Jinksy

Dbl. Rdbl.

As Rainer says, X, whatever it means, gives the option of penalising, which E has no interest in doing. The odds of you setting this by more than 1 are tiny, and setting it at all is probably odds against. Meanwhile, 4♠ rates highly to be a good sac if they're making, and has decent chances of making.

Teams: [hv=pc=n&s=sq7hkq86da842cq72&w=sjt842haj9dt5caj5&n=s953ht54dkq9763c9&e=sak6h732djckt8643&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=p3dppp]399|300[/hv] If W wanted to open, it would have to be 1N (12-14). On the lie of the cards, EW can make slam in either black suit DD, though I'd modestly settle for game. Incidentally, had N opened 2♦ instead (as our teammates did, also playing there - so we actually gained 4 IMPs here), would your answer be different?

Interesting. I'd have bid 2♣ over this, on the grounds that my suit is excellent, doubling risks losing it (I'd X on a lot of hands with eg Qx in clubs, and I don't rate myself strong enough to X and then bid them), and I hope to be able to double later to show pretty much this shape. Am I right in thinking the hands doublers fear are basically those with 8 card fits in the majors mediocre points and no great club fit, where 2♣ gets passed out with game on?

I didn't, but if I used that, it would be for something different - there are some excellent posters who aren't necessarily excellent players, and vice versa.

AKJ QJT9 A874 J3 Game all, teams, RHO dealer, the bidding goes like this: P 1C* 1H 1S** 2H ? * 1C = 15+ any bal (without 5cM) or 14+Cs ** Five+ spades, min is about 4HCPs We don't play support Xes (or whatever the relevant convention here would be) Do you bid on?

The other problem with upvotes is they just recurse the problem - how do we know whose upvotes to trust? As for 'taking a while', I think I've been active for maybe 5 years, and still don't know for sure I'm not over/underestimating some people (the second list being a good eg). I was hoping to avoid the problem of hurt feelings by keeping the criteria objective. It makes the list less robust for the reasons Elianna gave, but a flawed list seems more useful than no list.

Since many players (pro and otherwise) lament the white noise from non-experts, and since it'd be genuinely useful to forum newcomers (and, come to that, to me), to know who the strongest posters are on BBF, I thought it might be worth making a public list. The idea is that these are the people whose opinions carry the most evidential weight, and whose arguments are (hopefully) most likely to be on target. To avoid politicking over who's good enough to be on it though, I figure the inclusion criteria should be simple, something like this: 1) Current pros (defined loosely as making a decent though not necessarily primary income from bridge) 2) Former pros 3) People who're non-pro, but have competed (as adults) at the world level 4) People who aren't any of the above, but who two or more people who are nominate (and they should have contributed at least 50 posts to the forums, at least one of which is in the last year) So to my knowledge, the current list would look something like this (prob incomplete) mikeh PhilKing PhantomSac MickyB wank FrancesHinden Fluffy jallerton Some I don't know about sure about, but who I get the impression might qualify: cherdano Phil lamford sfi KenRexford Gerben Who did I miss? Should I remove anyone? (oops!) Should the inclusion criteria change? Is this a worthwhile exercise?

Ok, is the idea that on normal hands with uncertainty about 3N I'd bid some kind of FSFish 3♣? But I thought in GF auctions, people normally liked that to be naturalish, patterning out?

Can you go into more detail?

What sort of hands? I can't imagine doing this unless I was so weak I thought they'd have an easy game on - in which case it would prob be a favourable psyche in their suit, more likely to be a major. If they do that, FP might be the best way to find it, if advancer passes hoping for a penalty and opener passes with nothing further to say.

X on W's hand looks like pushy but winning bridge to me (caveat: I Xed in the event and we found the sac). Re E's bid, I agree with Gnasher about needing better definition, but also rhm that for almost definitions, 4♠ is better - it's hard to imagine a sensible description of values which I can claim to have. He has approx one defensive trick and no surprise in distribution, so hoping for P to show up with three when they've freely bid an unfavourable 4♥ and the trumps are lying optimally for them is either out of touch with reality, or taking the opponents as cretins.

I'm confused about why opener's 3♥ would show 4-6? What would he do with 4-5, and further interest in a diamond contract? Is this on the assumption that his 2♦ bid promised 5+?

If their agreements depend on a forcing pass, that would be one of the rare situations in which I wouldn't play them.

My impression is different, but I guess let's disagree for now, and I'll mentally mark it as something that should be testable on BBO.

It's pretty rare not to have a forcing pass over their 2m if you've doubled their weak NT. I don't know anyone who's discussed it who doesn't.

If so, it's quite likely that they're not making and neither are we. If I double, I'm not going to feel happy if P makes any call but 5♣.

3♣ wtp?

I'll add 2♣ to the vote for opener. Don't normally like it on low HCP hands with playing strength, but here you have 10 cold tricks, so you don't want 1 to be passed out, and you have the boss suit in case they start trying to push you around.

I think I would double then bid 4♦ as W since I'm not certain 4♣ is forcing. I'd then wonder as E whether 4♠ suggests a weak hand with long spades, or a cue agreeing clubs. I think probably the latter, since if opener had a strong balanced hand he'd have doubled 3♦. Next question is am I worth one? I doubt I'd find it it tbh. I'd bid 5♣ direct and opener prob has to pass - unless E wants to punt on the 'don't play 5m at MP grounds', which doesn't feel too convincing when E has Qx in their suit FWIW, I would open 2♣, and I'm about as conservative 2♣ opener as I know.

deleted double post

Presumably you mean 0.77IMPs per board on which a suitable hand comes up? Also, the more frequent the artificial bid, the lower the memory load, since seeing it more often will habituate you. Benji is terrible in this respect, too - many of the people who play it have really rudimentary continuations that waste its initial descriptive power (such as it is), because they'd forget anything more detailed every time it came up.

My beef with multiLandy is that maybe 4 times out of 5, after 2M, you get passed out, or at least play in that major, and I doubt more than 1 time in 10 you actually play in overcaller's minor. Now you've leaked far more info to the defence than a straight 2M bid would have given (if it could be made on 5 cards), including making it slightly easier for them to double (or occasionally judge to compete over it).

You're giving away your location ;) I don't think it sees much play outside the UK. Could be wrong though, over a weak NT specifically. I'm a fan (though I wouldn't strongly argue that it's best) of simple Landy. Two-suited bids that push you up to the 3 level for a part score seem like you'd have done as well to play in the five card suit at the two level, much of the time, and being able to overcall a nat 2♦ is worth something. MickyB has a system I keep meaning to try out with a willing P. I forget the details, but 2♣ is something like 3+ spades and another suit. ETA, found it (his description):

There are more Fantunes 1♣ continuations than there are Fantunes partnerships (we have 2). I wouldn't worry about replicating the original perfectly, since they have a *lot* of gadgets for dealing with nemerous ver specific hand types, and you won't be able to learn them all. Better to play something relatively simple, or invent your own continuations, depending which way your bread is buttered.