[mycroft]

You won't know about them if you've never gone South of the Equator. They're a distinctly Aus-NZ(*) thing. A very sensible thing, if you ask me, for many reasons (all apologies to the late Mr. Lamb however, who would not have been able to play for the last 20 years of his life. And, less medically so, it's not like *my* handwriting is any good either. And I wonder what all the people who, here, reach across their bodies and twist their left arms to bid, because otherwise they couldn't hold their 13 cards in their dominant hand do - pen in the wrong hand?)

(*)For reasons mostly falling on "I have strange tastes", I have been acquiring equivalents recently. "Fourecks and the Foggy Islands", "Emutopia and Kiwiland",...)

[mikl_plkcc]

awm, on 2025-March-12, 07:36, said:

I have never seen nor heard of bidding pads, though perhaps I could guess what they are from context. And I’m not that young anymore, 49 years old and playing duplicate bridge for 27 or so years.

I used bidding sheets in the past.

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2025-March-12, 11:53, said:

And I wonder what all the people who, here, reach across their bodies and twist their left arms to bid, because otherwise they couldn't hold their 13 cards in their dominant hand do - pen in the wrong hand?)

And here I was finally becoming almost complacent about my growing skills in low mycroftese

I am right handed (at least by imposition education and for writing or scissors) and I do better at the piano with that hand too, although the other one worked fine (not that I had the choice) for the complicated stuff with violin and guitar. But I'm also infinitely better with my left foot forward on any kind of board, so I guess my right hand must be dominant. Yet I hold my cards in the left hand (should I prefer the dominant hand?) and reach across my body (could one avoid that?) with my right arm to bid. Am I doing something unnatural that might convey UI?

FWIW my hunch about the choice to hold cards in the non-dominant hand is that some ancestral part of the brain suggests leaving the dominant hand free to punch the opponent or wield a sword, which given typical behaviour at the bridge table seems perfectly reasonable

[smerriman]

Doesn't everyone hold cards in their non-dominant hand? Because you use your dominant hand for the more important task of playing a card.

[mycroft]

You'd think? But no, there are several who hold the cards in their right hand, despite clearly being right-handed, and look at the box on their right corner, and bid with their left hand.

Or they'll bring their box over to the middleish, and then bid with their left.

And of course they are using right-handed bidding boxes, so they either bid upside down, or (more commonly) twist their hand or their entire body to turn the card backwards. Every time.

Now, my partner does this (and bids upside down), but as she says, "I'm not left-handed, I'm right-injured". And we do have left-handed bidding boxes in Calgary which we bring (but aren't worth flying north and south with).

I just learned early on that it's not worth doing any of that, just sort the cards in the right, move them to the left, bid; put the hand down to write in the contract, then pick it up with the right hand and play with my (coördinated) left.

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2025-March-13, 19:50, said:

You'd think? But no, there are several who hold the cards in their right hand, despite clearly being right-handed, and look at the box on their right corner, and bid with their left hand.

Or they'll bring their box over to the middleish, and then bid with their left.

And of course they are using right-handed bidding boxes, so they either bid upside down, or (more commonly) twist their hand or their entire body to turn the card backwards. Every time.

Now, my partner does this (and bids upside down), but as she says, "I'm not left-handed, I'm right-injured". And we do have left-handed bidding boxes in Calgary which we bring (but aren't worth flying north and south with).

I just learned early on that it's not worth doing any of that, just sort the cards in the right, move them to the left, bid; put the hand down to write in the contract, then pick it up with the right hand and play with my (coördinated) left.

Yep, thinking about it, there is a lot of variance here. I have one partner who handles the cards quite "normally" but uses a mouse upside down, which says everything about the dutility of the human brain and the apparent randomness of our choices. And of course, all this variance can be exploited. Maybe my ex-president who insisted everyone should hold their cards below the table like her was not wholly wrong after all (although I always suspected it was just harder to figure out what they were up to)

[mikl_plkcc]

Another Friday again, this time my regular partner was not available so I played with the host.

