foo

I find it amusing when anyone assumes that some bidding situation is clear cut based on assuming either pard or the opps have the perfect hands. Opps are not nearly as likely to open 3H with an ultra pure hand that allows us to assume We are playing with a 30 HCP deck as they are with some other hand with enough playing strength for them to feel safe preempting 1st chair all Vul @ IMPs. Nor is pard likely to have the perfect minimum or perfect hand for us to make game. While I might very well X on this board, I think it's misleading to call it an automatic decision. You called it a gamble you felt like taking to X 3H with this hand, and I agree. That is not the same thing as a "sure thing" or an "automatic action". /sarcasm on It's impressive that such an august community of ultra-strong players with such impressive records in the highest levels of competition are here to correct the more prosaic judgments of some working bridge teacher who has to give sound advice to more ordinary players. /sarcasm off I wonder what the objective court of a reasonable simulation or few would return as the percentage action or the obviousness of it?

The people calling this a mandatory X are mistaken. You have 16 HCP. Both Vul @ IMPs your Opponents opened 3H in 1st chair. The traditional range for a 3 bid is 4-9 HCP. That leaves 7.5 <= x <= 10 HCP for your pard as their fair share. Only in the case of the preempt being a minimum do we belong in Game (26 HCP between us means we don't care about fit). If the 3H preempt was a maximum, we may not make 3S even if we do have a fit. We certainly do not rate to make 3S or 3N if we do not have a fit. Both Vul @ IMPs, which do you think is more likely: that They opened a 4-6 HCP hand 3H or that they opened a 8-9 HCP hand 3H? (Put yourself in Their shoes and remember that you can not afford to go down more than -2 X'ed +and+ that you can't afford a Phantom Sacrifice game swing @ IMPs. If you are looking at a 7 card suit and a side stiff/void, you can expect pard to have 2 card support, 2 cover cards, and only have a side shortness if they have more than 2 card support. You would open 3H or pass accordingly unless you are not playing good bridge.) In addition, while your hand is very pure (no wasted values in ♥'s), it unfortunately has "the death holding" of 2 cards in their trump suit. This is !NOT! a clear cut T/O X in this situation.

I knew of a very aggressive matchpoint pair who used permanent Drury, so as to be able to open consistently on 8-9 hcps <_< Barry Crane wanted to be be able to play Drury in all seats. The ACBL would not let him. Drury by an unpassed hand was considered a psychic control by the reviewing authorities. They were and are correct. If you are playing Drury in 1st or 2nd chair, you are playing a method that is not legal in many jurisdictions. OTOH, Drury in 3rd and 4th chair is a very useful way of probing for games and slams based on degree of fit and controls or of getting into the auction and out quickly with hands that are not interested in game or slam. I prefer Two Way Reverse Drury because a= as the saying goes, "The 9th trump is the most important card in Bridge." b= Robson and Segel: "We need more ways of raising partner." (which is why I disagree with them about Support X's not being needed sometimes. They always are.) c1= Responder is rarely going to have a natural 2m bid c2= When they do, the opponents are not letting you play 2m very often. The bottom line here is that Drury is not a license to open on dreck (Yiddish for crap, filth, or garbage). Even "light" 3rd seat 1M openings should have a reason, for instance being lead directing, for the opening. EDIT: and xxx/xx/KJxxx/AJx or the like is a perfectly normal raise to 2S. 9 losers, 9 HCP, 3 controls, etc. I could go on and on. An Invitational+ hand has 8- losers and 3+ cover cards: xxx/x/KJxxx/AJxx This hand is an Invite and might be worth a GF opposite the correct minimum 1S. xxxx/x/KJxxx/AJx This hand is a GF opposite a full opening bid of 1S. Yes, the 9th trump is that important. (I suspect Gerben gets too high a lot...)

What style you play influences what you use your sequences for. 1m-2M;2m shows 6+m or a 5 carder that is expected to take more tricks than the average 6 (something like Hhhxx or better) and no better rebid. I tend strongly that 1m-1M;2M promises 4+ card support. So 1m-1S;2m-2H is a minimum =54 or =55 in S+H But what about Invitational and GF hands with =54, =45, and =55 in S+H? 1m-1M;2m-2M shows a minimum with 6+M 1m-1M;2m-3M is usually played as an Invitational hand with 6+M. 1m-1M;2m-4M takes up too much room to be used for all GF hands. It has to to be To Play. What should one do with a Responding hand that might be interested in slam and 6+M? or an Invitational or better =46 or =64 in S+H? What about Slam interested responding hands with 4+M and support for Opener's minor? We obviously need another way to bid Invitational or some complicated hands. 1C-1M;2C-2D! and 1D-1M;2D-3C! are those ways. Both are intuitive extensions to NMF (1D-1M;2D-3C! obviously requires GF values) You give up the ability to bid the unbid minor naturally. IME, the convention is well worth the price.

