chasetb

S.J. Simon devoted Chapter 9 of Why You Lose At Bridge to psyching and how to deal with it. His advise is to treat the psych as real until proven otherwise, as more often than not the opponents will get into trouble (or keep you out of trouble). An example in the book was where he thought East was psyching in 3rd seat with the auction going Pass-(Pass)-1♠-(Pass by Simon)-2NT by responder [13-15 bal], where Simon had an opening hand with ♠KQJxxx. It turned out that responder psyched 2NT with a long ♣ suit, and E-W went -1100 in 3NT when there wasn't a making game N-S with decent defense. Here, I definitely would pass, and when they try to stop in 4♣ or even 5♣ I will bid 4/5♥. With a good partner (or even a bad one so long as (s)he trusts you), I expect them to pass my bid unless their hand has a few Aces. Like jmcw said, on a different layout East could have a good hand with distribution opposite a sound pre-empt and have visions of making game, and you find yourself going down big in 4♥, when they could still end up in 4♥ (it is Matchpoints!). One final note - trust partner's signalling/dicarding when on defense! I know of 3 times this past year where my partner believed a psych/semi-psych rather than me and cost us a few matchpoints (two were 3NT contracts where opener declared 3NT while psyching a 1M rebid, the third was in 3♥X after I opened a Strong Club and RHO bid 1♥ on QJxx; I never received my ♠ ruff).

That's crazy. First, someone should have called the director, because that hand has 14 cards. Second, that's crazy even by my standards. Just bid the AQJx suit naturally and then Exclusion KC if I could (if not, blast 6 or 7 depending on your luck. If it were today, I would bid 6 and probably go down). On this hand, I feel that you have 7 sure winners and can maybe develop an 8th trick in Clubs. This screams opening 4♠ whether or not you play namyatS

Another 3♥ here as well. Your hand is worth close to 18 points, which is definitely invitational range. When opener splinters, (s)he should have 20+ points counting shortness (as well as a few 19s).

1♦ without a doubt. With only 5♣, you MUST have a good suit, and 10 high is garbage. You imply 4+ ♦ if the auction goes 1♦-1♥; 1♠, but with 4-2-3-4 or a 4-1-3-5 hand like yours, it happens. If you are feeling REALLY gutsy, put the 3♣ in with you Spades and open it 1♠ (or get your suits confused on BBO), then apologize to partner if it's found out and ask him/her what they would open.

Especially at IMPs, I would open this as a Gambling 3NT even if playing Precision. In 3rd and 4th seats, the weak Gambling 3NT makes no sense, and in fact give the opponents a few extra bids to describe their hands. If partner is broke, I still have a chance of stealing a Vul game (38.5%). With most hands I expect to make this, and if partner has 3 or 4 controls and 9-11 HCP, (s)he should bid 4NT to show further interest.

I'll try to get this topic back on track. Frank (Nick) Nickell realized that Hamman-Zia didn't make a good pair, and he looked around to find the best USA pair to fix his dry run. Levin-Weinstein fit that bill; I would actually take them over Meckwell since May 2010. Martin Fleisher was able to grab Rosenberg-Willenken, who I think is an up and coming pair. Bob Hamman is partnering Bart Bramley on team Blanchard (father Bob - son Shane), along with Hurd-Woolridge (playing on USA 2 for the Bermuda Bowl). Zia seems to be alone at the moment. http://www.bridgewinners.com/index.php/component/content/article/2-latest-news/969-rosenberg-willenken-joining-fleisher-in-2012 http://www.bridgewinners.com/index.php/component/content/article/2-latest-news/988-hamman-joins-new-team-for-next-cycle

I've been reviewing and updating a basic Precision system that my main partnership has played for a few months in lieu for some upcoming tournaments, and realized that we have no definition for 1♣-1M; 2NT. I'm thinking to use it for some GF raise (or setting 2M+1 and making 1♣-1♥;2NT as setting Spades as trump). What are your uses for that sequence? We've also tentatively agreed to throw away TAB and CAB, and instead using 1♣-1M; 2M as setting trump and asking for shortness. I'm also thinking that this might be better if responder can use 2M + 1 to ask opener instead of showing. Another alternative would be that 2M+1 is neutral (either non-min bal. or has shortness), all bids 2M+2 through 3M to show a second suit, and 3NT to show a min balanced hand. Again, what do other people use? Thanks for all constructive responses.

my nizzle? By all means, courtesy cue.

