foo

On that note, it is NOT IMNSHO any more appropriate for Justin to be brought before a commitee, or "tried by the public" than it was or would have been of Mr Piltch. Some seem to think that because Justin made inappropriate public comments, =he= should be before a C & E. That is at least as ludicrous as the other call for a C&E was. Justin was put in a situation that charged him emotionally and he said and did some overly emotional things because of it. He overreacted a bit. We all do that. Particularly when we are younger. I'm not sure what the proper way to address that is, but I =am= sure that a "reciprocal witch hunt" is not the proper way. My hopefully constructive suggestion as to how BBO should handle this kind of stuff in the future is that BBO should simply censor public accusations of cheating in these forums where the accused can be identified. We have policies and procedures, including for when and how such information should be made public. This forum, particularly before due process has been observed, is not and should not be one of them.

First off, get a new partner. No matter what happens ATT, there is NO excuse for such boorish behavior. 2nd, doesn't anyone teach or learn "The Rule of 2 and 3" anymore? You are Vul and hold an 8 loser hand. You can afford to go no more than -2 X'd (-500 vs -6x0 for Them bidding and making Game). In addition, you are bidding "in front of" (eg "before") GOP. Therefore you need to be more careful to "have your bid" than you do if GOP is a passed hand. Now assume partner has 1/3 of the HCP and 1/3 of the ♥ you are not looking at. Figure each 3 HCP GOP has removes a loser from your hand. 8 losers - 0 "cover cards" => -3 down in 2HX, you should pass 8 losers - 1 "cover cards" => -2 down in 2HX, bid 2H 8 losers - 2 or more "cover cards" => -2 down or less in 3HX, bid 3H you hold ♠xx ♥KJTxxxx ♦xxx ♣x GOP rates to have (40-4)/3= 8 2/3 HCP => That's 2 2/3 expected "cover cards" You have 7 ♥'s. pard is expected to have (13-7)/3= 2 ♥'s => We should have 9 card fit. 3♥ is the "Book Bid". 2♥ may mislead GOP because it should promise more values than you have, But it is not outrageous to be more conservative than "The Book". Especially when Red. 3rd, your "CHO", heard you say that you had no defense and still decided to X 3C for penalty with only 4 possible defensive tricks in hand. The "rule of thumb" after partner preempts is to not Penalty X unless you have Them beat at least 2 tricks =in hand=. IOW, your rude partner needed =6= defensive tricks in THEIR hand to justify a penalty X. They blamed the bad result which was their fault on you. They are rude and blame you for their Bridge mistakes. Get them to clean up their act or get a new partner.

If we assume (3C) has a range of 5-10 or 4-9 (ask!), GOP is expected to have (28 - (15/2 or 13/2))/2= (20.5 or 21.5)/2= 10 1/4 or 10 3/4 HCP 12 + 10.5 = 22.5 We rate to be at least 50% likely to be safe at the three level. A similar calculation can show that We are more than 50% likely to have a ♠ fit. As long as GOP knows not to jump the bidding unless they have 12+ Dummy Points (I =am= Balancing after all), I bid 3S. WTP?

thanks. rehi to you as well and it's good to be back. :)

Seems about right but I would change "5card suit" to "good spots". It seems 5 card suit are overrated at least my experience with simulations tells me so. Dunno how it work in real world :) The reason the 5+ card suit is important is as follows. 3N makes > 50% of the time if a) the HCP are exactly 12+12 B) there are 25 HCP and an 8+ card fit c) there are 26+ HCP and no 8+ card fit. 4M makes > 50% of the time if the above is true +and+ there is a chance to gain tricks by ruffing in the short hand (or either hand if a 4-4 fit) a 5+ card suit in one hand greatly increases the odds of an 8+ card fit being present. As always, the caveat that the HCP above are 7/10 A & K's, that value location is average, etc etc applies. IOW, no "white" nor "black" magic boards. Good sims should verify the above.

Luckily, I have no partnership agreements, either implicit or explicit, about how to handle 6-7 hands with less than 8 HCP. They just don't seem to come up that often. ROTFLMAO! :)

OOPS!! If the bid works, they obviously have a wire on the board and should be publically lynched, tried, convicted, and thrown out of bridge forever by a mob. Not.