Behavioral standards are not the same for everyone. They never have been. Human nature suggests they never will be. From the PoV of fairness, I don't think they ever should be. We do not have the same expectations of children as we do of adults. We do not expect novices to keep to the same tempo or be as stringent about UI issues as we do experienced players. Those standards are even more stringent for the Expert. What for a lesser player may simply be confusion or ignorance is often going to be interpreted as coffeehousing or a tempo break or some other infraction if done by an Expert. Yes, there is a minimum standard for polite public behavior expected of players. Yes, in the past Experts have been allowed some latitude (or assumed some) that others in the community have not. Those days are over. The simple reality is that Experts and Pros playing with clients are under =more= scrutiny than other players. There are =more= expectations of them. They are =more= visible. ...and therefore, yes, they can do more damage to Bridge by not behaving up to those expectations. Which means Zero Tolerance has to be even more enforced for Experts than for other players. Maybe some people should rethink whether they really want to call themselves a Bridge "Expert". There are responsibilities associated with that title that go beyond simply a high standard of technical skill. (Perhaps if those behavioral standards were enforced accordingly, less people would be in such a rush to claim a title that they perhaps should not.)

It's all of the above. We have to find solutions that adequately deal with =all= aspects of the world's currents problems or we are going to have lot's of people dying in a short time period at some point. Or we are going to permanenlu destroy the world's present ecosystem. Or both.

You aren't even close to being strong enough to Reverse. Pass.

This board is a great advertisement for Drury and Acol 3N. With 5 losers, it is not strong enough to open 2C. Having only 8 expected tricks, we need usually need 2 good cards from Responder to make a game (playing GOP to have the ♦A or ♦K is too optimistic). In most partnerships, 1S. In tempo. If you really are afraid of being passed in 1S because your "inner voice" says the odds are too high that CHO will have a ♦ control, then you want to be playing Acol 3N and open the hand 3N.

So, should rating systems like the Lehmans or (gack) master points be adjusted because someone is an asshole? I doubt that anyone would take a proposal like that remotely seriously, however, its completely analogous to what you are proposing. I'm not sure how you justify the POV that these suggestions are in any way analogous. Being rude in what has been called "the gentlemen's game" (as in mannerly and civilized) is never acceptable. Being rude to those of lesser skill or experience than yourself is even more unacceptable by genteel standards. Regardless of what some, including you evidently, think, being talented in a field does not absolve you of all responsibility for acting according to the standards of a social environment. "Everyone has their right to be different as long as they do not adversely affect someone else's right to be different." Steve Sion was one of the best Bridge players who ever lived. He also is a sociopath and a cheat. He doesn't get to play Organized Bridge anymore. He will never be admitted to the Bridge Hall of Fame or its equivalent. It doesn't matter how skillful or talented a player he was. Ron Anderson, who certainly was an Expert and did an enormous amount of good for Bridge, was once penalized for opening a zero count 4333 2N in front of a "Flight D" LOL. The DIC's words were something like "You have no need beside possible sadism to do that to an opponent you rate to beat anyway." Ira Rubin was once thrown out of a National playing area for outrageous behavior (besides language and a voice that could be heard tables away, he also evidently tore up some cards at the time. The TD staff decided they had had enough and that "The Beast" needed a "recess".) Whether Experts like it or not, they are de facto ambassadors for Bridge. People are going to judge the entirety of any community by the behavior of its most respected and most visible members. Organized Bridge is no exception. The financial lifeblood of Organized Bridge is !not! the Expert community. It is the much larger community of "just plain folk" who are not, and in some cases unlikely to ever be, Experts. Without them, Organized Bridge dies. If some novice acts like a churl, they look bad. When an Expert acts like a churl, =Bridge= looks bad. ...and that means Experts, like it or not, bear the onus of a stricter standard of behavior than the rest of the Bridge community. This is so important that the rest of the Expert community and the TD's have to "help" Experts who Don't Get It . Even if it means "help" turns out to be throwing a talented player who persists in acting uncivilized out of playing areas, events, or even from being able to play at all. Experience has shown that, literally, the survival of Organized Bridge depends on it. The issues are orthogonal, and the vector of "proper behavior" trumps "how good you are".