And I say reverse that. This hand is ideal for the Precision jump bid - I will open that 1♦ and rebid that 3♦ all day long!

The link to Fred's 2/1 seems to be broken, the message: 404 Not Found / nginx/0.7.67 comes up.

This is a ghastly hand; I don't feel it's worth opening 2♥ or Xing on. It could go either way, but looking at a void and a 6-card suit I bid 3♥ and don't let the opponents see me sweat. At least partner knows I already passed, so (s)he should know I could be this weak.

Welcome to the forums Dennis! It would help if we knew exactly when you were available and what you were able to play currently. Since I have the first two Audrey Grant books and plan to go into teaching one day, I think it would be safe to say you probably play 16-18 1NT, Stayman, Blackwood, maybe Gerber, Strong 2s, and negative doubles. I sent you a message on BBO with more information.

I gave everyone an upvote for being helpful and for having useful information (except for jh51, but as I did several articles about y2k for my school's newspaper when I was 12, I enjoyed the comment). I know that both The Notrump Zone and Natural Precision Bidding are sold by Baron Barclay new and Amazon new/used, but being a poor college student and having most of the articles, I was just looking for those few specific ones. Since the ACBL did ship these out for free (provided you were a paid member), I don't feel that this would be stealing, unlike file-sharing programs and software that can download videos from YouTube, which is clearly stealing, illegal, and immoral when used against the publisher's wishes. Jan, I promise I would return them to you. What would be the best way to give you my contact information? On a side note, if what bridgewinners.com says is true, then I will definitely have to pull for the Fleisher team to win the upcoming Bermuda Bowl; I'm torn between Fleisher and Bathurst winning at the present.

I was actually going to specify that, but I was promptly kicked off the internet because my dad was expecting an important phone call so I had to cut my post short (we can only get dial-up where we live). Luck unfortunately isn't something you can completely quantify, but I think we can all agree that the longer the event, the less luck plays a role. Not only that, but the quality/ of the competition, the closeness in the ability, and the set of boards play a big role in how much luck can affect the outcome. In the span of two free Express races a few days ago, I had a 25% game and a 71% game. The reason most people seem to discount luck is that in the end, it all balances out, or at least I'd like to think. I feel not counting luck, that bidding CANNOT be 80% of the game simply because of the number of bidding systems that have had success. Back a few decades, Fred Schenken used his Strong Club, Alvin Roth had a really conservative 2/1, and Barry Crane had an aggressive 2/1, and all three had major success in the US. In the modern day, Meckwell play a Transfer Precision, De Wijs-Muller play a Relay, Levin-Weinstein play 2/1, Versace-Lauria play a different 2/1, and Balicki-Zmudzinski play Polish Club, and all of them have had success internationally; Doub-Wildavsky play K-S and have had success with it as well, they were on USA 1 for the 2009 Bermuda Bowl. What they all have in common is they know the systems extremely well and are very disciplined (Meckwell's real discipline is in always bidding and wearing down opponents, and they do that very well). Now when gaining or losing points are concerned, I can easily believe that Bidding causes 80% of the differences at the top-most competitions. If I had to break down what makes the difference of Bridge at the top level (say the Bermuda Bowl), here's how I assign might things: 11% = Luck 9-11% = Stamina/Focus/Experience 22% = Defense 11% = Declarer play 15% = Bidding in non-competitive auctions 30% = Bidding in competitive auctions 0-2% = Brilliance/Creativity

