[Fluffy]

Just wanna say that IMO 3♠ could be a 2425 without ♦ stopper. 3♦ would be NATURAL, 4sf is a convention used by RESPONDER, not opener.

[Double !]

Rebound, on Jun 14 2005, 07:39 PM, said:

Double !, on Jun 14 2005, 04:09 PM, said:

Walddk, on Jun 14 2005, 03:47 AM, said:

You seem to forget that weak jump shifts are part of the system, so we can rule out quite a few hands partner can have.

Oh, great....sigh

Now we need a poll to determine what kinds of hands people bid wjs on. Some play it like a mini-weak 2, about 3-7 with 6-bagger, some play it as weaker and less disciplined.

Isn't it nice to know that there is such a thing as Standard? lolololololololololol

Forgive me if this was intended as a joke and I'm just being a pedantic dud, but I believe one of the stated purposes of the quizes is to reach a consensus about BBO Advanced and such treatments. Suspect this in large part the reason for selection of this particular problem.

Senior Rebound
amigo

c'mon, you know me better that

actually I was serious about the fact that different people play the same bid usin different criteria

Jocularity was also intended.

[Double !]

Elianna, on Jun 14 2005, 09:58 PM, said:

Ok, someone sent a request to Ben, which was forwarded to me, asking for totals of bids (that you, the contestants sent in). I don't know if I'll do this for all problems, but for this one:

4♦ 14
5♦ 5
4♠ 4
3♠ 3
4♣ 2
3♦ 1
6♠ 1
5♠ 1

Please let me know if you find this interesting/useful. It's a bunch of work, and if only one person wants it, they can just get the file and do it themselves.

Also, if I see even one post that says something along the lines of "I can't believe that someone (or some number of people) made such and such bid" I will not post any of these totals anymore. Please remember that even if you hate a bid, you should not be mean to people who are feeling their way through the contest, and didn't know that their bids would become public (since it wasn't stated in the COC, and this was just a request made by Ben).

yes
please post the data if not too much trouble
thanks

[cherdano]

While I chose the same bid as the majority of the panel, I feel I am more pessimistic about slam prospects than others. Justin mentions that slam may go down opposite KQxxx in spades. I still think that you don't want to be in slam if partner has ♠AK9xx and some 3-3-2 in the remaing suits (clubs not including the 10).

But maybe it's not slam prospects but only my declarer play that is lacking, so how about this as a play problem:

You have ♠AK9xx ♥xxx ♦xxx ♣xx opposite the hand of this thread:
♠J86 ♥AQ92 ♣AKQJ54. What's your plan on a diamond lead? What would you do differently with 3 clubs and (32) in the reds? How would ♠10 or ♥J or ♦K change the odds?

Arend

[Winstonm]

Quote

even 4♠ is in jeopardy. I don't think anyone would pass 1♣ with that hand.

I must be playing out here in my own little world - which is good because if I'm right then everyone else must be wrong, LoL - but I am the lonely passer holding the hand you gave, Roland - but for reasons.

I use WJS to solve these problems: I don't have enough to respond yet I most likely don't want to play 1 of a minor, either; I want to obstruct LHO after his partner has passed; I want to do this with some reasonable amount of common sense and safety.

I would pass (unless mp's) as the hand does not fit my criteria for either A) a respnding hand or a WJS. That only leaves pass.

True, this hand could produce a magic game - but as bridge is about mostly taking percentage action, going out on a limb to bid with these cards I believe will produce more poor results than good. If I really wanted to bid with this hand, I should be playing a forcing club system - as a matter of fact, isn't this the reason forcing club systems came into being - so partner had to keep the bidding open?

However, I am not playing a forcing club, and partner needs to be able to rely on some kind of minimum holding for my initial squeak - otherwise bidding becomes instead of a conversation a guessing game. In my experiece it's easier to catch up later with some strength than to try to "take back" an overbid.

WinstonM

[joker_gib]

cherdano, on Jun 16 2005, 06:51 PM, said:

While I chose the same bid as the majority of the panel, I feel I am more pessimistic about slam prospects than others.

You are absolutely right !

I took 2♠ as the weaker bid of responder only showing 5♠ and saying "I don't want to play game" !

With those weak hands I still don't see how I can have a good slam and I still don't understand the panel 4♦ bid !

I suppose they took 2♠ with another meaning

Alain

[ochinko]

Fluffy, on Jun 15 2005, 03:45 PM, said:

3♦ would be NATURAL, 4sf is a convention used by RESPONDER, not opener.

And what's the worst that could happen? Partner thinks you are 0=4=4=5, so he bids 3NT with DKxx or 4D with DKxxx, which you correct to 4Sp.

Yes, 4D is the textbook bid. I wouldn't expect any other bid to be rewarded if this was a BEGINNER-INTERMEDIATE contest. It would be great if your spades contract is rock solid. But if it isn't, you have drawn the map for the defendants, and quite unnecessarily too. And we expect expert defense, right?

Even 5Sp looks better than 4D to me (while riskier, because you could have only 4), because you don't reveal your hand, but still allow partner to bid 6Sp with two top honors.

Petko

--Added--
I admit that there is a drawback in 3D, which is not practical but legal. Opps could have a valid complaint that your partner didn't alert the fact that 3D could be bid with a void. So you escaped from the killing hearts lead only to watch your great result adjusted

[JLOGIC]

Jlall is crazy. Exclusion?! 4D is just right, if anything we would often have a better hand than this.

It is interesting though, I think mikeh and maybe others argued in a thread not that long ago that 3S in this auction should be forcing. I agree with myself wholeheartedly that it's not, we have 4S available, 4D available, and could be 2425 with Hx and no stopper here or 3415 with a light reverse like 15 ( I know mikeh disagrees with this).