foo

Bridge by parable? I dare say that if the contract was 4S rather than 3N, no one would be leading a ♣ from AQxxx on this auction; and we all know why. "4th down from your longest and strongest" does not come close to describing the actual complexity of choosing an opening lead. Underleading A's and AQ's can cost vs NT contracts as well as vs suit contracts. The opening lead is definitely the hardest play in Bridge to get right, and clearly one can construct boards where what we need to do here is lead a Major! However, the issue is what is not what is going to work, but rather what is most likely to work. I don't =know= what is most likely to work, and neither does anyone else who is honest about it. I think a ♣ or a ♦ is most likely to. And I don't think it is as clear cut as simply tallying the responses might given the impression of. Another situation where it would be interesting for a good simulation to be done.

Both 5S and 7S were down right silly calls on this board. 5S is the =really= bad bid. E should bid 4S, sign off, instead of 5S, looking for exceptional trumps (BTW, the proper way of responding to 5S would have been 6S, very likely ending the auction before disaster.) I'm neutral about E showing they have both the DA and the DK. 7S is very pushy. Especially given that E has stated they have bad trumps with their 5S bid. BTW, The 4C cue bid is actually fairly typical in a 5 loser hand with a void and 4 card trump support. The thing I don't like about it is the use of a splinter when you have a gaping hole in a side suit. However, most pairs do not have the requirement that their splinters guarantee values in all the side suits.

Two other reasonably popular ways I've seen of handling potential bidding problems after 1D-2C;?? Call my previous post Method A. Method A is the closest to "Standard". The following can be effective, but they are furtther from Standard. Don't play either of these without extensive discussion with partner! You have been warned. Method B= remove the requirement that opener have extras in order to use 1D-2C;2M This allows opener, who We usually want to declare the hand anyway playing SA, to get the Majors in first most of the time. Since Responder has promised a rebid no matter what anyway, and opener can pass 1D-2C;2M-2N or 1D-2C;2M-3C , the cost for this is fairly small. OTOH, there =are= ripple effects throughout System that must be considered. Method C= Opener rebids 2D, regardless of ♦ length, on just about every hand except a specifically chosen few. Depending on what you decide 1D-2C;2N shows, this can easily result in you having the agreement that minimum =4432's rebid 2D!. If you do this, rebidding a 3 card suit is sufficiently unusual that IMHO the sequence 1D-2C;2D has to be alerted.

If the 1N opener is RHO, then leading a ♣ may cost a trick. You want =partner= to lead ♣'s =through= RHO and into you hand if RHO is the 1N opener. Natural lead from the given hand is the DJ from JT9x

After 1♦-2♣;2♦ there is still the possibility of game. I would think responder's rebid of 2M, while technically a reverse, would show, in the first instance, a stopper in that suit, suggesting 2NT (or more) as the final contract... No. Either sequence shows a 4cM. How else is a hand with a 4cM and longer ♣'s supposed to be bid by responder?

1D-2C is a troublesome sequence for almost every bidding system. If playing SA or SAYC, then the standard agreement is that Responder can use this sequence with Invitational+ values. Ordinarily, Responder's Reverse shows GF values. This situation is an exception. Since 1D-2C;2M is supposed to show 15+ HCP on opener's part, responder is allowed to "mini-reverse" on invitational+ values (say 11+ HCP) after 1D-2C;2D-??. OTOH, the auction 1D-2C;2N-3M is still GF. One of the implications of this is that opener should =strain= to rebid 2D: 1D-2C;2D as often as possible to allow an invitational responder room to bid 2M. Therefore a common set of agreemnts here is a= for opener to rebid 2D with almost any 5 card ♦ suit. Regardless of strength. (there are exceptions: great ♦'s + ♣ support, being 65 with a 5cM, etc) b= for opener to rebid 2M or raise ♣'s with 15+ (2H denies 5+D. 2S denies 5+D and 4+H) c= for opener to rebid 2N with minimums that are exactly =3343 or =4432 in S+H (=3352 is often considered a "judgment hand" where you rebid 2D or 2N based on which you think is better.) Obviously, this leaves some hand types imposible to bid, so d= opener rebids 2D if they intend to pass 3C or raise to 3C on their next turn. This takes care of all mininum hands with 3+C support. e= opener rebids 2D if "stuck for bid" based on a-d above.

Vanilla 2/1 GF 1S-2foo;2bar-2S shows a GF hand with a side suit and =either= 3+S or 4+S. Jumps such as 1S-2foo;2bar-3S are usually reserved as "picture bids" showing special hands that are agreed to within the parthership. See Fred's excellent articles on improving 2/1 GF in this site's library as a good example of some reasonable expert agreements as to what jumps and jump raises should show in 2/1 GF auctions.