We finally got a small positive today, however there were a lot of lies which, imo, would led me to lose trust to my partner if it happened in my regular partnership.

I felt that my partner lied to me for at least 3 hands:

Board 16, partner lied a 2NT with 5=1=4=3 22 HCP which I transferred to H, and we missed a cold slam in the other major which many other tables bid and made.

Board 13, partner lied a 1S opening with 4 S and 5 D, (we played 5-card majors), RHO overcalled and I raised with a 3-card Yarborough support. They finally made 3NT while, without a lie, it would end up a penalty pass on us getting -3 or -4 as we had no 8-card fit in any suits so it was a positive for us.

Board 6, partner opened a 1st seat weak 2 with JT9xxx, I held KQx in support and another solid suit, that I presumed my partner must hold the A and bid a game because it was a clear-cut losing 3 tricks and everything else, and of course it ended up down 1 because of the lack of the A. I would not open with that hand because of the poor suit quality and honours in the other major, and with my constructive bidding, would end up in 3D making instead if the opponents didn't outbid us with 3S.

[akwoo]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-March-14, 17:57, said:

Another Friday again, this time my regular partner was not available so I played with the host.

We finally got a small positive today, however there were a lot of lies which, imo, would led me to lose trust to my partner if it happened in my regular partnership.

I felt that my partner lied to me for at least 3 hands:

Board 16, partner lied a 2NT with 5=1=4=3 22 HCP which I transferred to H, and we missed a cold slam in the other major which many other tables bid and made.

Board 13, partner lied a 1S opening with 4 S and 5 D, (we played 5-card majors), RHO overcalled and I raised with a 3-card Yarborough support. They finally made 3NT while, without a lie, it would end up a penalty pass on us getting -3 or -4 as we had no 8-card fit in any suits so it was a positive for us.

Board 6, partner opened a 1st seat weak 2 with JT9xxx, I held KQx in support and another solid suit, that I presumed my partner must hold the A and bid a game because it was a clear-cut losing 3 tricks and everything else, and of course it ended up down 1 because of the lack of the A. I would not open with that hand because of the poor suit quality and honours in the other major, and with my constructive bidding, would end up in 3D making instead if the opponents didn't outbid us with 3S.

The player who has won the most face-to-face masterpoints in the ACBL in the last decade or so, who seems to average 60% in open pairs at regional tournaments playing with a variety of sometimes much weaker partners who no doubt are paying him handsomely for the privilege, is well known for these kinds of lies. His clients either are truly oblivious, or they pretend to be so they don't have to tell their opponents; I'm never sure which, and it probably depends on the client.

Notice these kinds of maneuvers increase the chance that he gets to declare, which is much better than having to defend with the client or (gasp!) having the client declare.

And - as you can see in this case - it resulted in one good board, one bad board, and one where it didn't make much difference (the opps are finding 3S).

I'm guessing your partner thinks (probably correctly) that they are better than you, and they wanted to fool around a bit.

See if you got some cardplay lessons watching them. And - if you ever get good enough that someone with more money than sense wants to pay you to play with them - you can save up this lesson on how to hog hands and throw opponents (and partner) off at the same time.

[mikl_plkcc]

So professional players lie on their bids instead of using their professional judgements that are likely to land the partnership at the best contract? Even if the pro has to play an inferior contract rather than the client plays the optimum contract?

For example, opening NT when holding a strong hand with something like 4=2=5=2 (which I never do) will result in the opener declaring the hand, but in standard methods, there is a large likelihood any S contract is declared by the responder.

[jillybean]

It's a business. ACBL and the Professionals who get paid to play.

[mikl_plkcc]

Another board that I wanted to discuss: board 14

My holding was ♠QT3 ♥KT54 ♦T5 ♣AJ42

Opponents played Precision and RHO opened a strong club, and the auction went

(1♣!) (strong) - /
(1♦!) (waiting) - 1♠ - (1NT) (16-18) - 2♠*
(3♦) - 3♠# - (4♦) - 4♠
(5♦) - //

* I should theoretically bid a strong raise there but, as they had shown 0 suits, we didn't have an agreement what was the cuebid here. I proposed that we would bid 2NT as the cuebid but we couldn't make it to the convention card yet.

