chasetb

Maybe the fact that it says Bacon Vinaigrette, but it's Bacon and vinegar?

Yeah cloa, while GIB should have just bid 3NT, that WAS NOT THE POINT of the hand! After East uses Stayman and then bids 3NT, West should know that East has 4 Spades and should be bidding 4♠ as a result. This looks like a clear bug, but why does it still exist???

awm nailed it, but his explanation is a tad overdone. The key is the fact that when the suit divides Qxx - x , the Queen will be tripleton 37.3% Just because you find out that one opponent has 2 Diamonds, the 2-2 break is STILL 40.7% (this is all 'a priori'). So the Drop is the slight favorite, but other factors of the hand can override that, like knowing that RHO has 3+ more cards accounted for.

4441 hands are awful, and near impossible to bid. I would open 1♦ because I don't have the Q, K, or A singleton of Spades, then make a takeout double. In the past I have opened two hands very similar to this 1♦. The first time 3NT was reached, after partner bid 1♠ on ♠KJxxx and ♦Jxx; the second time 6♦ was reached after my partner raised me to 2 (he was conservative and you could count on him for full values).

I think 2NT for the Majors is horrid, and that's the second biggest reason I don't play Symmetric (by Andrei Sharko). I've had several telephone numbers opening 12-14 HCP hands with 5-5+ Majors 1♠ (almost every time, we ended up in 2♥ and a 5-2 fit, but was the best place). Why would I want to be forced at least a level higher, and give them several ways to double for penalty?

Read a little bit more. There's two long suits, and a TON of honors and nice spot cards in said long suits. Partner might only have ♠Q and ♦T, and 4♠ is pretty much cold. I tend to be conservative, but you have to jump up and make some kind of noise here. EDIT - I'm on dial-up at the moment, otherwise I know of a particularly hilarious Steve Martin clip I would put on here that fits well in this discussion.

Neil, novices and beginners aren't really capable of seeing basic endplays. I'm not trying to be rude, it's just that most times these people are trying to count winners/losers, count trump, remember to take finesses, set up tricks, etc. Until recently I haven't been able to fully recognize most endplays, and that's only come about because of my study of squeeze play and defense. It doesn't come naturally to most people, if any when first playing bridge, that sometimes you need to duck a trick in order to protect or gain tricks. An example is in 3NT, with a suit AKQxxx opposite xx and no other entries to the long suit, to duck the first trick in the suit to protect against xxxx in either hand.

There was a hand very similar to this in the ACBL Bridge Bulletin awhile back, and the concensus among the experts was that bidding your 3-card minor (here, that's 2♦) was best. If partner passes, you are in your best spot. If partner pulls to 2♥, then you can bid 3♥ to show this kind of hand. If partner bids 2♠ to show a big ♦ fit that makes his hand worth an opener or 2NT as INV balanced, then we go to game, but leave the option open of 4♥.

No, and I think a balancing 2NT should be used as Unusual 2NT. Since everybody I know will bid 3♠ with 3-card support, and quite a few with only 2, it stands to reason that on the first hand everything sits horribly for us, so why bid on? They could easily have a better fit.

Hands that have Qx in a Major generally want to declare, and we have that in BOTH majors, so put me down in the 2NT rebid camp.

Congrats Neil, and if either you or Jill are going to Philly, I'm looking for a partner on Monday. We could/would destroy the Gold Rush pairs, since I've come in 2nd (1st in B) in the only Gold Rush I've ever played, and I've technically won a National title.

Well, for a Weak 2 bid a 'good suit' is 2 of top 3 honors or 3 of top 5, so I use that criteria. I should technically have the 10 instead of the 9, but it's close enough (for government work anyways). I agree with Straube that 3♠, X, and Pass are all horrid.

2♠, because in this auction/vulnerability this is the type of hand that should be bid at the 2-level -> 10-14 HCP hands with a good 6 bagger. Of course, most people still play this as weak, so I will grudgingly bid 1♠.

