[aguahombre]

SelfGovern, on 2015-February-19, 10:23, said:

So I bid 3H only, and when it went (P), P, I was not surprised to hear RHO bid (3S). Now I 'back in' with my 4H call, and all pass as I had hoped.
Partner made 4H, and the opps are also on for 4S (responder happened to have five-card spade support), and likely would have bid it had I bulled into 4H.

And, if the opponents had also slowrolled and then bid 4S, you are back even anyway. With one huge difference.......the joy you gave them, and the agony your side incurred when you have bid their game for them.

Walking the dog is not something I like. Walking someone else's dog is way further down on my bucket list.

[fromageGB]

Another thing to remember is that if you judge they have more points than you, do not push them to game. If you have spades and they have hearts, for example, when you have a 9 card fit do not bid 3♠ even though a cursory reading of the "rule" may indicate that. They will be forced to bid the making game. Lie about your length, and bid 2♠. They may stop in 3♥.

Equally, be prepared to bid 5♥ over their spades if you are deciding to bid 4♥.

[Lovera]

VixTD, on 2015-February-19, 08:05, said:

This aspect is very often ignored in the discussion of "bidding to the level of your fit". It's not only the level you're bidding to, but the opponents' level that you're outcompeting that matters. There has to be a whole extra trump between the two sides to warrant bidding 3♥ over 3♦ compared to bidding 3♥ over 2♠.

On a part-score hand at pairs, work out the level you're thinking of competing to (the level you're thinking of bidding + the level of their contract you're bidding over, i.e. 18 for 3♥ over 3♦, 17 for 3♥ over 2♠) and estimate the total number of tricks. At game all bid to the level of the trick total, at love all bid to one more than the level. Vul vs non-vul bid one more than the level only if you expect to make your contract (you think you are the stronger side). Non-vul vs vul bid one more than the level only if you expect to go down (you think you are the weaker side), otherwise double them and try to get them one off.

This doesn't come with guarantees, all the caveats about uncertainties in the actual trick total and deviations from the law apply. It's also probably a little difficult for beginners to grasp, but it's the best advice I've ever read on the subject, in an excellent but little-known book "Competitive bidding at pairs" by Peter Hall.

http://bridge-game.i...ve-bidding.html
It is also to consider. The fact that is spoken about with pro and cons. can take thinking that this "tool" could have any value but that actaully is not well definited yet. I only can suggest to read, insert in Google search box "I Fought the Law", the first two pages indicating vary sites to know better this argoument with the two points of view.

[Lovera]

VixTD, on 2015-February-19, 08:05, said:

This aspect is very often ignored in the discussion of "bidding to the level of your fit". It's not only the level you're bidding to, but the opponents' level that you're outcompeting that matters. There has to be a whole extra trump between the two sides to warrant bidding 3♥ over 3♦ compared to bidding 3♥ over 2♠.

On a part-score hand at pairs, work out the level you're thinking of competing to (the level you're thinking of bidding + the level of their contract you're bidding over, i.e. 18 for 3♥ over 3♦, 17 for 3♥ over 2♠) and estimate the total number of tricks. At game all bid to the level of the trick total, at love all bid to one more than the level. Vul vs non-vul bid one more than the level only if you expect to make your contract (you think you are the stronger side). Non-vul vs vul bid one more than the level only if you expect to go down (you think you are the weaker side), otherwise double them and try to get them one off.

This doesn't come with guarantees, all the caveats about uncertainties in the actual trick total and deviations from the law apply. It's also probably a little difficult for beginners to grasp, but it's the best advice I've ever read on the subject, in an excellent but little-known book "Competitive bidding at pairs" by Peter Hall.

As i told in my previuos post, this point seems interesting. To have major clearness and not to follow in "abstract" way can be usefull to indicate the full hands and relatif bidding for these four different situations.

[wank]

oops. lovera sucked me in.

[Lovera]

Is always so:the good things ..

[Lovera]

VixTD, on 2015-February-19, 08:05, said:

This aspect is very often ignored in the discussion of "bidding to the level of your fit". It's not only the level you're bidding to, but the opponents' level that you're outcompeting that matters. There has to be a whole extra trump between the two sides to warrant bidding 3♥ over 3♦ compared to bidding 3♥ over 2♠.

