bAbs,

This falls naturally into two parts.

First
Comments: I would hope to encourage an exchange of ideas, expert or not. This is for several reasons, but mostly that's my preference for most things  in bridge and in life.
But the hands cited so far in this thread show reasons as well. On the 6D hand it made at one table, went down at the other. And quite possibly it should not have been bid at either table. Although if the heart Ace is to declarer's right it might well be easier to bring in. Even with the heart Ace and the club King badly placed it makes except on a trump lead although it requires some thought on a spade lead.   I think discussing such matters is far preferable to having an assigned expert announce the proper bid and play. so while it is firstly a personal preference, I think open discussion really has merit for all.

Second
Setting up the tourney: I still need to read, but bAbs you might point me a bit in the right direction. Somewhere on BBO I found a link to aaBridge which can be used, I think, to do what i have in mind.

See http://rogerpf.com/bridge/aaBridge

 I expect I can figure out how to use this, I am making progress on it, but I often find computer program write-ups difficult to work through and this is another instance of such difficulties. Have you used it, or has someone out there who is reading this used it?. I expect that for what I have in mind I can just do it without learning aaBridge, but I see it as a challenge so I plan to try.

The hand editor on the downloadable version of bbo seems to do more things. For example, I seem to recall that it allowed me to edit a hand to delete  the names of the players. If I can do this on the online version I have not yet figured out how. Also, the hand editor allows me to rearrange the card in the hands, that's nice, but as near as I can see it does not allow me to simply delete some cards. Well, I can delete them, or I can click on the next button for a few plays, but then I can not save it at that point. So I cannot save  a hand after, say, the first five tricks have been played. I am assuming that aaBridge would allow me to do such things, but first I have to figure out what he is saying. I'm working on it.

And I still have some spring planting to do. Ah, the busy life of a retiree. So many bushes, so little time.

[typos corrected]

This is one of those hands that can provide lots of discussion. The 2D bid by E probably encouraged N since he controls the suit and figures South's values are elsewhere. To my mind, when N bids 3D and then pulls 3NT to 4C, that's a slam try in clubs. He has now said enough, when bids 5C North can hardly bid again. He can reasonably expect the hands to produce six club tricks and three top cards in the majors are in sight, but to bring the total to 12 the spades presumably have to be developed. If, after the initial pass, they are to reach 6C then S has to show he can help with the spades. As you suggest, bidding 3S over 3D would do it. Another way is to bid 4S over 4C. I suppose this could be dangerous but M has  pulled 3NT to clubs, I think bidding 4S over 4C is simply cooperating with the slam try in clubs.

But, again, bridge is a subtle game. Easier when seeing all four hands.

Here is another fun slam:

http://tinyurl.com/mg725de


Jimmy thought for quite a while before producing the D lead. Down 1. At the other table the lead was a spade. The hand requires care, but it can be and was made.

I am still thinking of doing a show and tell with some hands, from JEC or elsewhere. Not today!

I may need to ask you or someone about just ow this is done. I'll read a bit first.

Let me think out loud a bit here, meaning input is sought. Two parts:


A:  First a hand from the archives.

I browsed a bit in the the vugraph archives. The link below takes you to a semifinal match in the Vanderbilt. Let's look at board 7.

http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?linurl=http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/vugraph_linfetch.php?id=49633

The contracts are 5C making 6 and, at the other table, 6C making 6.  If you browse thorugh the comments on the 6C the commentators speculate that perhaps the S hand was opened 1C but there was a mistake in the vugraph recording. .  This seems likely to me, but it depends a little on just what means what during the auction.

At any rate, opening the S hand 1C certainly increases the likelihood of reaching 6C.

At the 5C table the opening lead is a diamond taken, and then a heart switch. Well, no problem now. At the 6C table the opening lead is a heart, taken by the A. Now there are good chances but a little care is needed.

I have no plans to tell either Cayne or Brogeland (the two Souths) why they should or should not open 1C. And of course 6S "could" be made but I doubt anyone would play a spade to the Q and then finesse the ten.


 B:   Now a though about what might be possible.

 I had some complicated scheme here that I now think is way too complicated.  But I still like using vugraph hands so that people can compare with what actually happened at a major event.



Coda: It is easy to find interesting hands in the files. For example, for hand 16 in
http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?linurl=http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/vugraph_linfetch.php?id=49592
both 4H and 3NT can be beaten, but N, defending 3NT, has a choice at T3. One choice sets the contract, the other doesn't.

The fact that it often is not obvious what to bid, how to play a hand, how to defend a hand, all these things make bridge interesting. I really don't know if S should open 1C on the slam hand. I can imagine him getting pretty anxious when, after he does so, his partner puts him in 6C.  And I am not sure how they might reach 6C after he chooses not to do so. Note to Oliver: A Precision 2C opening might get them there, yes?

Would the following attract any interest?


Suppose some hands were taken from viewgraph records and people played them. Afterward, there could be discussion, maybe on this Forum. People could look and see how these hands were played by some pretty good players.


