chasetb

The first 4 hands are from a recent NAP District Qualifier (matchpoint scoring). Hands 2-3 are the same person, and hands 4-5 are the other person. 1.) Off 1, should have been -2. North was 0355 and 4♣ makes double-dummy, though they probably don't make it. [hv=pc=n&w=sakj87hkq4d842c72&e=st9652h987dkt5ca4&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1cpp2s(11-15%2C%20usually%206+)3d4sppp]266|200|[/hv] 2.) Will you bid, and if so what? [hv=pc=n&w=s8hkt986543da8c98&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=pp]133|200[/hv] 3.) We play lebensohl - what do you bid? [hv=pc=n&w=s93htdkt5cqj86432&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=1n(14-16)2h(not%20alerted%2C%20no%20CC%20filled%20out)]133|200|[/hv] If you bid 3♣ (forcing), the auction continues ... (4♥) - X. Do you run? If you bid 2NT (to sign-off) or 4♣ (undiscussed over interference), it goes (4♥) - P - P. Bid 5♣ now? If you bid 5♣, 4.) What do you bid, if anything? [hv=pc=n&n=skjt92hqt6543d5c8&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=4dpp]133|200[/hv] 5.) This happened awhile ago, trying to put it together from memory: [hv=pc=n&e=skt742h5dacakj865&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=4hpp]133|200[/hv]

Owen, for my two cents that isn't too bad. I know my partner and I use a Modified Woolsey over 1NT because of the GCC and just use the same structure for simplicity's sake (we have never actually defended against a 16+ 1♣ opening) - I admit Woolsey might be better. I put both down, as Modified Woolsey / Woolsey ; you probably already know Woolsey, but it's for other people. All other bids are natural. 1NT = either 5+ ♣ + 4M (or bad 5M) or 6♥ or 6♠ / minor-Major 2 suiter. 2♣ = Majors (both) 2♦ = 5+ ♦ + 4M (or bad 5M) / 6♥ or 6♠ 2♥ = ♥ + a minor (both) 2♠ = ♠ + a minor (both) 2NT = minors (both)

Congratulations Ken! Of course, this probably marks the end of your professional bridge career, but I think you made the right move all the same. ;) :P

Two of the three USA 1 pairs played Flannery (Fleisher-Kamil didn't). My two cents on the matter is that I hate the weak 2♦ - it always gives me a bad result whether I use it or play against it. I would like to play Flannery in my casual (SA or 2/1) partnerships, but nobody I know understands it. I have also only had good results playing against it, because the opponents tend not to know it! What I really would want to play if I couldn't play Precision or Polish is 2♦ being one of 3 strong hand types; 2♥ would be forced with 99% of hands. The 3 types are either GF bal (2NT, use Romex Stayman), Strong with ♦ (2♠), or a GF 4441 or 5440 hand (one below). Weak with both Majors might be fun, since you can probably swing it knowing nothing about responses (I would learn the responses, I'm just talking about a pickup partner). I've also thought about using 2♦ as a Multi with a GF option, but that isn't ACBL GCC legal. The reasoning is then I can make 2M (9)10-14 with 6M and not have to fake a 3-card minor after 1M-1NT.

I agree with MrAce and Hanoi5. All 3 of us know what you meant by 3♣, it's just that there's no point in telling the opponents that you have Clubs and telling them how to defeat the hand when there is no slam and the math says bid 4♥. Sometimes less is more, and this is one of those times.

I wish I could have reset mine - I would gladly go to bed right now and wake up around 7:30 to watch the 2nd and 3rd segments. I can't even watch the 3rd segment tomorrow if it's at 21:30 UTC+1, since I'll be in class!!!

Quoting "Killing Me Softly" by the Fugees: Strumming my pain with his fingers ONE TIME! Telling my life in his words TWO TIMES!!

