foo

Heh. I note your "bad" responder examples are 4333's. I suspect we both know why... The only one of which I'd make a direct raise on playing 2/1 is KQx_xxx_Kxxx_xxx (9 losers) With either Kxx_xxxx_xxx_Axx, or Qxx_Jxxx_AJx_xxx I'd bid 1N first and then either raise ♥'s or pass (1H-1N;2H-??) (In general, I do not like directly raising Opener with a minimum and 10+ losers)

*shrug* I'd make a slam try with either of your examples. We rate to have 5 level safety with either hand. If Responder has few wasted values in ♣'s, both of your example opening's could easily belong in slam.

Once again, you appear to be twisting my posts in an attempt to inflame some sort of conflict. My only off-topic posts here have been attempts to politely respond to others who have made such. I have not and will not create such tangents in this thread. I try, with varying degrees of success, to in general avoid creating tangents as much as possible. I am not the only person who participates in tangential subthreads on this site. ...and, THAT, sir, is the LAST public post I am making in this thread on this subtopic. Please use PM's if you want to pursue this further.

Why can't it be xx+HH, and just drop the last honor? In fact, if the first trick is x,x,8,H and on the next trick, LHO plays the 9, the only card left is the king, so who cares whether we lead the jack or small? We could even drop the ten under the jack with no harm. If you decide to play for 97+KQ, you explicitly decide to lose 2 tricks when the suit is Hxx+H. 97+KQ is a ~1/2 as likely as Hxx+H So unless you have a strong reason to bet against ~2:1 odds, you should not play for the drop. TBF, ITRW ATT there are most definitely times to ignore the abstract probabilities. But most of the time, especially during the earlier phases of the learning process, one should not buck the odds without ironclad reasons to do so. As for what happens on round two of this suit, remember that unless you've seen LHO's cards, you are not going to know what will be played until it is too late to legitimately change your mind. (For an illegal, as in cheating, method for changing one's mind in these situations, read up on something called an "Alcatraz Coup")

Sorry, but I reject your accusation and assumption. Other than this side thread, WHICH I DID NOT START, and which I am responding to strictly out of desire to be polite, every post I've made has been on topic and germane to both the specific suit combination under discussion and to showing the thought process for planning suit combinations in general. The sort of snipping and snide comments being made by you and others in this sub-thread properly belongs in PM's. Not threads that are supposed to be used for educational purposes.

It certainly looks like whether you make 5S or not is going to boil down to playing ♠'s for 1 loser. The 8 rather than the 7 in dummy completely changes how you play the suit. The 8 also gives you ~ +6% or so better chance of success. We've just about analyzed AJ854+T632 (yes, you can swap the J and T without it mattering) to death. I posted earlier the best way to play AJ754+T632. You are going to have to decide if RHO should be considered to have more HCP that LHO. This is dependent on what you feel, and what actually happens, while ATT. If yes, play the A and hope to drop a stiff honor. If no, play small from hand intending to hook the J and hoping the layout is KQx+x

I'd laugh if I thought you were just being funny instead of posting a flawed attempt at a personal attack. The full quote is "when apriori deciding =without any other information= whether to finesse for a missing Q, 8 ever 9 never". IOW, always take the finesse with 8 cards in the suit and always play for the drop with 9 cards in the suit. This saying is often shortened to "8 ever 9 never", but that does not change the fact that the entire context is as above and must be kept in mind for it to be correct. Or even useful. ...and as we all know, things are rarely this cut and dried ATT... Josh appears to feel an inappropriate need to take partial quotes out of context in an attempt to denigrate or minimize my honest attempt to add useful knowledge here.

Folks, we are talking about the technically correct play of suit combinations. Perhaps I've had certain niceties pummelled into my head when I was a novice that are out of fashion now, but here are some of those that apply here: 1= Whenever possible, use the minimum number of entries to accomplish a given result. 2= If you want 2nd hand to play low, start with a low card. If you want 2nd hand to play high, start with a high card. 3= Unless there's a reason not to, play "the high card from the short side." Now let's look at the play of AT854+J632 with those principles in mind. After x,x,8,H we are left with AT54+Jxx Our only chance of playing the suit for no more losers is if the honors were split: Hx+Hx or Hxx+H All 3 principles above indicate that the 2nd round of this suit should start with the J and not the T. Clearly, the best way to handle a suit in isolation can be drastically different than the best way to play it ITRW ATT. But, if we are discussing the proper way to play a suit in isolation, I was taught to play suit combinations in a rigorously correct manner (eg, the way you would expect to see them listed in an encylopedia of suit combinations). I was taught that it helps develop good mental habits ATT. *shrug* Maybe such details are no longer considered important. Finally, the proper way to play this suit is not just dependent on what 2nd hand plays, it is also dependent on what 3rd hand does. The shorthand "low to the 8, then low to the T" does not IMHO express the proper plan in a clear enough manner. Especially to the less exprienced players who may read this thread. Again, no insult or offense is or was expressed or implied. Just trying to "dot the i's and cross the t's"

No "lecturing tone" was expressed or implied. As for why anyone would what to clarify a potentially misleading or wrong answer... ...getting the right answers and, even more importantly, =explaining= how to get get them so players can later do it themselves is what this site is all about. I certainly did not intend to insult or offend anyone here.

