jh51

[hv=pc=n&s=sqt952hk742d74c73]133|100[/hv] My partner held this opposite my 2NT (20-21) opening, At the table she transferred to spades and then bid 3NT, which I passed, having only the Ax of spades. We missed our 4-4 heart fit, and there are 11 easy tricks at hearts when the diamond finesse works and East has KJx of spades. With our current agreements, 3♣ is Puppet Stayman, so we would have gotten to 4♥ if that is what she bids. But can we get to 4♠ if instead of the actual hand, I have 3 spades and 3 or 2 hearts, but play safely in NT when I hold fewer than 3 spades? Or is this just one of the shortcomings of puppet Stayman? (You give up something to get something.)

I don't know if I am getting to 4♥, but I think I have to compete. I went to a lecture at the Louisville NABC where the speaker advised that at matchpoints, you never want to allow your opponents to play in 2 of a major after a 1M-2M auction. He said that since they have found a major suit fit, you are likely headed for a poor result if you let them play there undisterbed. And what are the possible consequences of competing? You push them to the 3 level, and they make it. No change in your score. You make your contract and you go plus instead of minus. Hurray You go down in your contract, but less than they would have made in 2 of their major. Hurray You go down in your contract by more than they would have made in 2 of their major. You get a 0/12 instead of 3/12. You push them to the 3 level and they go down. Hurray. At match points, he argued that competing wins far more often than passing. I read something by Larry Cohen who said tht after 1M-2M, Marty Bergen would just close his eyes and bid something because he thought letting the opponents play undisterbed was so bad.

I consider myself an intermediate, but woud agree with gwnn. I am curious how the bidding outght to go (opponents passing) after 2♣-2♦ 2♠ I suppose - 3♠ 4NT(1430)-5♣ 5♦(queen ask) - 6♣ (fabricating the Q with 5♠) now what??

I now see that 7♦ makes as a spade can be ruffed for the 13th trick. But I don't see a line for 7NT, as West has spades stopped and East has hearts. I like to play Lebensohl in this situation. With the partner I was playing with on this occasion, we currently play Lebensohl only over NT interfernce. And she is still learning the convention, as she recently missed the meaning of my direct cue bid of opponent's heart overcall. 4♠ was cold, but 3NT had no play. (And it was she who suggested that we use Lebensohl!) She is learning, though.

[hv=pc=n&s=sa8742hj9dkckj942&n=skjt9hkq76daq6cq6&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=p1n(15-17)p2h(transfer)p3s(4%20sp%20-17%20hcp)p4n(1430)p5h(2%20w/o%20Q)d5sppp]266|200[/hv] I was North on this hand. East led a club to West's Ace. West returned a heart to East's Ace. East exidted with a club, won by North. The contract was made when the I got the 2-2 ♠ split. I did not feel that South's hand was quite worth a slam try as it was questionable to count the K♦ at full value and as a singleton. (I think she also counted added points for ♠ length and the doubleton ♥. Without the keycard ask, we are in 4♠ and there is no double. I worry a lot less about the contract and can take 12 tricks if West does not find the heart shift. (He said he considered returning a club in case East had led a singleton. Without the lead directing double, that might be more likely.) Am I too close to this to judge accurately, or should partner have been satisfied with just bidding game?

[hv=pc=n&s=sa5ht98dkjt3cqj85&n=skt83hakdaq96cak9&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=pp2s]266|200[/hv] I must confess that I was the West who took advantage of the vulerability to make an outrageous 2♠ call. (I don't show the hand, but it was made on a 5 card suit and 3 HCP.) NS was a weak pair who clearly misbid to end up in 3NT. North overcalled 2NT, which clearly undervalues her hand. I am curious as to how the folks on BBO would have bid this as NS after my call. I would assume one would start off with a take-out double, but what then?

