with 2m while holding a 5m332 is a great idea, but if you are going to do it, you must have System to handle the potential issues. (1S)-2m is especially dangerous when your 5m332 has 3 ♠'s in it...

Being provably right matters more than all the rhetoric, claims or insults in the world. So let's dispense with the personal attacks and concentrate on finding the provable truth. That will benefit everyone, from novice to expert.

Lol. The rules says you can balance with a king less than you need to bid in direct seat. If anything, the fact that p is a passed hand should make you bid more conservatively over a preempt since you don't need to pre-protect p's awkward 13-count and because p can balance slightly more aggressively having passed originally. first, let's dispense calling any of this being based on "rules". The laws, rules, regulations etc of Bridge have nothing to do with whether we can or should bid here. second, the overcall and balancing situations are not as simple as any simple "rule". Who has Major suit length =matters=. Especially contesting partscores at MPs. third, once partner passes, they have put out a warning light that they are likely to continue to pass unless a= they had a marginal pass close to a 1st or 2nd chair opening. b= the subsequent auction gives them a reason to bid. Having passed initially, just exactly what justification are you expecting most hands with likely few major suit cards to be balancing with here? Thus after GOP's initial pass, Overcaller is essentially in a prebalance situation. Especially if the hand rates to be a partscore. ...and passer has to be very careful not to "hang" Overcaller for prebalancing.

Josh, Absolutely my partners sometimes raise 3S to 4S. But if they are a passed hand, they know =I've= bid taking that into account and the old "Subtract a K from my hand and =then= consider how to Advance" rule comes into play. Simulations can only predict things double dummy, and they only make overall accurate predictions if enough boards are simulated and in proper proportion to their statistical chance of occurring. 11 boards involving no statistical weighting and some highly unusual suit layouts are suspect as to how overall statistically valid they are. So are boards that involve unusual HCP ranges for the bids involved. The odds I was referring to are not apriori. For instance, my POV as to the odds of a Major suit or 2x Major suit fit are aposteri. They are based on the fact that we can place ~10 of the ♦'s as not being in GOP's hand +and+ on what we are holding when it is time to decide on overcalling or not. We are =5431 when LHO has shown ~7 ♦'s. That greatly increases the odds of Us having at least one Major suit fit. Also, the (3D) bid in 1st or 2nd will usually deny a 4cM. Finally, if GOP has ♠'s, the single most likely holding for them to have if HHx.

Justin, please reread my post. It took me a bunch of passes to remove all the typos cause by looking at too many baords at once while low on sleep. My conclusion however has not changed based on awm's 11 examples. I find B1, B3, and possibly B4 as the most likely balances. Of them, I know many who would open B3 and B4 in 1st or 2nd.

Here's what I see in a quick glance at awm's 11 examples. B1= 4S makes B2= 3S goes -1, 3D makes B3= 3S makes B4= 3S makes B5= 4D makes, any NS contract is a disaster B6= 3D-1, 4S makes B7= 4S makes B8= 3S makes B9= What is this fascination with low percentage bad trump breaks? 3S makes. B10= 3S makes B11= Yet Another low percentage bad S break, 3S-1, 3D makes. EDIT: Grrr! too many d@mn boards to avoid typos! Hopefully I've got them all now. In all 11 cases, I have a hard time believing N will balance after pa-(3D)-pa-pa. Board 3 is the most clear cut balance by N, and bidding 4C over 4D in the Balance seat may be difficult. OTOH, I know many who would open 1C on the B3 N cards. To makes the results statistically valid, the examples need to be weighted to their chances of occuring. Far more 32 and 31 ♠ breaks are going to occur than 50 or 51 ♠ breaks given the bidding and S's hand! Some of the ♥ holdings are also in need of serious weighing. The odds of NS having a 7-8 card fit are not well represented in these examples. These examples do not make me regret advocating bidding 3S.

Since the traditional range for a opening 3 bid is 4-9 HCP, let's prune the 10-11's? For the same reason we should consider so 4 HCP potential 3D openings (although I perfectly understand that a 2nd chair 3D opening may not consider any 4 HCP hand as appropriate.) I have not looked at your posted examples yet.

I'll note that both I and the anonymous GLM both got this one correct. :) ...and I highly doubt anyone being honest is going to claim that they will balance after pa-(3D)-pa-pa;?? holding the given hand. But since no one board proves a valid statistical argument, I repeat that this is yet another situation where a well designed simulation would be of interest.

LOL. I'll be taking careful note of any posts in the future advocating "assumed fit" methods or weak openings by those who are saying "Bidding here is not Bridge!" Somehow issues like Suit Quality don't matter nearly as much to them when they are advocating their pet methods. The logic is very similar for bidding here. Except: 1= The odds of Us owning the hand are higher. 2= The odds of Us having a fit are higher. ...and !no!, a passed hand partner is not going to blythely raise us, let alone bid game, just because we make a simple overcall. They should know we are prebalancing and not hang Us. Yet another circumstance for a well done and objective simulation.

Apriori, you rate to lose 1 ♦ + 1 ♠. So win the HA. Then take a ♠ hook; planning to take a 2nd one if it loses.

