Want to play about twice a week on BBO

[johnbla]

I hope to find a partner to play online about twice a week, and to develop a close understanding.

 

I am not wedded to any particular methods of bidding or defense, but I am committed to the concept that actions should be purposive. A recent contrary experience with a very successful partner illustrates what I mean. In an IMP game, he opened 2♣ on ♠AKQxxx-♥x-♦x-♣AQxxx and the bidding with opponents silent was 2♣-2♠-3♠-4♠-P. He correctly alerted my 2♠ as showing an ace and a king, but saying nothing about spades, but we had no understanding beyond that.

 

I contend that after my step response, my partner’s main purpose should have been to convey the idea that we could make a slam if my king was in clubs, and that a 3♣ rebid was the best way to do so. I held ♠Jxxx-♥xxx-♦AQxx-♣Kx. I’m pretty confident that had we held each other’s cards, the bidding would have gone 2♣-2♠-3♣-3♦-3♠-5♠-6♠-P. After the 3♣ bid, responder must surely reason that opener was claiming he could take ten tricks (one less than needed to make game in clubs) and responder could surely take two, so he must not make a non-forcing bid until he has made a slam try. After his 3♠ choice, I knew he was within a trick of 4♠, and I had that trick….. He knew the odds were that my king was red, in which case we might lose a red ace and two clubs…………..

 

The only reason I can see that such a good player made such a purposeless bid was that he doesn’t naturally think in terms of purpose.

 

While at University College London I came close to being an English life master. Then I moved to the US and again got about 2/3 of the way before I started my own mainframe software company which turned out to be totally incompatible with serious bridge.

 

Mainframes went out of fashion, I found myself retired, and I rejoined the ACBL in 2014. I made the national mini-McKenny in 2014.

 

john-Blackwell@caseint.com

[mgoetze]

Well, this is the find-a-partner forum, and if you find someone who thinks the same as you, then great, but I must say that 2♣-2♠-3♣ would be a really terrible use of a really terrible convention.

[Deevan]

Not sure why the bidding cannot go 2C-2S-3S-4C-6S?

2S=unspecified AK

3S=Good Spade suit

4C=Advance cue bid with good Spade support and with either CK or A or shortness (or you could simple use this conventionally to specifically show lowest K or A)

 

Good luck with finding a compatible partner.

[helene_t]

Not sure why the bidding cannot go 2C-2S-3S-4C-6S?

Shouldn't 4♣ be natural here?

 

Or maybe the agreement is that they open 2♣ only with one-suited hands so 3♠ sets trumps.

 

Probably you have to play it that way if you play step responses since otherwise the 2♠ response (or 2♥, when opener has hearts) prevents you from finding your fit.

[goingoren]

hello i am also looking for a partner

[johnbla]

hello i am also looking for a partner

OK, please email me at john-Blackwell@caseint.com and we'll see if we have similar ideas.

[johnbla]

Not sure why the bidding cannot go 2C-2S-3S-4C-6S?

2S=unspecified AK

3S=Good Spade suit

4C=Advance cue bid with good Spade support and with either CK or A or shortness (or you could simple use this conventionally to specifically show lowest K or A)

 

Good luck with finding a compatible partner.

If 4♣ promises spades, how do I suggest clubs as trumps? We had not played together enough to develop the kind of detailed understanding you imply. I put this up as an example of maximizing the expected IMPS in a new partnership between experienced players.

 

My partner should not be afraid of playing in clubs (at IMPS) if I support immediately, and if I don't he has a chance to bid spades naturally, and keep insisting on the higher-ranking suit. To my mind, the danger of bidding 3♠ is greater than the danger of bidding 3♣.

[johnbla]

Well, this is the find-a-partner forum, and if you find someone who thinks the same as you, then great, but I must say that 2♣-2♠-3♣ would be a really terrible use of a really terrible convention.

I don't like his system either, but he insisted... If my partner wants to play his system, I would like him to use it to get good results.

 

There is actually a partial systemic solution to Helene's point: have club rebids show the major suit or notrump in which partner responded, and have the 'raise' show clubs. This works well on information-theoretic grounds (the club bid is more frequent and cheaper than the raise) and the deal we are discussing is a good example of the benefits of the saved space - the bidding would go 2♣-2♠-3♣(showing spades)-3♠(natural support)-4♣(help-suit slam try - Qbidding is somewhat redundant after the step response)-4♦-4♠(really need ♣K)-5♠(two heart losers)-6♠-pass.

 

Information theory would also suggest the benefits of exchanging 3♦ and 3♥ in this case, but this runs into the practical problem that it may well wrong-side the contract. Only swap the suits where the bidding has already determined who will play the deal.