Did y'all know that 75.6% of the time, if you give out a random statistic while saying it with a straight face and mention a reputable company (such as Reuters), that people will believe it (this goes up to 97.3% when a person is unable to do an internet search)? If you believe that, I have a bridge I would like to sell you... Getting back to the point, in the 2nd Edition of Precision Today, on Page 5, bottom sentence, it says "Just about everyone [everyone being the USA's top bridge players] said they think bidding is approximately 80% of the game." I disagree about that immediately, because I would say that Luck alone is worth 20%. A simple case in point would be at a Regional a year ago, I was a fill-in for a morning two-day Swiss when one of the member was sick. Our team of roughly 5500 masterpoints (I had 30) came up against a team having almost 100,000 masterpoints (Mark Lair was on the team). In a 7-board match against them, they bid a good 6♣ that went down with me having ♣JTxx while my team stayed in 3NT making 5. I bid an aggressive 4♥ game Vul, making while they stayed in 3 making 4. I gave back some of that misdefending a 4♠ contract, allowing it to make when I could have set it.

I'll classify it as 'not simple'. It doesn't make sense to easily get too high on potential misfits, allow opponents to easily jump in the auction after a 1♣ or 1♦ opening, and not only jump in, but I would think letting them win many part-scores. Also, when you and partner are close to game, how can you differentiate between stopping short and forcing? Romex is an improvement on this system, and Precision and Goren 4-card Majors are simpler than this (not to mention Precision being MUCH better than this). I also think that if you tried to teach this to the majority of people who learn to play in the US, they would be confused because of the artificiality of the system. So while it would be easier on memory, I don't think it would be easier to learn.

For the B-I forum, the auction by Hanoi5 is the one I would expect (or at least hope, since with the 10s in the long suits that hand is worth 19 in my estimation). In order to find the club grand slam, you need a few partnership agreements, as kenrexford showed.

I would use a Mixed Raise on this hand (showing 4-5 trump, and just weaker than a Limit Raise). Splinters are not only Game Forcing, they show 10-14 HCP (3+ controls).

Cascade hits the nail on the head. I object to 2NT as well. If anyone is playing 3NT, I would want West to based on looking at only the East hand. I would bid 2♦. However, West gets all the blame in my book because (s)he completely misdescribed the hand. I would expect 3♣ to show a great club suit, and not completely willing to give up on slam. I would also expect Responder to bid a 4-card suit if (s)he has one, as 2NT doesn't deny a 4-card Major. 2NT doesn't sink the ship, 3♣ does.

My partners will balance with that example. If we have any chance of game, I would expect partner to balance, so I pass without hesitation.

Nope. Unless you are using MOD and have that agreement that they apply here, you either blast game or pass. I would admittedly pass, not expecting there to be a game.

I don't agree with this one. If partner is 'out of luck' or a subpar player, I think 3♠ would work out much better. Also, since this hand qualifies for 9 dummy points and has 6 HCP, it's perfect for a Mixed Raise, if you play that (I hate Bergen Raises, but I know Meckwell play 1M-3M as Mixed). Having said that, I voted for 4♠ in the poll.

If this is in the wrong forum, I apologize. From the descriptions given of each one, this one looked the closest. Anyways, I was recently given a big stack of old ACBL Bridge Bulletins (1999-2002). I have found many good articles, however I am missing a few and would like to somehow get a hold of them. The ones I am looking for (at least for now) are December 1999, January 2000, February 2000, and July 2000. If anybody could send me these, please message me and I would greatly appreciate it. Even if you can't or aren't willing to part with them, if you could make photocopies of a few articles, that would be just as much appreciated. The articles I would be looking for are Natural Precision Bidding by Rick Brown, The Notrump Zone by Danny Kleinman, and Bidding to Play by Frank Stewart. Thanks for your time! -Chase B.

I am interested in trying this, I'll send you a message via BBO. For others who don't understand the second post, it's for use with Full Disclosure, a BBO program that doesn't play nicely with the web client. I don't know offhand how to import it, but when I get home I'll look it up and edit this post. EDIT - benlessard beat me to the punch, that's how you do it!

From the free robots today: http://tinyurl.com/6ft3yet