On a scale of 1-10, I have to give a -10, meaning "Partner, what the **** are you smoking???" I would X with that hand in every partnership I have played. LHO is also either not too bright, or was trying to start an argument between you and partner. One little critique - I would be opening 1NT on most 4333 hands that fit the range, unless I had something like AKQx or AKJx. 4333 usually plays better in NT.

I know why the rule was instituted, but I always want the best 2 teams available (I'm for the Monaco team, but that's just my opinion). If it happens to be USA teams, so be it. That's why I suggested ONLY when USA teams finish 1st and 2nd or 1st and 3rd in the Round Robin should it be allowed. Then it's highly likely they are in fact the two best teams in the BB, so we should allow the game and not politics to determine that. At times it seems that global politics is anti-US; I know for a fact FIFA is against us. @JLOGIC I had little idea that the home country/city had to put up so much money in order to host the BB, that makes sense then why China has it a lot. D'Orsi might have had some influence in the multiple times in Brazil as well.

Alluding to my pick for the winner of the Bermuda Bowl, I am pulling for USA 1 to win it all, the Dutch to take 2nd (they would replace Bulgaria in my original prediction), USA 2 to take 3rd, and Italy to take 4th. IF USA 2 would happen to win, then of course I am happy to be proven wrong and will pull for them to win it all. There is one thing I disagree with, and that is always having USA 1 and USA 2 play each other in the Semifinal if they both qualify. First (for me), I would love to see an all-USA final. Second, hypothetically let's say in the Round Robin the USA teams qualified 1-2 or even 1-3 and then made the semis. Then we wouldn't have the best two teams in the finals. So, I would like to propose an addendum to the rule that when the two USA teams finish 1-2 or 1-3 in the RR, they are NOT required to play against each other in the semis (provided they both make it).

Bulgaria really shocked me, I thought for sure they would at least make the semis (I had them knocking off Italy and finishing 2nd to USA 1). I also thought Brazil might sneak into the 8th spot, but they didn't. Somehow I nailed Poland having no chance to make it. I knew nothing about the quality of the Israeli team. I haven't watched enough in my opinion to make a comparison to the 2009 BB, but from what I have watched and the results up to this point I say it's right up there. While I think it would be slightly better to have the chance for the 3 best teams from North America to play, it's nice to give the underdog a chance. It also allows a comparison between the best players in Canada (this year anyway) and some of the other countries that qualify. It might also help bring in more money to the ACBL having a team from a country outside America. What bothers me more than anything is the fact that the US hasn't hosted a Bermuda Bowl since 1981, while Brazil, China, and Monaco have hosted multiple times in that same time span. I don't count Bermuda, since they should be allowed to host every 25 years on the anniversary. The Bermuda Bowl should move around more as well. I wonder if the Butler is better than using Cross-IMPs (Trinidad explained the Butler to me). I also wonder if there's any way to modify the Butler to make it more accurate.

Well, there is one chance it could be 20-21, if it was something like 4(31)5 or 4xy6 and a baby singleton. I would expect the Club suit to be solid and there to be Spade honor tenaces. 18-19 would be better, with the 20-21 hands bidding 3♠ as a transfer to 3NT or to show belated ♥ support.

You really shouldn't count the first 2 pairs. They are also in 3rd for what I am assuming to be most IMPs gained. And, if you eliminate all pairs who have played less than 176 boards, then Grall would be in 1st. :P Could/would anyone please explain to me how you calculate Butler Rankings? I would appreciate it.

If this really is the Bermuda Bowl 2001 thread, then I'll bet my life savings on Meltzer winning it all, making her the first woman to win a BB, and on her birthday as well! :lol: I am a tad suprised that the WBF isn't keeping the Results page up to date. Then again, they also had the brillant notion to have USA 1 and USA 2 play at a time where only a few Americans could watch, rather than later when more could watch, and not be worried that one team would throw the match (I can't see WeinStein or Grall ever losing on purpose)!