The JEC (Jimmy Cayne) files should be good for this if they are available.  JEC mostly plays pretty standard stuff so the focus would be on judgment rather than exotic conventions. [I think Jimmy does play Muppet rather than Puppet over an opening 2NT, but such exotica is rare for him.]


I don't know how to load  hands from viewgraph files, but I imagine I could learn. And perhaps I could make some comments on the hands, but I really think that a discussion is far preferable to a lecture. I describe myself as Advanced and I believe that to be accurate, mostly because I have been playing approximately forever. I leaned rubber bridge by reading Goren in 1961, and I have played off and on since then, sometimes a lot, sometimes not at all, currently about once a week f2f and then pick up on BBO.  You can't help but learn something after all that time, and I could make suggestions. Nobody should treat my opinions as indisputable fact.

 

Ken:
Would it be too much to ask you to set 1 hour weekly a mentoring table in IAC, play and discuss style? Many like to chew on hands just played and certainly most members will learn lots, playing or watching.

This forum could serve much of that purpose. I will select out a hand that will perhaps illustrate this.
http://tinyurl.com/k6v8ysh


Added: I have added a rebuttal to my claim that playing the A at T1 is doomed. Not exactly.

Down one, losing to the K and J of hearts.After eleven tricks the hand was conceded as down 1.  David sent me a message asking if it could be made. I was then seeing only the remnants of the hand after the claim and i said that probably not, after the heart lead at T1. I included a quick word on how, if I remembered the hand correctly, it could be made without a heart lead.  Later I sent a correction, saying that I thought it could be but I would have to look it over. Of course one could check GIB, GIB says yes, but I think that is the wrong idea. One should think how it could be made, and whether that is a reasonable line of play. So let's look.

The opening lead is the heart 8. On the auction, that seems like it might be a stiff. If it is, then you are doomed, or probably so. Why? Because if is is a stiff then if you lay the ace N just sits and waits for his KJ. He won't pitch them and only one heart can be dossed from hand on the long diamonds. [Huh! I have left this statement here, but see rebuttal reply] If you don't go up with the Ace, then N can win and give his partner a ruff.

There are two possible counters to this.
One: Play the Q. It will lose to the K but perhaps N will think the lead was from three cards. not likely, but you could hope.
Two: Assume the 8 is not stiff. It probably is, but you are going down if it is. So assume it is not. Maybe it is from a doubleton, as indeed it was.
What follows from that?
Let's play the Ten, just in case the lead was from, say, J86. I have noticed people often treat Jxx as a MUD lead. I don't, but some do, so I play low from dummy and the J wins.  Maybe N will think the 8 is stiff and lead back a heart. If so, I am down if it is ruffed, I claim if it is not.
But no, North will not think the 8t was stiff, or at least he shouldn't. If the 8 were stiff, that would give E five hearts. But E opened 1C.  And never mentioned hearts. No. N will return a spade.

Declarer plays two rounds of clubs, South following to both rounds.


We assumed that S had two hearts, let's stick with that. We have seen two clubs in the S hand. We assume six spades for the weak jump  overcall. Hah! That means on;y three diamonds. North has four diamonds. And, we assume, the heart King. If we have this right, we are home. Heart to the A, run all the clubs tossing the spade and the heart Q on the board.

Dummy now has four diamonds, the
KQ84

Declarer has
Hearts: T9
Diamonds: A5.

North has what?
Well, he has four cards.
If North still holds the heart K then he has tossed a diamond and the diamonds run.
If North tossed the heart K, great, the Ten is good.
Either way, all four tricks are good. And you know which it is.

Ok, not everyone foresees the ending. But here is what you can see: If the heart 8 at trick 1 is a stiff, going up with the Ace will not work. It can't work It's impossible for it to work. So don't do it. After that, maybe a miracle will occur. And maybe it won't occur. Maybe you can help the miracle along. maybe the opponents will make a mistake. But if the heart 8 is stiff and you rise with the Ace, you are going down. So don't rise. If the 8 is stiff, well, too bad. But when it isn't, you increase your options by playing low.

But this sort of thing is much more suitable for Forum discussion than for quick comment between hands.

Here is how I think it works: A person who wants to learn looks over some hands afterwards. Sometimes it will be easy to find a better line.  Not just double dummy better, but really a line that reasonably would be better.

For example, take the same hand and assume a spade lead. The same line as above would work but it is far too complicated. Instead you win the Ace, draw trump in two rounds, ruff the spade, play four rounds of diamonds, pitching one heart on the third diamond  ruffing the last diamond.. Only hearts and clubs are left. You lead the ten of clubs. Assume the finesse loses to the J. N has a choice of how to concede, give you a sluff/ruff or lead into the AQ. Basically, you can claim making 6 at trick 1 on a spade lead.

Contrast this with a mentoring comment: Imo, the 2NT bid over 2S shows about an 11 count and is non-forcing. But that's me. If a pair plays it as forcing, that's them. And that's about all there is to be said. But the hand will make 6C, it just isn't obvious. So that gets interesting.

Also, if I were North then, after partner made the WJO of 2S I think I would bid 4S. But it's a judgment call.

