semeai

Solution 1: Play suit preference in this situation instead. Then high, middle, and low still refer to the three suits you'd like to refer to, but maybe just in a different order. Solution 2: Play modified suit preference in this situation, with the suits re-ordered so the one currently played is in the middle. This is strangely similar to the original method quoted above.

Yes, the hearts are (6 choose 1) : (6 choose 2), which is 2:5, and clubs are (4 choose 2) : (4 choose 1), which is 3:2. Combining these you get 3:5. [You wrote 4/3 when you meant 2/3 I think, but your final answer is right, though everything is expressed in reverse order.] You can do these with less work simplifying. Generally, the ratio (m choose n+1) : (m choose n) is (m-n):(n+1). To see this: (m choose n) is m * (m-1) * ... * (m-n+1)/[n*(n-1)*...*1] and (m choose n+1) is the same but with an extra term, m-n, in the numerator, and an extra term, n+1, in the denominator. Here it's not so bad just to calculate (6 choose 2) and so forth, but if you get more in the (7 choose 3)-or-so range, this way of doing things is the viable way to actually do it in your head.

For better or for worse, laws are often not to be interpreted strictly literally. In a sense, what is not HUM is simply what you can convince the relevant authorities is not HUM, with the written law as a starting point. This is evident in paulg's example of the non-HUM carrot club variant. I have no relevant expertise, but I guess your "spades or hearts or 36-37 balanced" would likely be classed as HUM since the human you have to convince would not be fooled by the 36-37 balanced description. Surely this leaves a gray area somewhere. Please don't next ask about "spades or hearts or 24+ balanced or 24+ 4441." I wouldn't be surprised, though, if just about any bid with two weak types and other strong types with the two weak types showing length in different suits would be decided to be HUM. This certainly violates the "one suit or another" clause for not being HUM. I don't see an exception for strong hands. The point you're getting at about describing a bid negatively by subtracting hand types (in a previous example, just diamonds removed from the strong hands, but here three suits) instead of positively by adding them is surely one of the aspects in system regulation that is most open to interpretation. It does seem, however, to be irrelevant for your example just above as it just flatly violates one of the clauses for not being HUM. To close, here's a short example of positive/negative description and system regulations. For the ACBL general chart, if you define your weak 2 spades opener as necessarily unbalanced, that is likely fine. If you restrict it to exactly 5 cards, that is likely fine. If you require that there's no side 4 card heart suit, that is surely fine. If you combine all three of these, however (even the first two likely create a problem) you have 5 spades and 4+ minor, and are now playing a convention that is midchart I think.

The concept must be more nebulous than that. When playing from a long suit with suit preference as the relevant signal you can signal higher, lower or "no preference" when two suits are at stake or even just which of three suits you prefer if three suits are at stake. I presume this is legal and would be considered as just a single meaning ("suit preference").

As implied in gnasher's post and more explicit in aguahombre's, this appears not to be a matter of ethics but of technique. By gnasher's reasoning, not doing your thinking early here is simply akin to missing a safety play: sometimes the extra UI you transmit will lead to a worse result for your side.

As others suggest, the balancing seat 2NT is just about universally played as a strong balanced hand. In contrast, 1S P 2S 2NT does not have a standard meaning, I think. Some play it as minors, some play it as any 2-suiter (partner bids 3C or 3D and you correct one suit up if that's not your suit), some play it as hearts and a minor, and likely some still play it as natural. With a random BBO partner with no agreement, I don't know but I think I would take it as minors, but I'd also allow for the any 2-suiter meaning if my partner bid it.

This is all taking it a bit too far I think. One could similarly try to use 73D1 to argue that varying your tempo by deliberately playing more slowly when you need time to think [in situations where UI is not an issue] is something you should not do: it is not playing in a steady manner, and it could benefit your side.