The main point of what happened is that =regardless of the Bridge being "good" or "bad"=, that sort of behavior is simply unacceptable and one should be taken to task for it. The more experienced you are or claim to be and the wider the skill discrepency (claimed or real) between you and your partner, THE GREATER YOUR OBLIGATION IS TO BE POLITE. ...and the more stringent the enforcement or harsher the penalties should be for being rude. I have witnessed, and completely agreed with, an expert or two being told to leave the playing area, or even the event, for Conduct Unbecoming a Human ITRW. I have no problem with the same standard being applied to BBO. I repeat: If someone claims to be an expert and then indulges in behavior like calling inexperienced players "idiots" and booting them, they should expect far more scrutiny and far harsher penalties than the average player. (and anyone who does such things is violating the standards of conduct for BBO and could be put "on vacation" from BBO for it.) It's part of the price of calling oneself an Expert that you are held to higher standards than the average player.

Thorium fission nuclear reactors are presently our best general solution for power generation. Niche solutions like Geothermal, Hydro, and Wind can supplement that. For transportation on land or sea, the best general solution at present is biodiesel-electric hybirds. Air transport, especially supersonic air transport, is a tougher problem. Lockheed Martin's "Skunkworks" (they designed the U2, the SR-71, and the first UAV's) is working on a nuclear engine for planes. Biodiesel has been shown to work for slower planes. Solar will at some point get efficient enough and low cost enough to be a more useful solution, but it has not happened yet. Unfortunately, there are plenty of applications in the plastics and biomedical fields where ATM there literally is no good substititute for a good or service based on a petrochemical. ...and of course it's going to take time to put all these pieces in place. Time we may well not have before there are major social disruptions and violence (I mean like world war violence). We also have to address all this while paying attention to the now serious dangers of Climate Change and high levels of GHG in the atmosphere. Whereagles is correct about this being one of hardest problem sets of our time.

The days of the like of Ira Rubin "The Beast" behavior being put up with are in the past. =Especially= when it comes to public deportment by Experts toward novice or relatively inexperienced players. (Experts are still allowed to be more p*ssy at each other than at lesser players, but even there the Zero Tolerance environment has made the standards of ATT conduct more stringent.) Bridge =has= grown up. The realization that this is an =entertainment= activity for most and that if we want their money we have to behave to what our mothers would have regarded as an acceptable public standard is now the accepted norm. Experts, as this community's aristocracy, have an obligation to help Bridge be perceived in a positive light.

Assuming 2/1 GF, 1= Opener tends to be a minimum =2542 or =3541. Responder tends to be a minimum of =4315 with extras (hence the delayed raise.) 2= Opener is a minimum of =1543 unlimited in strength. Responder definitely has extras (else they would bid 3N and end the auction rather than 2N and prolong the conversation). Responder at a minimum has something like a 6- loser =3235 or =3226 15+ count. Responder does not have 3 card ♥ support.

No true expert should be that rude... ...or be allowed to be to a less experienced player. Report them to Fred and the "yellow badges". Bridge does not need that sort of behavior as publicity. Or experts that don't understand that.

I do not recommend cue bidding or making any other strong slam move when holding a hand that contains no hard values. Can Overcaller be off 2 A's or a critical A and K on this auction? Of course they can. Shape is a wonderful thing, but you also have to have controls appropriate to your contract. IMHO Justin and Richard are being a bit too over optimistic. If they are that worried about missing a slam when holding this hand as Advancer, they should just bid 6m... If you must make a strong move with this hand, be in the correct partnership and bid 3D. This promises at least tolerance for ♣'s and "gets your hand off your chest". Personally, I think that it may be an overbid, but it's much closer to reasonable than a cuebid or some other bid that should promise some hard values or first round controls.

Like many things in Bridge, partnership style and agreements vary the "right" answers somewhat. The following is what I think is the more or less mainstream NA style. 1= How good does a hand have to be to justify X then bid a new suit? VERY good. 5- losers if Major suit oriented and 4- losers if minor suit oriented, and the appropriate number of controls (A's and K's). Forget about point ranges. Playing strength based on power+shape is what matters. Overcaller is basically asking Advancer to advance the auction or bid Game on the least excuse. 2= How would you bid now holding: ♠ x ♥ x ♦ Q98xxx ♣ T9xxx Count your losers. Your hand opposite a 5- loser hand should make 5m, and you are willing to compete to 6m if They bid 5M over 5m. OTOH, your hand's playing strength is based on shape and fit, not power tricks. Do not mislead GOP by bidding this as if you are looking for a slam! Remember that They opened the bidding, so We should be missing at least 2 Quick Tricks. Bid 5C in tempo and compete to 6C in tempo if you have to.