# I couldn't remember exactly if this was the actual bidding, what I remembered was that there was some competitive action and they bid 5♦ over our 4♠.

I had no idea if we would make 4♠ or not, but given that they opened a strong club and competed to the 4-level with a fit, with my shortness they would likely make the contract and, although we were unlikely to have the points for a ♠ game, at green a stretch to 4♠ would be fairly safe regardless if it would make it not.

Obviously both side had a huge fit. I let them play undoubled because I didn't have the trumps to double them, and it was not known how good their fit was. Also, the strength was likely split evenly as well, possibly between 20-20 and 18-22, so it would be possible that both sides could make the contract, and given that we didn't have a large fit I couldn't compete to the 5-level (it belongs to the opponents).

The board ended up down 2, and my host partner told me that I should have doubled because I had defensive values, and explained that they were likely to go down and a double could gain us points, despite the small likelihood that their 5♦ would make.

I couldn't understand at all. To my knowledge, when my opponents have shown a fit, I should only double if I have both strength and trumps, such that the contract is surely going down. I clearly didn't have trumps here, we couldn't ascertain opponents' trump length, and from the auction we didn't even have 3 sure tricks. (I had a sure club and a possible heart trick, but as we had shown a spade fit already, I would assume that we could have only 1 or even 0 spade tricks in case the opponents were short in it. My partner made an overcall in 1♠ so I couldn't assume any defensive tricks outside ♠)

Can anyone further explain to me if I should or should not double?

[helene_t]

You have a balanced hand with only three trumps and your honours are well played behind the strong opener. So you have a defensive hand. Doubleton enemy trumps is also bad for offense as you may well have two diamond loosers. So yes, I don't think 4sp is a good bid. Doublung 5d is reasonable but it's a bit harsh of your p to say that you SHOULD have doubled, especially with a nonregular p.

I don't think you need to show a strong raise when opps open a strong club. In fact I would take any bid by you other than spades as lead directing. Our priorities after there strong club opening is to mess about without getting too high. We are not in constructive mode.

[mycroft]

mikl_plkcc, EDITED, on 2025-March-15, 02:47, said:

So professional players lie on their bids [], using their professional judgements that [they] are likely to land the partnership at the best contract? [Because] the pro [will get] to play an inferior contract rather than the client plays the optimum contract?

Yes, exactly. Pick up the club's copy of Simon (Why You Lose At Bridge), and be edified. Think of it as renting Caitlin Clark to play your local (high-end) 2-on-2 tournament with you this weekend.

There are several benefits to this style (some sarcasm here, but):

• Yes, quite literally, the pro will play the contract so much better than the client that even if they do get to an inferior one, the score will be better (over time, on average). Do you take the layup against the 6'10" guy, or pass to Caitlin to try the 3-pointer against the forward? The (contested) layup is the better shot...
  
• Making the "right call" is inferior to making a call that the client can not fail to understand - the times that there is a magic contract that requires that subtlety, *and* the client understands, *and* the client gives the useful and correct response that gets them there, pale in contrast to the times it doesn't matter, the subtlety gives the defence a better idea, or the client Just Doesn't Get It, because you have to be world class to figure it out.
  
• Oh, and if the opponents don't know, they misjudge. Even if they do know, they misjudge the times he's playing it straight (sometimes you just get the right hands for your methods).
  
• Reducing the number of hands the client plays is *clearly* a net plus. First, they pitch tricks like a sieve(*). Second, the pro has to *watch* them pitch tricks like a sieve, rather than just doing the obvious right thing. Third, the pro has to keep their mouth shut over the client's pitching tricks like a sieve, because otherwise the client broods on that rather than paying attention to the next hand's tricks to pitch(**)
  
• More to the previous point, but serious: reducing the number of hands the client plays (and the number of delicate bidding decisions they have to make) leaves them more brainpower for the times they do have to play, and more seriously, for the defence. Which is still at least 40% of most sessions, even with the pro operating and pushing the opponents around, and it's hard to "solo it" on defence.
  