The useful links at Dan Neill's systems site would seem to be the two different okbridge 2/1 links, which should be as close to an "internet standard 2/1" as you're going to find. There's also Karen Walker's bridge site, which has some basic material on 2/1 in the "intermediate to advanced" section. There's also Bridgebase Advanced 2/1, which has a few more gadgets than the above which pickup partners are less likely to play, though you may find some willing to agree to play it. If so, there are default convention cards and FD cards already on Bridgebase. Added: One more is GIB 2/1, which is fairly standard and which many will have experienced when playing with GIB (the robots on Bridgebase). I guess this is also the convention card used in the BBO Express tournaments.

You could decide to bid 3C with this hand to gain the clear inv+ raise.

If you take it as a 2♥ opening, what does double mean and what does 2♥ mean? One's takeout of hearts I suppose. What's the other? I'm not passing 2♦. I'll either use the one of double/2♥ that isn't takeout of hearts if it's appropriate for my hand or, if not, bid 2NT.

Good questions. It depends on the logic of the auction, and there's also a trick (which you add as a conventional agreement) if you're willing to play just about anywhere undoubled. First, if you're 4441 and partner shows a 5 card suit in your 1, you probably stick it out until doubled, and then make the decision to redouble/run for rescue or not (probably you do). When responder is 4-4 majors, you do better than the above artificial runouts: if opener bids a 5 card minor, you can choose to bid 2H over it (majors, scrambling) or not. If opener redoubles without a 5 card suit, you bid 2H and are in the same spot as the artificial runouts, but with certainty partner isn't 2-2 in the majors. When responder has a diamonds and a major, you also do similarly. First of all, you get to see if partner has a 5 card suit (if it's a major, you might be stuck playing a 5-2; if it's clubs, you can choose to play it or show your suits). Then after that it's playable that 2♦ after the scramble shows ♦+♠ and to show ♦+♥, you first bid 2♣ and then redouble for rescue. 2♣ showing ♣+higher or any 4333 is not as easy, but there's more room and also it's known that responder has at most one doubleton since he has no 5 card suit, so if opener is 4-4 in two suits, he knows one of them will be a 4-3 or better (basically it's the same situation as responder having 4-4 but in reverse, plus the added benefit that partner is never 2-2 in your suits and in fact has no 5 card suit). After 2♣, with 4 clubs, opener passes and you're fine. With 2 clubs, opener has 4-4 somewhere. With majors, he bids 2H (maybe make them show you the double of 2C before bidding 2H). With ♦+♠, bid 2♦ (maybe after a double). With ♦+♥, wait for the double of 2♣ and then redouble for rescue. None of this interferes with responder's plan to bid 2♣ and then redouble with ♦+♥. After 2♣ with 3 clubs, you have options. You certainly can pass and make them show you the double. Then you can choose to play it there, or to redouble/bid 2♦/bid 2♥ with 4-4 reds/pointeds/majors respectively. With a 4333 hand, you have to lie or guess somehow, but this is expected. The whole procedure of making them double you and then running has its benefits. Sometimes they just can't sit for a certain suit and you're free even if it wasn't where you were going to end up. -------------------- TL;DR: If you play some conventional sos redoubles (redouble of 2♣ by either partner shows ♦+♥) you can find all 4-4 fits if neither partner is 4333, at least if you're willing to play undoubled without a fit (if the opponents methods even allow it). If you don't want to risk playing undoubled without a fit or don't want to play conventional sos redoubles, you can do the above, but have 2♦ by responder over redouble or by opener over 2♣ be ♦+higher (2♥ by responder over redouble or by opener over 2♣ is still 4-4 majors). Then you'll have to play in a 4-3 when there's a 4-4 sometimes (when someone has diamonds & a major and the other partner has 3 diamonds and is 4-2 or 2-4 in the majors).

Indeed, which is why I suspect "constructive" was taken as a cute way of saying "strong."