Frances, WitW? Regardless of the nomenclature used, any reasonable interpretation of "low to the 8 and then low to the T" is simply not the correct way to play AT854+J632 Using shorthand, the correct plan is "low to the 8 and then either a) play the A if neither opponent played an honor previous, or ;) go back to hand and play the J if 3rd hand won the trick with an honor." Said shorthand might include the additional explantion that you are playing for a 2-2 split if neither opponent played an honor on round one and you are playing for split honors if 3rd hand won the 1st round with an honor. Under no circumstances is the correct 2nd round play low to the T for this suit in isolation.

Nice Actually, more than a bit rude. Especially when responding to someone who may very well be a B/I given the question. I've seen posts edited and people's warning level raised for less.

You have a flat 9 loser hand opposite a presumably 5 loser hand that does not care about your ♣ cards. 5/8 of your values are ♣ cards. That's Bad News. If your goal is to only bid 50+% slams, pard is going to need a huge hand for this to be enough. Bid 4H and be glad you resisted the temptation to push Us to the 5 level.

The simple "book" answer is to always start by bidding ♦'s. Unless you and your partner have explicitly discussed making exceptions to this for specific circumstances, and how to deal with the consequences of making such exceptions, I strongly suggest always making the "book" bid.

Another very cute combination. Oh what a difference the presence or absence even the 8, let alone the 9, has here! For this holding, there are 2 reasonable lines of equal chance. One picks up Hxx+H. The other picks up KQx+x Therefore, the correct plan depends on whether RHO should be considered "strong" or not. If RHO is considered to have more HCP, then start with the A (hoping to drop a stiff honor) Else, play small from hand intending to play the J if RHO follows small.

It's actually a wee more complicated than that. Your correct 2nd round continuation depends on how the 1st round goes: I'll ignore cases where 3rd hand shows out (KQ97+v) since they are easy. x,7,8,9 => play the A next (playing for 2-2 split) x,7,8,H => start with the J next (playing for split honors) x,9,T,7 => play the A next x,9,T,H => start with the J next x,H,A,x => Play the T next. You are cold for 4 tricks (layout must be H+H97, Hx+Hx, KQ+97, or KQx+x) This plan loses 2 tricks in two cases where your play affects the outcome: 97+KQ and KQ7+9

LOL Fine. Since you seem to think I'm making some sort of joke: a => Dummy plays the 8 b => Dummy plays the T c => Dummy plays the A That's the correct way to play AT854+J632 Now figure out why.

JLOL, You almost have it. Consider what happens if you play small from J632 and a= LHO plays the 7 (the smallest outstanding card) b= LHO plays the 9 c= LHO plays the K or Q.

...With the OP Dummy. What if the 3C raise had been on something like x_Qxx_xxxx_KJxxx ? That hand is far more typical of a Preemptive 3C raise than the OP one is. What do you think one example will prove? You made partner short in our weakest suit, supposing the majors were reversed? Supposing partner had the ten of clubs? Supposing I give a hand of Jxx_x_xxxx_KQJxx ? *sigh* it was supposed to be a =representative= example of an entire class. Fine: (x_hxx_xxxx)_hhxxx (x_xxx_hxxx)_hhxxx (x_hxx_hxxx)_hxxxx where "h" is any of (A, K, Q, K, T) and the hand has <= 7 HCP That's 3*3*(number of 3 honor combinations adding up to <= 7 HCP) examples. One can extend the idea to provide even more examples as one wishes. None or almost none of the specific hands generated by filling in such patterns according to the rules above will result in a dummy where 3N rates to make opposite the given opening hand. That's my point. As for your example of Jxx_x_xxxx_KQJxx , this is a hand with a suit that will play for 1 loser opposite a small stiff. If Opener has Ax or better, this is a hand that with a suit that will play for no losers most of the time. IOW, your example is worth 4+ tricks. Are you really claiming such a hand should be evaluated as being equivalent to the average 0-7 HCP hand with a long suit in it?

Tim, so far this thread has a= implied in a public forum that one member of a well known couple in the bridge world is committing adultery. That I had to bring up an incident you wish I had not to clear that up is unfortunate; but less potentially damaging that leaving any possibility that someone would take such an innuendo seriously. b= had at least one post publicly digging for information as to the possible identity of the accused in an alleged cheating incident. Reread the thread. I did not address this concern "out of the blue." FTR, banning electronic devices from the playing areas of high level events was inevitable whether or not there was a specific precipitating incident. Unless or until we have jammer technology in the playing areas, it is simply too easy to cheat using such devices; and it gets easier every day as the devices get smaller and more capable. c= had people publicly speculating as to the identity of someone who explicitly decided to remain anonymous while doing something well within their rights and that most would consider a boon to high level bridge. Clearly, there is evidence of a lack of understanding about the perils of gossip. Or at the least evidence of a need to more seriously consider greater restraint when tempted to gossip.