In My Fair Lady, Alfred Doolittel sings of good fortune. He might have had the hand below in mind.

http://tinyurl.com/lahsyek

There is a lot to be said for passing partner's opening 1D, but the modern style seems to be to bid on with any excuse and so 1 responded 1S. Now the die is cast. Partner of course reversed into 2H, a one round force.  Now what about 2S?

mikeh has, in my opinion, a very useful discussion of reverses in the BBO Intermediate/Advanced Forum. See

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/18177-a-primer-on-reverse-bidding/

"2♠ is a one round force, but it may be weak. This apparent paradox arises from the fact that the 2♥ was forcing, so responder has to bid, and using 2N as a weakness bid makes no sense when responder wants/needs to show long ♠s. So responder will rebid 2♠ without in any way limiting his hand."

Not everyone agrees that 2S is forcing, and on this hand I might well wish that it isn't, but I think Mike's description reflects the general consensus. And I think it is best in the long run. So 2S it is. Partner likes this call, to put it mildly, and splinters to 4C. This is doubled and I am just hoping to not do anything that might encourage partner so I pass. Partner bids 4S and we are done, now all I have to do is make it.

As the cards lie, there is no defense. The opening lead is, as requested by the X, a club. Assuming spades are 3-2 I can take either four spades and four hearts or, if a heart is ruffed, five spades and three hearts. The club K and a club ruff brings me to ten tricks. If N continues with a second club after winning the A, I have to take the K rather than ruff on the board, or at least I think I have to, but of course she switched to a D. This will set me if I have two diamonds, but I have the stiff so all is well. And of course if a club is not the opening lead I can go after diamonds. They are 3-3 so this also works!

Partner and I had never played before, so we were winging it a bit. With my Standard American f2f partner I have only recently convinced him that we need some sort of discussion about reverses. I will probably send him this hand. Of course it is a lucky hand, very lucky. What I take from that is that whatever agreements you have, you will sometimes also need luck. Still, agreements are good.

I have long believed that bridge players underestimate how often good fortune, or bad fortune, determines results. It might be fun to post a few hands illustrating this.

Stick with me baby I'm the fellow you came in with, luck be a lady tonight--- Sky Masterson in Guys and Dolls.

As to 1C-1H-1NT with opener holding 4=3=3=3
If I am asked by opponents before the lead, assuming the contract is 1NT, if opener could be holding four spades i usually respond: "Possibly, but we have no agreements to uncover this if he did, so I wouldn't expect him t do it often". With other partners I might put it more strongly as "I suppose so, but I have never seen him do it".

Still another way of thinking about this:  Agreements are very useful and should be followed, but perhaps with exceptions. I don't think that 4=3=3=3 is enough of a reason the rebid 1NT but if the hand is very no trump oriented, maybe with a lot of 9s and 10s, then fine. Partner does it, partner plays it, I wish him luck. I note when it works and perhaps say something nice, if it doesn't work I let it be. I like my partners to feel free to do what they think is best.

I like Masse citing BWS. It's not that we should all play BWS (although I can think of worse ideas), rather I think it is useful to distinguish between something that is simply a poster's own idiosyncratic idea and something that has an expert following.  Maybe not universal expert following, but still.

In that vein, I note that in Steve Robinson's Washington Standard, on page 143, hes says "New minor followed by three-ot--a-minor is a natural slam try". I only recently saw this in Steve's book but I have always played it that way with anyone who agreed. I suspect it is widespread but I am not sure. Maybe I will look it up in BWS.

I have only played 2-way NMF on occasion, but my impression is favorable. As mentioned, it seems to me to be particularly useful when playing Walsh responses.

Give yourself
Qx
Kxxx
QJxxxx
x

Partner opens 1C. A non-Walsh player bids 1D. A Walsh player bids 1H. After 1C-1H-1NT surely you want to get out in 2D. If 2D is standard NMF you can't. With 2-way, you call 2C, forcing a 2D response, and then you pass.


Strengthen it to
Kx
Kxxx
AJxxxx
x

The Walsh response to 1C  is still 1H unless you think that this is worth a 1D response where, in the Walsh style, you would then bid a game forcing 2H over 1NT. So it goes 1C-1H-1NT and, using 2 way, you now bid 2C forcing 2D and raise that to 3D.

Strengthen it a bit more and with the same shape you would start with 1D over 1C.  But suppose you have
Ax
KQxxx
AQxxx
x

 1C-1H-1NT-2D-2NT-?
OK, maybe 3NT is right but 3D has its attractions. A judgment call. If you like 3NT here you can still probably vary the hand to something where you would definitely like to bid 3D.

To play 2 way you have to give up something. That's always the case with conventions. Here you give up the possibility of using 1C-1H-1NT-2C as a weak shapely hand that wants to play 2C. And that can be a loss. But 1C-1H-1NT-3C is a weak shapely hand that wants to play in clubs so it may not be a great loss. 1C-1H-1NT-2C-2D(forced)-3C is the invitational hand with clubs, 1C-1H-1NT-2D-2anything-3C is the forcing hand  with clubs.

I have not played 2-way often, but it seems to work. And I do think it gains in practicality when Walsh responses to 1C are being used.  I'm not big on Walsh, I'm a very old fashioned guy, but I an see its pluses.