1= In all of this, I keep seeing folk ignoring the most important fact of this whole situation. The State of the Match. As a pro, you are hired to do everything legally within your power to win for your client. When you are behind, it is your =JOB= to "swing" as hard as you think you can to try and get back in contention. It's a standard tactic of pros. If you are -40whatever vs a team better than yours, there is very little to lose by swinging and a potential huge gain. I am confident that Mr Piltch would not consider an action like the 6D bid if his team was merely -20. -40 is a whole other kettle of fish. 2= Nor have people taken enough note of the fact that Mr Piltch's opponents were at Favorable Vul ratio with The Master suit. "space conserving" calls like X or 4N could very easily get "stomped" on: (3S)-X-(5S) (3S)-X-(6S) replace "X" with "4N" for similar lessons. ...and given that Justin's team as +40 something, the risk to them of such action is minimal at best. That means that Mr Piltch's best chance is to jam the auction as much and as fast as possible in one bid. IOW, bid at the odds on 6 level. 6D rather than 6C is definitely imaginative, but that's a different issue. 3= People need to note and consider the difference between "illegal" and "unethical". Cheating is certainly illegal. By defintion. But many of the examples being discussed here are issues of =ethics=, not =legality=. 4= A cheating accusation, and let's make NO pretence that Justin did not make such, he most certainly did, is the worst accusation one can make in Bridge. The accusation, in and of itself regardless of any other factor, can and has destroyed the careers of players. Such accusations should NEVER be made in a public forum for that very reason. 5= I find it interesting that no one has tried the obvious other tactic here. Proof by contradiction. Let's assume that Mr Piltch was =not= cheating any more than Coon, Shapiro, Reese, Zia, or any of a number of other players famous for "flare" in bidding style. And try to see if we can duplicate their logic and board visualization skills. (I'll skip "table feel" since the younger non rubber bridge players might consider that "unethical" .... ;-) ) Maybe, just maybe, they know something of legitimate skill that the rest of us could learn from.

Partnership Agreement territory. Esp if Resp's X shows a negative, O may not have enough defense in hand to set the opponents enough in a two level contract to garner a good score. ...and if the 2C opening is a massive one suiter, They may actually have enough of Their trumps to MAKE Their two level contract. (for instance, picture a 2C opening with a 7+m and give the Opposition LOT'S of Major suit cards and none or virtually none of Our minor in one of Their hands.)

1= N signed off after S's Cuebid. 2= But S ignored the signoff. 3= Therefore some N's, especially in a pickup between two non experts, would think that what S was looking for was not SMALL slam but rather GRAND slam and therefore bid 6 after the "I'm ignoring your signoff" 2nd cue bid. The real lesson of this hand is that acceptable slam bidding usually requires at least a minimum of discussion and agreements.

The rule I have always taught is that an invite opposite a 15-17 1N is a) a 9 HCP flat hand without a 5 card suit in it or :) a 8 HCP hand with a 5+ card suit in it. Judgement comes in to make sure that your HCP are actually worth what the Work Count says they are.

Phil, First, thanks for the welcome back. :) The reason I explicitly broke the situation into 3 possible catagories is that, at least to me, it would be interesting to know ~ when the transition occurs between the 3 defense strategies. Just how much weaker than partner should you be before it rates to be better to a) help them establish their hand rather than :( trying for a mutual defense or c) to establish your own? The extreme cases are clear. If you have no entries, or partner rates to have none, then what you should do is obvious. But things get far more complex in a hurry when the HCP are not so unevenly split. The OL is by far the most difficult card to "get right" in Bridge. So it seems worthwhile to spend some "skull sweat" looking for rules to improve their likelihood of being right (or at least of not being disasterous!).

The biggest reason the short suit lead is looking superior in the sims is the weakness of the OL hand. Another valuable set of sims would be ones that varied the split of HCP between the defenders while the shape and relative suit qualities are held constant. my strong suspicion is that the result will be different in these cases a= OL is the by far weaker hand of the defenders b= the values are split fairly evenly between the defenders. c= OL is the by far stronger hand of the defenders. This should be intuitive. when "a", OL wants to maximize chances of establishing partner's hand. when "b", We can only defeat the contract via good communications when "c", OL wants to maximize chances of establishing their own hand.