• Frankly, the bids made are usually only mildly inferior. Overcall on ♥AJT6 rather than double? Decide to bid 1NT on 2=4=5=2 (or even 2=5=4=2)? Or Helen Sobel's "Our NT range is 15-17. *My* NT range is 14-18." (this isn't technically legal any more, but "partner upgrades a lot more than me" is). Blast game rather than inviting, or delicate slam try investigations that will allow the defenders to get all their tricks the 90% of the time slam isn't on?

I'm sure there's more than this, because I've never been a pro. But the ones that are paid to get masterpoints for weaker clients (as opposed to the Nickells, Diamonds, Wellands and the like, who are very legit A players, just "can't play" to the full-time pros), whether it's your local expert picking up a few bucks with the decent, but Life Novice player getting her her last few Gold for LM, or the top-class full-timers that live their life getting 200 or so points for their "retired ex-CEO" or "CEO's wife who does this instead of anything else, and has for years" - they all do that. The good ones also try to make their clients better bridge players, but Job #1 is to win, and frankly, that frequently means "in spite of their partner".

(*)You know, like what you or I or even MikeH, occasionally, do?
(**) I have a story I'm sure I've told here at least twice, where a pair of Flight B-at-best players, me and a very nice lady I'd never played with before - after two sessions directing, no less - blitzed a pro team. And I was pretty certain it would happen, because I could hear the pro griping about the client's mistakes from the last match *as they were coming to our table*.

[akwoo]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-March-15, 11:03, said:

Another board that I wanted to discuss: board 14

My holding was ♠QT3 ♥KT54 ♦T5 ♣AJ42

Opponents played Precision and RHO opened a strong club, and the auction went

(1♣!) (strong) - /
(1♦!) (waiting) - 1♠ - (1NT) (16-18) - 2♠*
(3♦) - 3♠# - (4♦) - 4♠
(5♦) - //

* I should theoretically bid a strong raise there but, as they had shown 0 suits, we didn't have an agreement what was the cuebid here. I proposed that we would bid 2NT as the cuebid but we couldn't make it to the convention card yet.

# I couldn't remember exactly if this was the actual bidding, what I remembered was that there was some competitive action and they bid 5♦ over our 4♠.

I had no idea if we would make 4♠ or not, but given that they opened a strong club and competed to the 4-level with a fit, with my shortness they would likely make the contract and, although we were unlikely to have the points for a ♠ game, at green a stretch to 4♠ would be fairly safe regardless if it would make it not.

Obviously both side had a huge fit. I let them play undoubled because I didn't have the trumps to double them, and it was not known how good their fit was. Also, the strength was likely split evenly as well, possibly between 20-20 and 18-22, so it would be possible that both sides could make the contract, and given that we didn't have a large fit I couldn't compete to the 5-level (it belongs to the opponents).

The board ended up down 2, and my host partner told me that I should have doubled because I had defensive values, and explained that they were likely to go down and a double could gain us points, despite the small likelihood that their 5♦ would make.

I couldn't understand at all. To my knowledge, when my opponents have shown a fit, I should only double if I have both strength and trumps, such that the contract is surely going down. I clearly didn't have trumps here, we couldn't ascertain opponents' trump length, and from the auction we didn't even have 3 sure tricks. (I had a sure club and a possible heart trick, but as we had shown a spade fit already, I would assume that we could have only 1 or even 0 spade tricks in case the opponents were short in it. My partner made an overcall in 1♠ so I couldn't assume any defensive tricks outside ♠)

Can anyone further explain to me if I should or should not double?