I've noticed that if you go to the MSN Games Bridge Club, under Public Clubs, almost everyone is playing alone with 3 robots sitting South (currently 59 out of 64 , with the 5 others either playing N-S with a partner against 2 robots or sitting North with 3 robots). Maybe you'll be satisfied playing there. You can also pay to enter robot tournaments without having to camp out an hour beforehand, but probably you know that and don't want those.

I don't have two ways to play 1NTxx. Over a pass, opener always bids a 5 card suit if he has one. Basically, it seems there is some trading that's unclear to me (the various stuff at the end of my previous post in reply to wclass, plus similar things) in order to get the immediate redouble, which does make it harder on them. I don't know if the trading is good for one side or the other. It will depend on how often 1NT openers have 5 (or 6) card minors, and also on how often they have 5 card majors (you're not so comfortable bidding your own major over a 2-suited bid if the 2-suited hand could have a 5 card suit). Added: Sorry to be so contrary. If this is all nonsense, keep letting me have it.

Okay, that's playable. Bidding a 2-suited hand with a minor shows equal or better minor, then. The distinction between 5-2 and 4-3 is going to be a major difference. My guess is/was that 5-2 is better when both hands are semi-balanced and weak. This could use some analysis. You could also miss 5-3 and play in 4-3. Then again, my scramble could miss 4-4 and play in 4-3, so maybe that's even. Added: Over the 2m 2-suited bid, you do play a 4-3 over a 5-2 again, as well as a 4-4 over a 5-3 (likewise my guess is that given the conditions, 5-3 is better). You will play 4-4 instead of 5-2 sometimes, though.

But it has an upvote. Wait, no. I just viewed it and it was still at 215, then I upvoted it and it's still at 215. Maybe it's some other delay mechanism, or maybe it gets updated if there's a post or at specified times (that post is a week old or so).

I get this too. My impression/guess is that, for me at least, the view count only updates when there's a post added to the thread.

Thanks. This is the sort of alternative I had in mind, but I don't like it so much: 1) I rarely held 5-5. When I did, I was usually fine just bidding a 5 card suit. 2) I like bidding my 5 card suits immediately. Sometimes it will be good for partner to raise with a suitable hand with 4 (or 5!). 3) What shapes do you show 2-suited on? I don't like it with 4-4 since it will often be right to play opener's 5 card suit. I don't like bidding 5-4 as a 2-suiter here without distinction between the 5 and the 4 and without that ability would just show it as 1-suited (we know partner is semi-balanced). 4) The penalty hands did come up and I got them almost as often as they got me. Possibly I was doubling 1NT too aggressively in my tests. I doubled the 10-12 notrump with a balanced 14 (or good 13) in direct seat and had both sides play "first double takeout, subsequent doubles penalty." [in case it seems nonsensical that I got them almost as much as they got me when they're stronger, I'll note that they lack one of pass/redouble to work with.] One thing to add: My tests were with a 10-12 notrump and not vulnerable (which is when I'd play it). This may matter. I didn't directly test against anything specific, I was mostly just making sure I didn't get doubled much and got to double them often enough to make xx worth it. ---------- I tried just now to come up with something that gives up the redouble for penalty but keeps the "opener bids a 5 card suit opposite a scramble hand" (with the goal of also adding some 2-suiters with the extra room), but I couldn't make it work. If redouble isn't strong, you need pass forces redouble for strong hands, and redouble for the scramble doesn't work, as opener can't scramble and show 5 card suits at the same time. [This section is made mostly irrelevant by wclass's comment that you bid the 2-suited hand with equal or better minor.]