Because of the limited openers, I think 1♠ is the best option. Lately, I've been getting HORRIBLE results bidding these hands to the hilt (partners have been dropping tons of Queens and Jacks + length in their suits), so my current thinking is jumping is NOT so good. I don't blame the 4♠ opening, just I think 1♠ > 3♠ > 4♠ > Pass

Sure, you have a little more than partner might expect, but in this kind of sequence partner is usually bidding your hand along with his. You could easily be off 2 Aces and a trump or another loser, or have a hand like mike777 gave and get overruffed. By the way, I was watching your table, and by a 3-2 margin (I was one of the three) the kibitzers felt that Pass was better than bidding on. I just wish Jill wasn't so timid (no offense meant jillybean, just an observation based on today) - in a study Larry Cohen did on a million hands, 3♣ was the most effective pre-empt of the bunch (if not opening bid), and the North hand had 6-7 tricks.

Dave, do a search for suitplay and download it, it's a computer program that will give you everything you need on card combinations. As you probably know, to take all 6 tricks you have to hope for QJ tight, so low to King and 8 to the Ace. If you are looking for most tricks on average, low to King and finesse the 10.

I have to admit, the first answer that came to my mind for the bat-and-ball question was the incorrect one. But since I hate being wrong and like to double-check, I stopped reading, quickly added it up, realized I was wrong, corrected myself, then read how the article mentioned that most people get it wrong. Same thing for the lake question. The article brought a quote to my mind: "The more you know, the more you realize how little you actually know".

I remember a while ago when I think a Dean of Harvard got into trouble for saying that on average, men are better than women at math and science, and got into a lot of crap for it. Some science magazine did an article on genetics and whatnot, and covered it. Based on CAT scans on multiple brains, women tended to be better at language and similar things because their brains had more development in the areas of the brain that were used for these things. Men tended to be better at math and science, because of blood flow and neurons that were in the corresponding parts of the brain. I can't find the article at the moment, but taking that as truth, I don't see how what's incorrect with the BROAD statement that was made by the Dean. Going off on a related tangent, a later article (maybe the same one?) talked about how intelligence was mainly influenced by the X chromosome. Because men have only one and women have two, they were a lot more likely then women to score as geniuses. The opposite was also true - men were a lot more like than women to also be in the 'mentally retarded' category. At the time, they also didn't think that having a genius for a mom automatically assured their sons would be geniuses - it made it more likely, but it is still like a lottery pick. Another article, this one written up by a female about bridge, said that men are generally better than women at bridge because of their ability to focus on bridge and ONLY bridge while at the table. Being a mom and/or a grandma made it more difficult because they would tend to multi-task and not focus solely on bridge. They would hear conversations at other tables, think about things that needed accomplished later that day or week, and so on. Hopefully later, when I'm not stuck on dial-up, I can find said articles and link them, because there's nothing worse in my opinion then people who spout facts on the internet and don't (or can't) prove them.

When I was on Spring Break 3 years ago, I went to the library, read many books, and even checked out several books (this was when I just started learning how to play bridge). A book I read was an entire overview of Mathematics, and they had a simple way to count to 99. Your right thumb was worth 5, any other finger on your right hand was worth 1. Your left thumb was worth 50, and any other finger on your right was worth 10. This was supposed to be useful for younger kids, especially for purposes of adding or subtracting.

If a 4th person is needed, I'll step up.

Vampyr, you are allowed to 'play up' as long as you ask the director; most permit you to move up, especially once you get to know them from several tournaments. At smaller regionals (in my area) where there are 2-3 brackets, I've had the option to move up to Bracket 1, or even Bracket 2. Unfortunately, teammates have always restricted me to the lowest bracket. At larger regionals like Gatlinburg or Nationals, it's pretty much you jump all the way up or play in your bracket. I have read on here that a few directors have advised certain players that wanted to play up several brackets to 'add' so many masterpoints. The link below shows the breakdown of masterpoins, by percentage. In my rather limited experience, it's not until you reach 2000 masterpoints that you generally see and can guarantee a higher standard of play, and at smaller regionals they are in Bracket 1. It isn't hard to accumulate a bunch of masterpoints quickly even if you are under 2000, but you have to have skill, dedication, and be able to play a lot. Living in a high-density bridge population helps enormously as well, as you can gain far more MPs at bigger clubs if you don't, or can't travel a lot. Finally, it helps greatly to know people. We all know that Justin is the youngest person to ever gain Grand Life Master in the ACBL, and is on my list of top 5 American players at the moment, but I think he would agree that his dad helped enormously in gaining masterpoints in his early years. Now all in all it probably only added up to a few hundred, but that might have made the difference between youngest GLM ever and losing out to Joe Grue. http://www.acbl.org/about/membersByMPs.php