First, this does depend a bit on the meaning of your previous auction. If you are playing against some kind of strong club system reasonably frequently (say you face such a pair at least once every 3 or 4 sessions) then I suggest you have some agreements as to style, as it might not be the same as against a natural system. I normally play that partner's 1♠ overcall here can be extremely weak, though a spade rebid suggests some strength - not because rebids automatically suggest strength but because a weak hand with a 6th spade would start with a 2♠ overcall. But, since a 2♠ overcall for me can be very weak, it still doesn't promise much.

Second, you don't need a strong spade raise in this situation. With a good hand and support for spades, you can double and expect to set 1N for more than you can get making anything your way. In many ways, it's like your partner opened 1♠ and RHO overcalled 1N (15-18), except that you don't quite expect as much (or in my case almost anything) from your partner. (However, it is correct to use 2N as a strong hand that for some reason doesn't want to defend 1N.)

With your given hand, in my partnerships, I would meekly raise to 2♠, because partner's 1♠ bid could have been xxxxx xxx x xxxx - it's that important to disrupt your opponents' strong club sequences. (Frankly, it's a pretty good position to psych in also.)

As for whether or not to double 5♦, if your partner has shown a decent hand, I think you have to double at MPs (you're already getting a terrible score for 5♦ making) but have to pass at IMPs.

[mikl_plkcc]

We were playing IMPs so my doubles were very cautious. I only double when I was sure that we would set the contract, at most times, an estimated two tricks down. For a game contract, it needs to be at least 2/3 success rate for it to be profitable, and if the partscore contract is doubled to game, I would never double for penalty (or pass a takeout double) unless having the majority of strength, AND holding a strong 4 or even strong 5 trump holdings.

[mike777]

Very interesting thread.
At imps terms such as:
"Very cautious"
" I was Sure"
When it comes to doubling for penalty seem incorrect.

I would be very worried about being stolen from
Being taken advantage of

I would be concerned about them bidding one more since I would almost never double..

By superior players in all the Swiss style or imp pairs matches we face them.
Especially since I would be the weakest player

[mikl_plkcc]

Sorry what do you mean? There is no way for me to be sure that their contract is definitely going down unless the exact trump length is disclosed, and when they bid one more we seldom know if they will make the contract, unless they are clearly sacrificing (e.g. they have voluntarily stopped at 3, but after we balance they bid 4).

Even in this case, there have also been cases when they have stopped at 3, their game actually made after we balanced and pushed them a level higher!

[smerriman]

Something doesn't look right to me with the 4♠ bid. If the opponents were going to stop in 4♦, 4♠ is only a better score if it's making, which seems extremely unlikely given partner showed no interest with 3♠ (if it was making e.g. via a double fit in hearts or clubs, perhaps they should have bid something else..). So bidding just seems to give them a double shot at getting a good score.

[mike777]

 mikl_plkcc, on 2025-March-15, 16:06, said:

Sorry what do you mean? There is no way for me to be sure that their contract is definitely going down unless the exact trump length is disclosed, and when they bid one more we seldom know if they will make the contract, unless they are clearly sacrificing (e.g. they have voluntarily stopped at 3, but after we balance they bid 4).

Even in this case, there have also been cases when they have stopped at 3, their game actually made after we balanced and pushed them a level higher!

I have my doubts that application of penality doubles at imp scoring is best.
You will only make a penalty double when you are SURE they are going down 2+.

Why?

I would be concerned about them stealing boards I would be concerned about them pushing me around at the table. I don't want the opponents constantly bidding one more than me thinking I will almost never double out of great caution.

Them being the better players and the vast majority of the time, at the IMP table, everyone is a stronger player compared to me.

For the same reasons, when it looks close, I want to redouble more often. I don't want to only redouble when I am SURE I am making

[mikl_plkcc]

Of course I am also bidding to a level where I am not sure if I'll made it or not, especially at the game level, in a competitive auction. The 4S bid above is an example. I bet they won't double me because they are not sure if it will make or not, and if they are already beyond the level they will make the contract, they won't bid on because they are not sure if I'll make the contract or not.

That's the reason why auctions such as 1S - 4S are so effective because the only information we have disclosed is that we have a lot of trumps. Everyone is in the blind the strength of the 4 hands.