It depends on the CoC and the level of the contract involved. Just as doubling partscores is something one should be more careful about at IMPs rather than MPs, doubling games is far safer at IMPs compared to MPs. Slams should never be casually doubled. The point about FP situations I'm trying to make here is that if you don't know the topic well enough to handle it reasonably well, then NO AUCTION SHOULD BE A FORCING PASS AUCTION UNTIL YOU UNDERSTAND THE TOPIC WELL ENOUGH TO HANDLE IT MOST OF THE TIME. For B/I's, simply pretend the concept of FP does not exist. Use judgement augmented by rules of thumb like the ones I gave and you will do fairly well until you have studied the topic of FP auctions well enough to use such agreements. As josh's evident refusal to post a lesson on the topic shows, FP auctions are not in general a topic easy to explain or suitable for most B/I players.

...With the OP Dummy. What if the 3C raise had been on something like x_Qxx_xxxx_KJxxx ? That hand is far more typical of a Preemptive 3C raise than the OP one is.

Gossip: "Gossip is idle talk or rumor, especially about the personal or private affairs of others. It forms one of the oldest and most common means of sharing facts and views, but also has a reputation for the introduction of errors and other variations into the information thus transmitted. The term also carries implications that the news so transmitted (usually) has a personal or trivial nature." Folks, if you do not have a valid reason to know something that does not concern you, it is by definition gossip. =ESPECIALLY= if said "news" is not substantiated enough to hold up in a court. Whether is rumors about who is sleeping with whom, rumors about who is paying for what players, rumors about who players are forming new partnerships with, or rumors about who is rumored to have been naughty in any other way, it is all gossip. Some gossip is relatively benign. Some, like comments that might hurt a marriage or a person's financial or professional future, can be very destructive. So, =If people want to be anonymous about something they have the perfect right to, stay the h&ll out of it. =It's not anyone else's business who is sleeping with whom unless it involves a breech of the public trust (such as lying to the media while serving as a legislator) or criminal activity (such as lying under oath or if the actual events of the gossip are criminal.) Note that gossiping about criminal activity is a particularly bad idea. =Cheating is the most serious crime that exists within bridge. I've heard the analogy that systemic cheating is for bridge what Murder One is in the outside world. Gossip and rumors on this topic are =particularly= destructive to both individuals and the game overall. Unless there is an official statement made about a cheating case, please do not speculate or gossip monger in public. Such activity might hurt the innocent, or allow the guilty to cover all or part of their tracks. At the least such stuff makes the jobs of officials working on the topic more difficult. One a side note, if you have access to officially confidential or privileged information regarding an alleged cheating incident, you have =NO= business indiscriminently broadcasting it. You should not even be hinting at it. IMHO, such inappropriate use of officially confidential or privileged information about an alleged cheating case is in itself grounds to get you a C&E hearing. We're talking about people's lives and livelihood here. And you are making the job of those doing legitimate things regarding any such case much more difficult. Now can we all stop with the gossip mongering and get back to actual bridge? Anyone got some good =bridge= stories from the Boston 2008 Reisinger?

Here's a possibly interesting question. What layouts of the EW cards, if any, fit the bidding and allow 4S to be DD cold? This is an exercise I have sometimes seen given to overly aggressive bidders to help correct the habit.

In fact, I'll generalize this. As the old saying goes "The 5 level belongs to the opponents". Don't X or bid unless you a= =know= you can set Them, or b= have a surprise in terms of playing strength given the auction so far. Flat hands will almost never have enough in the way of surprises to warrant them bidding "five over five".

And don’t be at all surprised if your beginner/intermediate/expert partner passes your forcing pass. ...but since you passed because you were unsure what to do, if they use the same logic it will usually work out reasonably well. Maybe you are unsure what to do because you think you will make if you bid on and you think they will be down several if you double. Being unsure doesn't mean you dislike both actions, you could like both. It will not work out reasonably well if partner starts passing your forcing passes. 1= FP are a complicated subject. I gave an answer that will work for B/I's until they are ready or willing to tackle it correctly and in its entirety. Since you seem to think you can give better advice, please be my guest at explaining FP correctly yet at a level understandable for the B/I forum. It's often much easier to criticize others attempts to give decent advice than to actually try and do it oneself. 2= I explicitly said to pass only =if you felt bad about both doubling AND bidding's chances of success=. Not the silly thing you attempted to twist my advice into. If both partners use the rule of thumb I gave, they may not get scores as good as experts will in every FP situation, but they should land on their feet most of the time. As I said, if you want to get into the details of when a FP has been established, how many defensive tricks doubling vs passing shows in various auctions, ditto offensive tricks where bidding vs passing is concerned, what bidding immediately shows vs what pass and pull shows vs what X then bid shows if pard pulls the X, etc etc,... ...and you think you can do it at a level understandable and useful to B/I's... by all means =please= be my guest.