Kaplan-Rubens is horrible for NT contracts, and for suit contracts it is wrong more than you might think. For suit contracts, go with Ace = 4.5 / King = 3.1 / Queen = 1.7 / Jack = 0.7 . For simplicity, you can round King down to 3, and give Queen 1.75 and Jack 0.75, so you work with fourths rather than tenths. For NT contracts, I have been using a sort of hybrid method. Work's 4-3-2-1 is used for honors, but then I count up the number of honors, subtract that number from 7 (using a 15-17 HCP NT, that's close to average), and multiply that number by 0.5. Then finally, look at distribution and placement of honors, as well as the opponents and go from there. Against better players, I downgrade as much as I upgrade, but against worse players, I hardly ever downgrade. Ultimately, I think there is plenty of science, but science can't replace judgment, experience, and luck.

It's not a treatment, it's a necessity because of the system. Because they play possible canapé, hands that have 5♠-4+♣, 5♥-4+♣, and 5♥-4+♦ can't be bid like the rest of us (standard). Therefore, they use 2♦ opening to cover the Heart-Diamond hands, 2♥ opening for the Heart-Club hands, and throw the Spade-Club hands into 2♣. I will admit that I'm not an expert on canapé systems, but after studying some of the Caroline Club (look it up on Bridge with Dan), here are my conclusions. NEGATIVES - You lose the uniformity of the 2♣ bid. When opening 2♥ you could be forcing the partnership too high, and you lose out when non-canapé goes 1♥-1♠; 2♣-2♦ or 1♥-2♦; 3♦ with 1-5-3-4. The 2♥ opening mean you lose out on a natural Weak 2♥ (or Precision 2♥, see below), and since 2♦ is used, you can't play Multi 2♦, which means you lose out on Polish Two-suiters or whatever as well. The possible canapé also hurts a little bit in constructive GF auctions because exact shape can be difficult (whether it be 4-card or 5-card Majors, the average length is around 5 for both). NEUTRAL - 1♦ can be opened when you have 0 or 1 Diamonds. This hurts some competitive auctions as well as constructive auctions where Diamonds is a potential suit. This can also pick off the opponents' suit, and misunderstandings can occur. I view this as a slight negative overall, but put it here to gather further opinions. POSITIVES - You can mention your Major immediately, which can pick off the opponent's suit. It also has a slight preemptive value, and in competition where you have 5+ of a minor and 4 Hearts, you can find the Heart fit before they get you too high. Most opponents will be unfamiliar with your methods, and that can produce a slight advantage. Because the canapé is played with an always Strong Club, you can blast contracts a little more often (I think). This should cover most of it; there might be one or two more in either column, but I can't think of any more and I'm heading to bed after posting this. Check out the link for more about all of this (I disagree about him saying Polish Club is best, but everything else is great) - http://dcrcbridge.blogspot.com/search/label/DBT EDIT - JLall is probably the best person to ask about this system, I know he played against that pair a few times recently in the Bermuda Bowl (Round-robin and finals).

[hv=pc=n&w=skqth2dq9762cak54&e=s98ha5dkt543c8763&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=pp4ddppp]266|200[/hv] That's not the bidding, but that is the final contract and the two hands. The play goes as follows, first card per trick in bold: A♦ - 2♦ - 6♥ - 3♦ 5♠ - Q♠ - A♠ - 8♠ 3♥ - 2♥ - 10♥ - A♥ How do you play the hand for the best chance of 10 tricks? Please state your line, and Experts, please don't answer!

I also like 1♥ then 2♦. I hate worthless doubletons, and Jx sure is worthless. Not only that, the hand looks like it should be played in a suit (unless partner shows a GF with Spades and good Clubs obviously, then NT).