Since you brought up bidding 3♥, I think I'll use a convention that JLOGIC posted on his blog. He mentioned that over 1M, 3M is a transfer to 3NT. Why don't we do that, but then bid 4♠ over the 3NT showing a good hand with solid Spades and no Hearts? Let's get some more usefulness out of the bad boy and find the slam everyone else is missing!

Without a doubt I would make a SSGT in ♥. The Club suit doesn't need much (any?) help from partner, and Diamonds aren't too much a worry. I prefer Help Suit tries compared to Long Suit tries, because part of the time they are the same thing, and part of the time when you or partner use a LSGT and it is turned down, you will make 4 because the wrong suit was asked about.

The North hand isn't close to being strong enough to splinter if you ask me. All the soft values also scream 3NT, which is where I know I would end up. 1♦ - 1♠ 2♣ - 2♥ 3♥ - 3♠ 3NT - All Pass What did I win? :P

This seems like normal bidding by the little old ladies at the local club. She has a lot of hearts headed by the AKQ, 2 Kings, and a Queen or two. And yes, because of bad defense 5♦ will make 6. Heck, Wednesday there was a similar situation. RHO opens 15-17 1NT in first seat, and the auction proceeded as follows: (1NT) - P - (2♠) - X (3♣) - P - (P) - 3♠ (4♣) - P - (P) - 4♠ - All Pass Partner made 6 as they never cashed a diamond. My hand was ♠AT ♥Txxx ♦xxxx ♣xxx Her hand was ♠QJ8xxxx ♥AKx ♦x ♣AK

You are right, I went back and re-read what you typed. I must have been asleep at the wheel for the minute I read your post the first time. We do agree however that neither of us like to play it- while you think it's not as useful, I happen to have a hatred for it (and think it's not useful period). I'm assuming that 3m is referring to the Bergen raises. That's not too bad, I'd be interested in using it.

I saw this in the 'Tricky hand' thread and decided to give it a bump because I think it's pretty cool. FWIW, I would go +50. Mike Lawrence wouldn't bid with this garbage, and so neither did I.

I am in agreement with aguahombre in that I think Bergen is garbage and should never be used. What has surprised me is that a LOT of pairs in the upcoming Bermuda Bowl use Bergen or Reverse Bergen. Bergen makes no sense in a Precision context, and very little in 2/1, especially when using Forcing 1NT. Most good pairs aren't perturbed by Bergen, and you give a little room for a lead director or a sacrificer. Just bidding 2M works for me. I do like a 'Modified Bergen', and this is what I play in my Precision Club partnership: 1♥-2♠ / 1♠-2NT = Jacoby 2NT, promises 15+ 1♥-2NT / 1♠-3♣ = 10-15 HCP, 4+ trump. We put 12-15 splinters in here as well. 1♥-2m / 1♠-3 Red = 9-12, 6+ cards, should have 2-card support or a rebiddable suit. 1M-3M = Mixed Raise, usually has shortness We have defined our sequences over 1♥-1♠ so -2♠ isn't needed for invite hands. We also use the Ambra (Garozzo's 2/1 for the Italian Junior team a few years ago) treatment over 1♠-2♣ so the invite hands with Clubs go in there as well.

Adding on to the above comment, occasionally responder might be 5-4 or even 5-5. It does show primary Clubs, but responder should first be thinking about the Majors and bid if there's a 5-carder.

I hate that Club suit enough to open it 1NT; I also don't want to hear RHO chime in with 1♦ or 1♥. K/R evaluates it as 17.60, we are allowed to have a maximum as well.

I flipped 5 quarters into the air as to how they landed I did not care... 4 out of 5 said 3♠. Even without the quarters I would open this 3♠ if I couldn't use 2♠. I would only open this 1♠ in a partnership or system that opens super light (Incision/Zar/John Kranyak)

Yeah - partner has less than 4♠ and tends to deny 3♣, so what (s)he has is 6+ ♦. If I'm feeling REALLY LUCKY and I think partner has ♣ support, I will XX. In every other case, I Pass.