Thanks. This would make the updated list: Double of an opponent's suit bid is takeout unless: 1) Our side has already made a strength showing double or redouble (maybe this is supposed to be more restrictive) 2) We have a known fit 3) All four suits have been shown 4) The opponent's bid is artificial 5) Pass is forcing 6) Our side preempted or showed a defined 2-suiter 7) The doubler passed up an opportunity to make a takeout double earlier and is not balancing at the 2-level and no new suit has been bid 8) The opponents have shown 3 separate suits 9) The opponents have bid game and doubler has passed before 10) Partner has suggested the suit (even implicitly, as via a t/o X) as a place to play [note that this does not apply, for instance, to (1Y) 1N (2Y) X, where partner has shown cards in the suit but has not suggested it as a place for us to play] 11) Our side has rebid 1NT 12) We've both bid and they balance 13) We've shown a defined one-suiter and have room for a cuebid below 3NT Test for #12: 1D P 1H P; 2C P P 2S; X. Should this be takeout instead? Test for #11: 1C P 1S P; 1N 2H X. Should this be takeout instead? This one's a bit implausible. Maybe 1C 1H 1S P; 1N 2H X instead. I don't know where to start on the cards vs penalty definitions list. Does anyone have ideas here?

This is the line he took, more or less. See hand 58 here. As spoiled in the sub-title, anything worked on the actual hand.

I pass. I don't feel confidence in my judgement in such auctions, though. I have a strong opinion about this one, at least: no.

As everyone must do at somepoint, I was playing around with weak/mini notrump runouts. "Natural" seemed pretty good to me, and stood up under some testing at a teaching table: bid = 5 card suit pass = weak, no 5 card suit redouble = good hand interested in penalty (with a good hand uninterested in penalty, bid 2NT or game or pass and then bid 2NT or higher) After pass, opener bids a 5 card suit or redoubles without one, after which you scramble. You can also bid a short suit and redouble for SOS at this point if you like. Any thoughts on this? I know it doesn't show specific 2-suiters, but is this a huge loss when you'll do fine just bidding a 5 card suit? I like the immediate bid call for penalty, as often enough when they double they're the ones in trouble. I originally wanted pass to be for penalty, but there just wasn't enough room. You could play pass for penalty with e.g. DONT runouts, but I think it gets you in trouble often because sometimes you just want to play opener's 5 card suit instead of having to bid something with random balanced junk. ----------- The same scheme works after a balancing seat double, but now redouble is free. (Perhaps opener just passes sometimes with 5332 instead of bidding the 5 card suit.) <random artificial idea> Here's the idea: Use redouble as a Woolsey double, i.e. 5 of a minor and 4 of a major. The one modification to make is that over the redouble, 2C asks for the minor, 2D *shows 5+ diamonds*, and 2H asks for the major. You can do this because responder shouldn't have a 5 card major to play in after passing 1NT. </random artifical idea>

Clearly it should be a 6-team round robin first, then a playoff of the top two! We'd need to wait for the last three options in the poll to have at least four votes, though.

I second Bridgemaster 2000 for improving your declarer play. Many of the hands are oriented towards learning specific techniques, so it's slightly more to the theoretical side than the practical side, but getting to play the cards out and also getting to redo it if your solution was not correct (without having spoiled the problem) is a huge advantage over book problems. For something slightly closer to practical real-world declarer play, I think the robot duplicate tournaments are pretty good for improving your declarer play. You get the best hand at the table, so you declare often (and when you're dummy it's very quick). Then afterwards you can compare with a bunch of humans playing the same opposition to see if there's anything they did differently. The bbombadmin ones are 25 cents for 8 hands in 25 minutes (pretty quick if you take time to think) and the ACBL ones are 1 dollar for 12 hands in 55 minutes (lots of time to think given that you're the only one taking any time at the table). An alternative I haven't tried is renting a robot and playing duplicate imps in the main bridge club vs 3 robots: you still get to compare with others but don't have the strict time limit or the same fee per hand.

Nobody is mentioning what seems obvious (or at least likely) to me. The "weak" comment was playful, in a setting where everyone plays 2C strong. The "constructive" comment was taken as playful understatement, again in this setting where everyone plays 2C strong. I'm not suggesting that necessarily means they are owed redress, but at least it's a question: if your explanation is misunderstood as being playful when it was literal, whose fault is that?