♠ Jxx ♥ Ax ♦ KQxx ♣ AKQx after (1S)-??, the SJ is likely waste paper unless GOP has length or strength in ♠'s. I agree with the majority and downgrade my hand to a 1N overcall showing 15-18. Yes, I only have "1/2 a stop". But any other call is a worse distortion of my hand. Give me Jxx.xx.AKQx.AKQx or Jxx.Qx.(AKxx.AKQx) or the like, and I'm overcalling an unusual Unusual 2N!

deleted

Nice bidding problem. They have indeed succeeded in putting the pressure on Us. This class of "max invitational but not GF w/o support or a side 4cM" in auctions like this is a fairly common problem. Now the bad news. =Nothing= you do here will be right all the time. In fact, in the style most use for 3rd seat openings, responding hands like Kx/Qxx/xxx/AQxxx are going to be "endplayed" into bidding 4S (and praying) after pa-pa-1S-(3D);X-pa-3S-pa;?? because Responder has a 7 loser hand with 2 QT. Even pa-pa-1S-(3D);X-pa-3H-pa;?? is potentially worrisome given that opener may well be 55 in S+H here. {A useful agreement might be to have Opener simply bid 4H with a good 6- loser hand with 4 H's or a 7- loser 55(12) in this situation, thereby limiting the 3H rebid fairly tightly.} Give Responder an 8 loser 10-11 count (IOW, a clearly invitational hand rather than a almost GF hand) and Responder can worry less about missing game opposite most Openers that can't make a strong rebid in this auction. But as I said, you will never be right 100% of the time here no matter you do.

I disagree that opener will never pass a Negative X after a 3rd chair mininum opening. Especially when opponents are Red. Given that Responder is looking at KQx of ♠'s here, Opener did not open a subminimum with an exceptional ♠ suit. Give opener a normal 12-13 count 5(332) {especially =5233} and opener should be penalty passing Negative X's. Ditto many =5134's. Opener will not be passing with a 15 count, nor with most 14's, so the odds of missing a game are not as high as some are worrying about. ...and for all the people who think shape is important but hate Negative X, exactly how are you planning on figuring out if We have a 2x fit in the Majors? Or anything else about how well Our hands "fit"? There's a reason why some play that Negative X followed by raise shows a 3 card Limit Raise. (I'm being neither pro nor con about said method. Just noting that logic like this is why it exists.)

4333's stink in terms of play potential. A negative X here should strongly tend to show 4 cards in each of the unbid suits. If GOP promises 5+M with their 3rd seat 1 opening, I raise to 3S. If GOP makes frequent 4cM 1M openings in 3rd chair, I make a Negative X.

♠ 32 ♥ Kxx ♦ Kxxx ♣ KQxx + ♠ AKQJTxxxx ♥ AQ ♦ Q ♣ x Neat hand. AFAICT, North should be Declaring 6N (1S-1N; etc. or 2C-2D;3S-4N;etc) The count is "pre rectified" given that you are in 6, so... win the H lead with the HA and start running ♠'s. Tend to discard what your RHO discards, but never discard any ♥'s Neither opponent can discard an A else you will make 7, so the end position as you get ready to play the last ♠ is going to be something like x/Q/Q/x -/xx/x/A..............-/xx/A/x -/Kx/-/KQ Both opponents are forced to save their A lest you make 7, so you discard a ♣ from hand and then play the HQ. You then throw either opponent in but whoever they are they must play a ♥ on Trick 13, giving you your 12th trick.

7 losers, 2.5 Quick Tricks, 11 HCP + 1 Length Point= 12 Playing Points, an easy rebid, and the longest suit is Spades (the "Master" suit). A easy opener. OTOH, it is a clear minimum. For Us to belong in Game, Responder has to promise 4 cover cards in a 4M contract or enough tricks added to our ~4 1/3 expected tricks for us to make 9 tricks in NT or 10 tricks in a suit contract.

Jeff Rubens made some thoughtful comments about this topic (value location in 2N openers) in his book. IMHO, a super accept after a 2N opening means we are forcing to game opposite what could be a zerio count with a 5cM... ...unless we explicitly make the agreement to pay the price of responder passing any hand that would not want to be in game opposite a super accept. We'd gain in our game and slam bidding at the price of going down in 2N when we can make 3M on a lot of partscore hands. Your choice. I also agree than ken's on the right track when he says super accepts have to be descriptive. Super accepts should have 4+ card support or be 21 counts of the right texture with 3 card support.

South should pass with ♠ T9752 ♥ A ♦ AQT98 ♣ J2 IMO. This hand is light on HCP and has the flaws of Jx and a stiff A. Then the bidding is easy: p-1H;1S-2S;Invite-4S If South does open that Jreck +and+ "standard" J2N is on: 1S-2N!4S since 1= South has a dead minimum on this auction. 2= "standard" J2N includes Fast Arrival. Playing Slow Arrival, South would rebid 3S, "I have nothing extra to say" instead of leaping to game and then N would bid 4S. Under no circumstances is S's subminimum opening worth a positive response to any form of J2N.