I am reminded of a situation I encountered years ago. I was an IT consultant and the folks I was working with played rubber bridge over lunch. On a number of occassions I would open a good (> 16 HCP) hand, and get a jump shift (game forcing) from partner. More often than not, I would go bounding off looking for slam. More ofent than not, there was no slam and often going beyond game was dangerous. It seems that somewhere along the line these guys had learned that you want to be in game when you have an opening hand opposite an opening hand, and the only way they knew to be sure to get to game was to jump shift. It did not matter to them that to most of the rest of the bridge playing world, a strong jomp shift meant a hand stronger than a random 12-14 HCP. I can only assume that whichever one of them was considered the expert of this little band had decided that this was the way to play the game and the rest had fallen into line.

If you are talking about the 3/30 minute issue, a calling the TD might have taken more than 3 minutes if that was correct. It might have been wise to have called the director earlier in the session when they made one of their remarks.

The only visible clocks were for the pairs games in the same venue. I suppose I should have called the director to ensure that we were on a proper pace, and then told the opponents to cool it when it was determined we were. Time was only an issue because this was the first match of the session for a compact KO. For the second match the directors were more lenient.

I don't know if this belongs in a general disucssion forum or one of the rules forums, but I am posting it here tp start. Recently I was playing in a Regional compact KO event. Almost from the beginning one of the opponents at our table was harping about the pace of the play, expressing concern that we might not complete our boards in the allotted time. It was my feeling at the time (to be proven true later) that we were proceding at a normal pace to complete the round. About 5 tricks into board 10 of 12, there was an announcement by the director that everyone in the compact KO needed to be on their last board in x minutes. I heard x as 30 but both opponents insisted he had said 3. I quickly realized that I could take the rest of the tricks and claimed. We quickly pulled the cards from the next board and rapidly bid it. I became declarer and found after about 1 trick I could claim my contract. So within about 3 minutes we were on the final board. We could now take our time and it soon became obvious that x had indeed been 30, not 3. I could not help but feel that the opponents delibrately tried to rush us throughout the match to throw us off our game. What should we have done to protect ourselves?

Or read the author's book if (as Mel does) he explains the thoughts behind the rules. I certainly don't have the ability here to quote the entirety of the chapter on the rule of 8. I even have trouble quoting the rule correctly! I confused part of it with the rule of 2!

I just reread Mel's discussion of his rules of 8 and 2, and I had his rule of 8 wrong. 6 HCP and at least 2 more cards in the 2 longest suits than the losing trick count. Based upon this criteria, Mel's rule of 8 says to bid. With my corrected recollection of the rule of 8, this clearly calls for a bid!

Huh? I think maybe you got the scores backwards.

I assume you are responding to my remark. I guess I might have said it better. I think you would agree with my point that one is not supposed to gvie an explanation if one is not asked.

Agreed. I mentioned the beginner duplicate games because The OP seemed to be concerned about getting in over his head That seems to be where the free lessons are most often offered. These games give the novice duplicate player an opportunity to learn the mechanics of duplicate in an environment geared to that. I started playing duplicate in an era before beginner games were regularly offered, so I learned in a sink-or-swim environment. Tournament events were sometimes flighted, but stratification at any level was unknown. As a novice I sometimes played against pros and took the appropriate lumps. (But was thrilled when I got an occasional good board.) So I know the value of playing in the non-beginner games. You don't get better playing against other novices, but you also don't get better if you get overwelmed and stop playing the game,

If the possibility exists that you might yet play the boards you are kibbing, I would hope that the director would prohibit this. I have played in some single session pre-duped Swiss events and in some cases, the boards were not played by all teams at the same time. For example, in one case there were 5 teams for a 4 match event. (Yes, I know that this became a round event since we played everyone.) In the course of play, each team played a 7 board match against each team, and it was arranged such that exactly 35 boards were used. I don't recall the details of the movement, except that each team played the next higher and next lower numbered team in the 1st 2 rounds, then compared, and then repeated this against the other 2 teams. The board movement was such that each team missed one set of 7 boards. Obviously, it was most undesirable for a table that finishes their either of their first 2 sets early to kibitz another table, as they were more than likely to see those boards as one of the last two sets.