Since I play 12-14 NT's by preference, let me give bluecalm some realistic values for his sim. 12-14 HCP 4333, 4432, 5m332, 5M332 only if M is not worth 3.5+ tricks (so AKQxx, KQJxx, etc are NOT allowed as M suits in a 1N opening) +and+ only if all side suits have honors in them. *if System is that 1H-1S;1N shows extras, far more 5M332 hands will HAVE to be opened 1N vs if 1H-1S;1N does not show extras.* =2245, =2425, =2452 where the 5 card suit can not be worth 3.5+ tricks. As one can see from the above, it is POSSIBLE to open a WNT with a 5card Major. However, it is far from "common"; and it is certainly not something we do "freely". Bottom line about opening 1N with 5M332 is that if the hand is at all M suit oriented, it is not opened 1N.

Thanks! ;)

What is "semi forcing"? It is either forcing or not. Can you be semi pregnant? A semi virgin? 1N semi-forcing means that Opener will not pass unless they have a flat minimum opening bid (or the Flannery hand of =4522 not strong enough to take another bid). So 1M-1N. (semi-forcing);pa implies Opener has a 12-13 5332 or an icky =4522.

No one can tell you exact odds unless we are talking about a specific board. However, your 2nd question can be answered in general. If you want to be in a > 50% 3N, usually (there ARE exceptions!) it takes 26+ HCP if we do not have an 8+ card fit between the 2 hands, and 25+ HCP if we DO have an 8+ card fit between the 2 hands. There is also a known effect where it takes less HCP overall the more evenly those HCP are distributed between Declarer and Dummy. To the point where if there is exactly 12 HCP in each hand= 24 HCP total, 3N is usually > 50%. The reverse is also true. The greater the disparity in strength between the two hands, the more total HCP we need to have for a > 50% chance of making 3N. (If you think about the transportation issues implied by one hand or the other having much fewer HCP, this should make sense intuitively.) You will usually expect to be -1 in 3N if you only have 23 HCP between you. Most of the exceptions where you make 3N with less values than the above guidelines will involve having a solid or semi-solid source of tricks (AKQxxx, KQJxxx, etc) +and+ stoppers in all the side suits. When you have such lucky circumstances, you can often make 3N with far fewer HCP than the usual amounts.

Here's what I teach novices when teaching SA or SAYC. Responder splits their hand into 1 of 9 different catagories based on the strength of their hand plus the degree of support they have for the 1M Opening and bids accordingly: min 2-M ...1S or 1N Inv 2-M ...foo-1S;any-3S ...1M-2m;foo-3m ...1S-2H;foo-3H ...1N (IOW, you downgrade some misfit hands) GF 2-M ...any unlimited bid ...3N with 13-15 HCP and 3-S and no side suit good enough for a 2/1 min 3 M ...1M-2M Inv 3 M ...1H-1S;foo-3H ...1M-2m;foo-MRaise ...1S-2H;foo-SRaise ...1M-1N;foo-3M ...(you initially downgrade flat hands with 3card support and no 5+ side suit) GF 3 M ...1H-1S;foo-4H ...1M-2m;foo-MJumpRaise ...1S-2H;foo-SJumpRaise ...3N with 12-14 HCP and no side suit good enough for a 2/1 min 4+M ...1M-2M Inv 4+M ...1M-3M GF 4+M ...J2NT, Splinter, etc Special notes In a 2/1 auction, if Opener's 1st rebid is past their original suit they promise 15+ HCP and the auction becomes GF. "min", "Inv", and "GF" are based on ...min= 6-9 HCP or Dummy Points ...Inv= 11-12 HCP or Dummy Points ...GF= 13+ HCP or Dummy Points Dummy points are HCP + ...1 point for a doubleton, ...3 points for a stiff ...5 points for a void Whenever Responder knows we have an 8+ card fit. If you understand the above, you will realize any 2/1 promises one of ...a GF hand or ...an Inv hand with a 6+ card suit in it or ...an Inv hand with 3+ card support and a side 5+ card suit So to answer your specific questions, 1M-2m;2M-3M is an Invitational hand with 3 card support and a side suit source of tricks usually 5+ cards long. 1M-3M shows a Limit Raise and a Limit Raise promises 4+ card support. 1H-1S;1N-3H shows an Inv hand with 4+S and 3+H. 1m-foo;bar-3m shows an Inv hand. Usually shapely. (else the auction would be 1m-foo;bar-2N) (The auctions 1m-1N;foo-2M! or 1H-1N;foo-2S! are special since Responder has limited their hand and initially denied having 4+ in the Major they rebid) 2nd round jumps or 3 level rebids of their suit by Responder show an Inv hand with a 6+ card suit in it and deny support for Opener's 5cM opening. (1m-1M;foo-3M or 1H-1S;foo-3S)

No sweat. I note that Fred hates (his word) the "book" bid...