The best solution I've seen discussed here or anywhere else is to have the agreement that 1m-(1H)-X-pa;1S shows 3 ♠'s and 1m-(1H)-X-pa;2S shows 4 ♠'s With that is in place, this and similar hand types with 3+S become much easier to deal with. This allows you can open your better minor on any hand with 3+S since you can rebid 1N in an uncontested auction or use the above agreement in a contested auction. (...and what do you do in similar situations where They overcall 1S asks a little voice?) That does still leave hands such as =2344 w/o a ♥ stop as potential problems. For those it looks like you have to choose a= open 1D and make a prepared rebid of 2C after 1m-(1H)-X-pa;?? or b= be prepared to rebid 1N w/o a ♥ stop in the contested auction.

Why? Why do you need an agreement about anything? I specifically remember the Granovetters discussing in _A Switch in Time_ that at one time they had no agreements about carding. Good book. Has some very good ideas in it. The actual POV was "It is of course possible to play w/o any signals, but it is considerably more work on every hand and you will very likely end up too tired too fast to play a lot of high level bridge."

deleted

http://www.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff/knr.cgi?ha...xx+Jxx+AQJxx+Qx K&R (Qxx Jxx AQJxx Qx) = 10.30 DK = 10 IOW, this has the expected trick taking strength of the average 10 count.

"The Rabbi"= The stiff K. "biff with a stiff"= to ruff with a singleton trump "stiff"= singleton (was that already here?) "The beer card"= the D7 "The curse of Scotland"= the D9 "jack off dummy"= playing the jack from dummy "mushroom"= a player who shows the intelligence and skill of ... "Walrus"= someone who thinks HCP are the definitive gospel to evaluating a hand. Add references to any of Victor Mollo's other characters to this list as well. "Pennsylvania ave" or "going for ..."= getting +1600 or going -1600 "Marie Antoinette" or "Marie Antoinette bid (or action)"= A player or player making a call or action that rates to get the player making it "sent to the guillotine", eg get a very bad score. I'll see if I can remember any others.

"Bridge World Standard 2001 A standard system, constructed from the preferences of over 100 American experts" the part to which you refer is "Where the experts are in substantial agreement (with close cases decided, when possible, by the votes of Bridge World readers at large), those methods become part of the system." So your statement of "fact" was hardly a fair one. "constructed from the preferences of over 100 American experts." America may have invented Bridge, but it is far from being definitive of WC level expert bidding practice nor is it the sole source of the best bridge knowledge or best bridge players. The other problem with consensus systems like BWS is that systems should not be just random collections of tools thrown together. They are supposed to be carefully considered unified approaches to handling all the important situations one is likely to encounter ATT. Every choice you make influences every other choice you make. A consensus system has a nasty tendency to not get that completely right. Don't get me wrong. It's =far= better to have agreements, even possibly inferior ones, than to have no agreements. Being able to say "BWS?" to someone from another country who knows it simplifies System discussion tremendously. The other major purpose BWS serves is to show how expert consensus evolves over time. That's valuable also.

This is an excellent choice, IF you keep in mind that many of the treatments (and style recommendations) in Robson/Segal are not standard. I think BWS is as good as it gets in terms of documented US expert practice, even though a few votes would probably end with a different majority today than 2000/2001 (udca, 1430 etc.). Btw, recommending Ken Rexford's book for someone who wants to learn US standard expert practice is beyond ridiculous. This has nothing to do with whether the book is good or bad, just that the topic of the book is a very non-standard cuebidding style; I am sure Ken would agree on this. Some of Ken's treatments are indeed "out there" and he'll be the first to admit it. I did say "provocative" in describing the book. OTOH, the more basic stuff in his book, is by his own statement, based on extensive thought and discussion with experts he knows. Endorsing the book as a good read on how to think about the subject is not an endorsement for adopting every treatment he has in there. Ditto any decent bidding book. At least until someone actually writes a book called _Expert Standard_ that is definitive on the subject.

So where are the clearly inferior parts? 1 & 2. Go read Kantar's book (simple cases to get you going: a= Pretend ♥'s are trump and you want to ask for Q's. Which would you rather be playing 1430 or 3014? As you can read in the book, the best answer is dependent on which hand is doing the Ace asking, the weaker or stronger of the pair. b= Now suppose Our fit is in a minor. Can you see why 4m as 1430 is superior to 4N?) 3. UDCA has been shown to be less likely to cost the defense a trick for decades. 4. The Blue Team established the strength of odd/even signalling. Unfortunately, we are only allowed to use it for our 1st discard in the modern regulatory environment.

I agree with all of this. I consider _The Modern Losing Trick Count_ by Ron Klinger and _I Fought the Law_ by Anders Wirgen & Mike Lawrence to be the basis for modern hand evaluation Some good references on 2/1 GF as it is usually played in NA are _Washington Standard_ by Steve Robinson and _Standard Bridge Bidding for the 21st Century_ by the late Max Hardy Edwin Kantar's _Roman Keycard Blackwood_ is the best book on Ace asking in existence. The late Ron Anderson's _The Lebensohl Convention_ is the equivalent for that family of treatments. 25 years ago the standard reference text on conventions was _Bridge Conventions Complete_ by Amalya Kearse. The "fat yellow book" has been superseded with the 4 volume set _Bridge- classic and modern conventions_ by Magnus Lindkvist. "Our own" Ken Rexford's book on cue bidding is IMHO the most thoughful and provocative on that topic in existence. etc etc. There are a lot of good books out there. But no book I know of has standard expert bidding practice documented for such things as a= if They bid 1 suit, a cue bid w/o an established fit =asks= for a stopper, if They bid 2 suits, a cue bid w/o an established fit =shows= a stopper (and asks for a stopper in the other suit). b= Quick. Think of all the ways to bid 5m in a high level contested auction and differentiate how much each of them has their playing strength based on shape+fit vs how many power tricks they each have. c= how modern expert defensive signalling practice has evolved in the last 25 years. etc. There's a whole slew of important stuff not in easily accessible print.