Personally I would recommend duplicate. While I started playing socially in college, when my game really started improving was when I started playing duplicate. I don't know where you are located, but I have found that a lot of clubs in the US offer free bridge lessons in conjunction with their Non Life Master or limited games. Two years ago, I moved to a new city and started playing with a complete novice. (She had never played bridge before January of the year we met.) She loved the game and improved rapidly, which I doubt would have happened playing social bridge. She is now on the verge of making life master. She got her start with the free lessaons at the local bridge club.

[hv=pc=n&s=sakj9ht2dtcaq9752&n=shq4dakq86532ck63&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=1cp1dp1sp3nppp]266|200|Match points[/hv] This came from a small (3 table club game. The 3NT was, by my own admission, a bit of a gamble, but partner might have the heart K or Jxx. Even xxx works if hearts split. When I got a spade lead and both opponents followed to the first diamond, I claimed 13 tricks. When I opened the traveler, I was disapointed to see that this was only worth 1 match point. At one table the hand had been played at 7NT by South, making! I think East may have made a spade overcall at that table. I wondered why, at my table, East did not lead a heart (she had 4 to the AK) which would have beat 3NT. For some reason, she said she had decided it best to lead from her 5 card suit. The zero on this board went to the pair that managed to avoid NT completely, bidding 5♦

I totally agree that this is not a maximal double. Whether thsi shows ♥ and ♦ would depend upon your agreements. Therefore I would not agree that it is 150%. If you have agreed to play responsive doubles, I would totally agree. I would doubt that anyone would play this as penalty, but if that was your agreement, that is your agreement. I recently learned of a convention called "stolen cuebid double", and if that were your agreement the double would show a hand where you would have cue bid 2♠ had that bid been available to you. Lacking an agrement, I would assume that it is responsive.

I agree that the narritive does not give evidence that South asked for an explanation of the alert. I am not certain that the rest of the conversation is OK. If East gave her explanation of the alert without being asked, I would think that explanation would be UI to West. (Beyond the UI inherent in the alert.)

Bidding judgement, as with any other form of good judgment in life, comes from experience. Rules are created to help those without experience. You give a small child a rule not to touch a hot stove. Sooner or later, the child will come to realize that touching a hot stove will hurt and judgement will replace the rule. There may be times when it is correct to touch a hot stove, but that is judgement that comes from experience.

In that case I will add consumption of adult beverages to my possible explanations for the bid.

As someone who works as a professional programmer, I agree with the poster who indicated that you do not understand the complexity of the task. The supporting software for thise surveys you describe was probably developed over months, not a week. Once developed, the survey itself is just data to the supporting software. Something that a couple of decent programmers could come up with in a week would hardly fulfill what you envision. And at what level do you expect these program to be used? I have gone to far too many tournaments where the boards are duplicated by hand (inlcuding many, if not all events in the NABC). Even if only used in such events as the team trials, you would presumably need a notebook or laptop computer for each active participant, plus a server. For 16 teams, we are talking about 65 computers that the sponsering organization would be expected to provide. And that is a relatively small event. For the Vanderbilt, I would expect that 257 would be required. And even a small notebook would take up space on the table. We might need bigger tables to play at. How is this going to work? Are the participants going to use this program instead of a bidding box? Or will we need an observer to enter the bids as they take place? With the former, I can see issues when someone misclicks, which I would expect to happen a lot, since this is only being used at major tournaments and the participants will not be used to this. And I cannot wait until there is a computer crash duting the middle of one of these major tournaments.

I am not sure what is meant by "allowing" 4♠. I would think that the rules of bridge require that the hand be played at 4♠ and then an adjustement be made if appropriate. It seems to me that if partner has a random pointless holding with as few as 2 ♠, the most you figure to lose is 6 tricks for -500 if doubled. Whatever the slow pass means. If you are getting that result, 4♥ is certainly on for EW. I will not dispute that there is UI, but is pass really a LA?

Temporary insanity? Tiredness? Low bood sugar? I have given such explanations for similarly rediculous bids (typically on my last day of a multi-day tournament).