The "book" way to bid this hand playing either SA or 2/1 GF is 1H-blah;3H That shows 6+H and 15-17 or 16-18 HCP. Looks like a pretty accurate description of AQx_ATxxxx_Kx_Kx to me. If you want to get Science involved, there are some who play that 1H-1S;3C! or 1M-1N;3C! is artificial and include 6+M as one of the hand types included. (Playing this treatment, 1M-blah;3M promises 7+M and the HCP range I listed above) The use of an artificial 3C! has many advantages. One of them is making it easier to diagnose a double fit in the Majors here.

No one board is worth risking a bad session or damage to a partnership. If your partner does not care whether you lead her bid suit or not, fine. If your partner cares, but is willing to accept some rationale on your part for not leading her suit, then you have exactly the degree of flexibility in your decision making as the variance in the quality of the rationale she is willing to accept. I completely agree that a partner who is too rigid about you leading their bid suit is not likely to make a good long term pairing. But the bedrock principle I'm trying to get at is that you are !not! trying to get just a good score on any given board, you are trying to get a good score for the session, the event, and for all the events you play with partner. Bluntly, Do not casually overrule partner when they go out of the way to take the risk of giving you a hint as to what your lead should be. Lead partner's bid suit unless you have a =very= good reason not to. Don't mastermind. Play partnership bridge On this auction and with the given hand on opening lead, you do not have a better lead than what partner has requested. Frances is right. A heart. Every time.

Please don't get worked up. This is a perfectly germane discussion and should be just as civil as well. These three examples of yours are, of course, fine ♥ raises. In fact, change the the opening hand from Axx_AKQxxx_Qxx_x by as little a modification as Axx_AKJxxx_Kxx_x , and your 1st example is one that starts looking awefully interesting for a slam. Are you going to explore with the 2nd of these but not the 1st? Certainly the 2nd is a better hand, but are the odds of a slam =that= much better between the two? Give opener Axx_AKQxxx_Qxx_x while responder's hand is any maximum raise with the ♠K, 3+♥, short ♦'s containing the ♦A, and long empty ♣'s, (which means that to have a maximum 2H raise Responder has a good chance of having the ♠Q or the ♥Q) and We may very well have a playable slam. At the least we should be cold for 5. And how are We ever finding such a slam if it exists if the auction goes 1H-2H;4H or some other similarly nondescriptive path to game? Just as importantly, if not more so, if Opener makes some sort of descriptive slam try, something in ♣'s or ♦'s (disguised as a game try of course) given the examples we have been discussing... ...Responder can still turn down the invite without Us going past the four level. IOW, making one try has very low cost and may have a very large reward. So why not "play the hand in your head" and explore the possibility of a slam as long as the cost/reward ratio for such exploration is good?

Does this really matter? Isn't it important to think of ways to do well at the table, instead of figuring out ways to deflect blame from you away from the table? You do not lead partner's suit because you are trying to "deflect blame" from yourself. You lead partner's suit, unless you have a logically better idea, because you want the best session and best possible working relationship with pard. The issue is Partnership Management. How to get the best game from partner while at the table and how to develop the best working relationship you can with partner overall. If partner has reason to think you don't trust them, they are going to start acting like they don't trust you. ...and guess what happens to your scores then?

Lead partner's suit unless you have a clear reason not to. Whether you win or lose the board, you will win the postmortem.

+1 I may have some insight as to why this disease is running around. I've had a few players tell me that Some Local Expert (pick a random one) "did <foo> while I was kibitzing." as justification for =them= trying the same stuff. I often have to remind such players that SLE a= is probably not playing anything close to Standard, b= often has specialized agreements and systemic methods for the situation they saw, c= has much better bridge skills to use as a safety net, and d= they may very well be "taking a flyer", "operating", or simply doing something =wrong=. ("Expert" does not mean "infallible").