On a part-score hand at pairs, work out the level you're thinking of competing to (the level you're thinking of bidding + the level of their contract you're bidding over, i.e. 18 for 3♥ over 3♦, 17 for 3♥ over 2♠) and estimate the total number of tricks. At game all bid to the level of the trick total, at love all bid to one more than the level. Vul vs non-vul bid one more than the level only if you expect to make your contract (you think you are the stronger side). Non-vul vs vul bid one more than the level only if you expect to go down (you think you are the weaker side), otherwise double them and try to get them one off.

This doesn't come with guarantees, all the caveats about uncertainties in the actual trick total and deviations from the law apply. It's also probably a little difficult for beginners to grasp, but it's the best advice I've ever read on the subject, in an excellent but little-known book "Competitive bidding at pairs" by Peter Hall.

The reason because you have not seen my contribution on Forum as usually i did is that from about two monthes i'm improving about it with good resulting following these indications from this book by Peter Hall "Competitive bidding at pairs" as VixTD said. I thought to by-pass the lacking of it with the book by O. Segal but instead renew my request asking for, if it's possible, the PDF of the book indicated now.

[Lovera]

Looking for this book i have also found this : "Book revue Competitive bidding at pairs. Peter Hall [South Bucks Bridge Club] IF you come across this book (it’s not in the library), grab it. It’s an easy read with lots of useful tips on how to improve your bridge score. My favourite bit was on doubles, especially when is a double penalty and when for take out. The answer is relatively simple - a double is always for take-out until some specific event occurs during the auction. At that point, double switches to penalty and remains so for the rest of the auction. It never ever goes back to take-out. Double switches from take-out to penalty when: 1) We have found a fit, eg 1S (p) 2S (3C), X We found a fit at 2S so double is now penalty. (1H) X (p) 2S , (3H) X The T/O double of 1H implied Ss, the 2S bid promised a S fit, X is now penalty. 2) After we have pre-empted, eg 3S (4H) X and 3C p p 3H , p p X 3) If either side has bid NT (naturally or shape specific – Ghestem, Michaels, Unusual), eg 1H p 1S p , 1NT p p 2D , p p X Double from either partner is penalty. 4) When opponents protect our non-fit auction, or when no remaining fit is possible, eg 1D p 1S p , 2D p p 2H , X and 1S 2C 2D p , 2H 3C X X cannot be T/O as there is nowhere to go. Lots of helpful advice for players of all skill levels. The inevitable quizzes are presented at the start of each chapter to test what you would do before reading why you should have done it. Definitely worth a read. Richard McLauchlan ".

[Zelandakh]

Lovera, on 2017-July-22, 07:27, said:

Double switches from take-out to penalty when: 1) We have found a fit, eg 1S (p) 2S (3C), X We found a fit at 2S so double is now penalty.

And 1♠ - 2♠ - (3♥); X? Most pairs do not play this as penalty.

[NickRW]

Zelandakh, on 2017-July-24, 23:57, said:

And 1♠ - 2♠ - (3♥); X? Most pairs do not play this as penalty.

I think this depends on the company you keep (and maybe where in the world you are). At my local club I'd wager that most people would think it was penalty. In better company most would think it was strength based - i.e. a direct 3S would have been merely competitive, probably based on a 6th spade, not much in the tank by way of high cards and not invitational.

[Lovera]

I return to the topic of Peter Hall's book because it seems odd to me that this book has no trace if, as it seems, has rightly focused some "rules" to get IMPs. I myself have been able to see this as having gained a lot of good results while playing with occasional partners. I think, therefore, that many agree with me in having as much information as possible (the ideal would be to have the book's PDF) that the book could provide (= full hands visualization and examples) also to be complementary to other books such as that one of Robson-Segal. I therefore hope that we can continue in this dialogue.

[Lovera]

The fact that has been written this book on the subject, plus with examples, suggests that there is already something studied or organized that is unlocked from a theoretical discourse to a more practical, thus allowing you to use this "tool" more effectively.Therefore, it is necessary to verify the data so provided.

[Lovera]