When W neither bids 2C, nor X's for a C lead/return it seems safe to assume W is not 55 in the Roundeds with AJ98x of ♣'s. (This assumes the more or less standard agreement that a lead directing X vs a NT auction/contract asks for the lead/return of Dummy's 1st bid suit.) Also, if W is 55 in H+C, and they know We have 7 ♥'s from the bidding + Dummy, why discard a ♥ rather than a ♣ on T3? ...and what will W discard when we play our 3rd ♦?

I'll not argue about the HCP. You should still bid. Expecially at MP. 13 + 7.6 is still 21+, and we have 9 cards in S+H. One thing that definitely =has= changed is the expectation that GOP has Major suit length. That has gone up considerably since 10/13 of the ♦'s are now accounted for. Apriori =without any bidding=, GOP is ~50/50 to hold 3+S when we hold 5. Those odds have just gotten better. Ditto the odds We have a ♥ fit or even a double fit in S+H. ...and We rate to own the hand. 3D makes and 3S makes => Bid 3S 3D makes and 3S doesn't => Bid 3S 3D doesn't, 3S makes => Bid 3S or X neither 2D nor 3S makes => Defend 3D, preferably X'd If I can't take a bid with 9 cards in the Majors, there is !no! way CHO should balance with 10 HCP. If I don't take action, We are nearly 100% to be defending 3D since this looks like a partscore board. Defending 3D does not look odds on for a good score. So you bid 3S or X. Since I can't stand Advancer bidding ♣'s, I'm bidding 3S.

Very nice bidding plan.

GOP is expected to hold ~10 1/4 HCP here. We've got to bid. OTOH, the hand is not good enough for 4D! showing both Majors. A prosaic 3S by me.

Problem #1: ♠AKxxx ♥AKxx ♦Ax ♣xx The classic. 1♠-P-1NT!-P-? Answer: 1S-1N;3H-?? WTP? Responder's actual hand of ♠J9xx ♥xxx ♦JTx ♣Qxx Will now bid 3S as a preference and Opener will pass: 1S-1N;3H-3S;ap (You might have trouble making 3S, let alone 4S) Again, WTP? ----------------------- Problem #2: Who lost their mind (both possible): Opener: ♠xxxxx ♥x ♦AJxx ♣AQx Responder: ♠J9x ♥Axx ♦KQTx ♣xxx The real-world auction: 1♦-P-1♥-P- 1♠-P-1NT-P- all pass Answers: a= S lost their mind opening that cheese whiz in front of partner. (9 Working HCP out of 10 in a 4333 9 loser hand is a 1m opening? YUCK!) b= a better auction pa-1S (MUCH safer in 3rd seat); 2S-ap.

♠Q963 ♥A64 ♦A32 ♣K73 + ♠A54 ♥Q973 ♦KQ65 ♣Q6 (1H) -pa-pa-1N; 2C-2N; 3H!-3N. We've got 5 top tricks and need 4 more. T1: C8-C3-CT-CQ* T2: D5-DJ-DA*-Dx T3: D3-D8-DK*-Hx In the absence of any comment to the contrary by the OP, I'm assuming standard opening leads. Thus unless W started with exactly ♣AJ98 or AJ98x, the C8 can't be 4th down. W heard the auction, saw Dummy, then discarded a ♥ anyway even though Our ♥'s are not great. I'd say W started with 5 ♥'s, KJxxx. That makes W opp E hands: ?,5,1,1+ opp ?,1,5,1+ or ?, KJxxx, DJ, 8(Axxxx?) opp ?, x, T9xxx, T(Axxxx?) Seems like playing for 33 ♠'s at this point is premature. The locations of the SK, SJ, HK, HJ, CA, and CJ are not yet proven. But given the auction, it is unlikely E has any of the A's or K's. There simply is not enough HCP out for W to have an opening bid else. All this suggests something like KJ??_KJxxx_J_A8x opp ??_x_T98xx_JTxxx EDIT: oh, the play line: cash one more top ♦, then play a small ♠ to dummy's SQ. Assuming it lives, play a small ♠ back to your hand's SA. Then throw W in with a ♠.

So 1= A 3card Fit Showing Jump. An invitational hand with 5cH and 3cS: 35?? a= CHO can not have a hand with 6+H and Inv values. That's 1S-3D! here. b= CHO can not have a min with 6+H. That's a Neg X here. (...I don't like playing 5-1 "fits", so I am never passing 3H...) c= CHO can't have an Inv hand with 5+H but no ♠ support. That's 2H here. The only thing that makes sense by process of elimination is a Fit Showing Jump. 2= Let's see. I started with a minimum opening, and this auction has 2a= improved my hand? 2b= not changed my hand's value much? 2c= worsened my hand? My vote is "c", so I bid 3S. YMMV.

Quite The hands in question: Open: ♠x ♥AKxx ♦AQxxx ♣Kxx Resp: ♠AQx ♥xx ♦108x ♣QJT9x Count my vote as the quoted as well. As for how "good" the reverse is with the given Opening hand: K&R (x AKxx AQxxx Kxx) = 18.70 DK = 17- So even for those playing Strong Reverses, Opener's hand should qualify.

Tough hand. Since I only have one entry, and no other suit that has any chance of being useful, I lead a ♥ on the expectation that it is likely to hurt the least since I can't be sure what lead will help the most. At least in ♥'s I know We have more of them than They do.