Some places where at a quick glance BWS is clearly inferior to Expert Standard: 1= BWS uses 3014 instead of 1430. 2= BWS does not use minorwood. Edwin Kantar wrote the presently definitive books on Ace Asking what? 15+ years ago now? 3= BWS does not use UCDA 4= BWS does not use odd/even 1st discard.

BWS is not Expert Standard. BWS is a consensus system based on surveys of the BW readership. As I noted in another thread, popularity does not necessarily equate to correctness or superiority. Another problem with defining Expert Standard is that it tends at some point to have regional differences. ES in Long Beach CA and Somerset UK and Bejing CH and ... are not the same thing. Even within 1 continent like NA, there are serious regional variations.

The real problem is that "Expert Standard' is not clearly documented anywhere in print in an easily accessible form. This is one of my pet peeves, and one of the reasons I participate as much as I do in forums like these. Whether it's due to lack of desire, or negligence, or a belief that Expert Standard is a "guild secret" that would lose its value if easily found, or whatever, Experts openly documenting Expert Standard just doesn't usually happen.

I did some checking around, and there are at least 2 very common ways of handling the problem implied in this thread within a SA context. 1= When holding 44, 54, or 45 in the minors and a hand not strong enough to reverse, strain to open 1D so you can have a "prepared" 2C rebid available. 2= 1m-(1H)-X-pa;1S shows exactly 3 ♠'s and a minimum 1m-(1H)-X-pa;2S shows exactly 4 ♠'s and a minimum 1m-(1H)-X-pa;3S shows exactly 4 ♠'s and a medium hand 1m-(1H)-X-pa;2H shows exactly 4 ♠'s and a Maximum w/o a Splinter. One curmudgeonly wit I spoke to (he's actually quite a good player locally) said: "If you have NT shape and no better bid, then grow a pair and bid NT d@mn it!" I add this last with trepidation only because said player also uses treatment 1 and 2 above yet still includes the possibility the he might be endplayed in the bidding into having make a NT bid w/o stoppers in Their suit. So there's a complete systemic way for handling the issue. YMMV.

No, I call the TD when I have only 12 cards I mistyped an "x" in a hand my fingers are getting cramped from repeating all day. We all know what the hand is by now ad nauseum ATxxxxx-x-AJx-AQ There. Happy? Jeez. EDIT- for spelling of obscure Latin phrases I don't use very often in print. :unsure:

I agree with that I disagree, as I like methods that start this hand 1♥-2♠ You think ATxxxx-x-AJx-AQ is right for a Strong Jump Shift of 1H-2S?

Now =that= is about what I expected opener to have on this auction. :(

Most of the players, and most of the authoritative texts I know of, say that 1H-1S;2H-2S is nf. For example, Truscott's _The Bidding Dictionary_ lists this as sequence 3434 on p51. The description is given as ?6-9? strength, 6+S, 2-H, ? in the minors, Hand Type "Y" and note 312. Note 312 says nothing useful to our current discussion, but hand type Y is described on pxv of the preface as "Y: Suggests An End To The Auction. Partner is not barred, but usually passes." Similarly, the current standard approach is that 1H-1S;2H-3S is Inv (as can be seen on the same page as sequence 3439. :( ) Which means ATxxxxx-x-AJX-AQ has become a bidding problem it would not be if 1H-1S;2H-3S was GF. My analysis of what to do with the OP hand in the context of Standard bidding as defined by texts such as those I'm referencing is in other posts. I'll be happy to consider refuting arguments. Direct or implied attacks/insults/smarmy personal comments lack either logic or evidence and are therefore content free. Not honest attempts at forwarding the discussion. Such a refutation would start something along the line of "Opener's most likely shapes are <mumble list>. Opener's most likely values are <mumble list>. This results in a n% chance that Opener will pass 4S when We belong in slam and n% is too high to be reasonable. Therefore bidding ATxxxxx-x-AJx-AQ via 1H-1S;2H-4S is too likely to result in a bad score and thus is a bad way to bid this hand." *goes and repacks/relights pipe while grabbing a pad of paper to start said calculations for himself* As I said before, I'd be interested in seeing the results of a well designed simulation of this issue.

dburn makes an interesting point. In the "old days" when 2nd round jump rebids by responder were Forcing rather than invitational, ATxxxxx-x-AJx-AQ would have been a fine hand to go through 1H-1S;2H-3S