After a long researching i've found in "English Bridge February 1997" this one:"Competitive Bidding at Pairs by Peter Hall (Published by South Bucks BC, £7.99) THIS book by accomplished teacher Peter Hall is the result of a series of workshops given by him at the South Bucks Bridge Centre and is intended primarily for the many bridge players who enjoy club or even tournament bridge but find the intri-cacies of Match Point play daunting or even incomprehensible. Really good teachers hold an important position in the bridge world. They see, day in and day out, the type of concepts that learners have difficulty with and then they have to devise ways through these barriers if they are to progress their students to a satisfac-tory level. Mr. Hall attempts to breach the barriers that many of us have about Match Pointed pairs and with minor quibbles, I think that he does it rather well. The book starts simply enough by describing what at Match Point actually Is and how they earned, giving examples of score sheets and frequency charts. He then gets down to the nitty gritty or tactics, show-ing how they differ from the tactics in teams and rubber bridge. He attempts to show that pairs bridge is more a matter of trying to visualise the overall picture and its probable gains and losses rather than just bidding the cards that you see in front of you. As Mr. Hall points out, when one sets out to learn bridge one is given tables of points which are required to open the bidding, to respond, to overcall etc, and for many players these become a bible from which they never deviate. Indeed, as a rubber bridge player of too many years experience I can confirm this hypothesis by remembering many otherwise very good players who would only open if they had the prerequisite thirteen points, only overcall if they had at least thirteen points, and raise my overcalls as if I had opened the bidding. This book attempts to take the average player to a different and more thinking level. How the pairs session is going and its effect on how we should bid are dis-cussed and the idea of a 'match point chip' is mooted. A match point chip is the value of your hand as you pick it up and its value fluctuates according to position at the table and what goes on around you. It gives those who deal only in points the chance to think and better evaluate their hands. An example is this: ♠QJ107642 ♥52♦AJ♣95 You are first in hand at love all 1) Do you open 3♠? Well I must admit that most of us would but opposite an unlimited partner it would not be wrong to pass. The value of your chip, should you open 3♠ is twenty match points. If you do indeed pass and partner opens lNT what do you do now? As 4♠will make about 50% of the time you could try it or bid 3♠which will be raised to game very rarely (opposite a passed hand), or bid 2♠ which will always make. To extend this further, what would you do if you decide to pass and the opposition open 4♥? 4♠perhaps? On each occasion the value of your chip alters. To know how and by how much, you will have to read the book, and I suggest that you do. The author also covers difficult themes such as when to compete at differing vul-nerabilities, includes an easy-to-under-stand guide to the Law of Total Tricks, looks at pressure bidding, bidding with a fit, Match Point doubling-and quite a lot more. At 182 quite closely typed pages, it covers much ground and covers it very well. I would recommend this book to the club player but only if you really want to improve; it is not the sort of book that you can just dip into. My quibble? Well, the author covers a theme called positive fits and gives a 'simple' mathematical formula for work-ing them out. I failed maths at school and, yes I admit it, I had problems with the formulae, but the principle was easy to understand. Perhaps I am just stupid but there must have been a better way to pre-sent this particular idea. Despite its some-times portentous language, I would say that there is nothing better for the club and slightly above average player on the market-Norman Selway"

[Lovera]

It seems that are few informations around. I have found, about the need to double, this one (the Hand Four in Readers' Bidding Forum): http://australianbri...mments_0606.htm

[Zelandakh]

Lovera, on 2017-September-19, 09:11, said:

http://australianbri...mments_0606.htm

Nice to see nige in 10th place on the readers' list at the bottom.

[Lovera]

Zelandakh, on 2017-September-19, 23:56, said:

Nice to see nige in 10th place on the readers' list at the bottom.

Yes, but for this also rhm is on. And i have found that Peter Hall has played at Deva Bridge Club were is possible also to watch any his hands and (good) resultings with Danny Miller partner.

[Zelandakh]

Lovera, on 2017-September-20, 08:34, said:

Yes, but for this also rhm is on. And i have found that Peter Hall has played at Deva Bridge Club were is possible also to watch any his hands and (good) resultings with Danny Miller partner.

I am not seeing any of Rainer, Peter or Danny on the list for 2006 at the bottom of the article. Did you perhaps misunderstand the reference?

[Lovera]

Zelandakh, on 2017-September-20, 15:01, said:

I am not seeing any of Rainer, Peter or Danny on the list for 2006 at the bottom of the article. Did you perhaps misunderstand the reference?

No, just a while:rhm should be, not in indicated page, but in the australian site (you can click on at the top page in green "return to front page", then "Bidding Forum" and at bottom of page is in 50th position-scores 2017). Instead, for Hall, i didn't insert the url (but if you want, ok) and you can look for it via Google search box(=Deva Bridge Club:when in "Competition" then "Championship Team").

[Lovera]

Lovera, on 2017-September-19, 09:11, said:

It seems that are few informations around. I have found, about the need to double, this one (the Hand Four in Readers' Bidding Forum): http://australianbri...mments_0606.htm

The kind of situation indicated in Hand Four happens here when the strong side is not vul or white vs red but it is possible also when you are white vs white(= love all).