text:
Should I Use A "Negative Double" Over a Possible "Short Club" Bid And Overcall in Bridge?
Playing Standard American, partner opened 1 club. Right hand opponent overcalled 1 spade. I raised to 2 clubs with:
♠xx ♥Axxx ♦JTxx ♣Qxx
Everyone passed. Partner had 13 points and a "short" three card club suit and we went down one (not doubled, not vulnerable), because of our club shortness. Our system allows us to bid short minors, although most of the time we have have four, or even five of the minor. But switch the club and heart suits, and I would have gladly raised to two hearts with Qxx because we were playing five card majors.
Someone suggested that I use a "negative double" instead of raising one club because of the potential short club problem. What exactly is its meaning and purpose, since partner already bid? It's not exactly a takeout double, but it seems to have the connotations of "I don't like your suit, could you bid another one." Or does it?
And, in fact, is a negative double the best action in this case since I have only seven points? (What little I was taught about this bid was that it showed 8-10 points.) I'm actually quite happy with the result because we shut out a one spade bid that would have made, perhaps with overtricks.

Have you heard of negative double? If you are playing that, a double by you over 1S would tend to show (depends on your agreements) at least 4 carder heart. Over 1D, you should bid 1H. Finding a major fit is paramount. And 2C is naive, as you might end up in a 3-3 fit (as your did). Also, this is quite a specific question and I am voting to close as such.

@Aryabhata: Maybe the question badly worded but there are actually two non-specific issues here. One is, are there times when it is wrong to raise a "short" club, even though I would raise a five card major. The second issue is, is this a situation when a negative double is better than a "bid." I've heard of it, although frankly, I don't fully understand it. More to the point, this partner doesn't understand it either. Why don't you answer the question to make a case for the negative double? Feel free to re-word it if you need to.

If you don't play negative doubles, you could either lie (and bid 1NT) or pass. 2C is not a reasonable option IMO. When partner opens a major, you are guaranteed at least 5. Raising to 2C here is just gambling. If you think there is a non specific question, please edit the question to clarify that.

You have a variety of options here, and a lot of it depends on partner agreement. How competitive are you when bidding? Some prefer solid bids, some prefer to be more aggressive.  As long as your partner is not going to get upset at a raise w/ 3, a 2 club bid here is fine. I would likely have made the same bid, since you are not vulnerable. This is going with the odds, as the odds are only like 17% that they only have 3 clubs.
Expected club length for a 1♣ opener (using "Standard American" guidelines)
3-cards : 17%
4-cards : 26%
5-cards : 38%
6-cards : 15%
7 cards : 4%
(Source: http://www.larryco.com/BridgeArticles/ArticleDetails.aspx?articleID=18)
So, 2♣ should be fine. What about a negative double? I think a negative double is also an appropriate bid, and possibly a better one. The main determinant is whether or not you consider this hand to be worthy of a negative double. The thought process should probably go: Am I strong enough for a negative double? That is something for you to determine. If the answer is no, then the next question is: Can I bid 2♣. I'd say yes. If you can't bid 2♣ either, then the 3rd answer of pass is probably fine. Some people will bid 1NT, but you don't have a stop, your hand sucks for notrump, and you are at the bottom of what would normally be acceptable pointwise for a 1NT bid. Also, the lead against NT is going to pass through the hand with the spade stop which is even worse.
To summarize: Negative Double, 2♣, and pass are all viable options. Which is best depends on partnership style and agreements.
Note: This is all assuming that you are defining short clubs as 3♣. If you are opening 1♣ with only 2, then you should have 4 to raise.
Edit given some comments: The asker seems to be asking essentially 2 things. 1) Is it okay to raise a minor suit opening (that could be 3) with only 3 card support? Answer imo is a definite yes. 2nd question: What is the appropriate bid for this hand. Answer for that is probably a negative double, unless you don't feel strong enough for a neg double with that hand in which case 2♣ is fine.

-1: This post misses the fact that this is a partnership game. If partner has a club suit, he can always rebid it later if given the opportunity. Not making a negative double just buries your heart fit. And so what if you cannot find a 5-3 club fit? Do you really want to play at the 3 level in 5-3 fit? What about the times when partner takes you seriously and competes to a too high level? Bidding 2C is just unilateral. As an aside, using these kind of percentages and trying to justify bids is very dangerous (and misleading), so early in the auction. You cannot cater to what happens next.

For instance, what % of the time do you expect a club rebid from partner? What % of times would the final contract be 2C? If the final contract was going to be 2C, then wouldn't partner have gotten a chance to rebid his clubs if you had made a negative double? How do your figures cater to that?

As mentioned, negative double is a good option as well. Why in the world am I forcing partner to rebid clubs if he only has 4? 4-3 club fit is a great place to play the hand. That way, the 4-3 fit is played with the shortage of spades in the correct hand (the one that is short in spades). If we play a 4/3 heart fit, now the wrong hand is roughing. On defense, I also prefer a club lead over a heart lead. The main thing tho, is that it shouldn't shock partner. I've played with people who would consider 2♣ here to be a no brainer and others who would consider a negative double a no brainer.

Why should partner bid 2H with only 3? Also, do you really expect the bidding to end in 2C? And if it did, wouldn't 1NT probably play better (especially if partner has 4 clubs and 3- hearts and didn't open 1D)? Also, your hand is likely to be on lead (your RHO bid 1S) if defending, so your point about club vs heart lead is irrelevant. The point is, 2C is a big distortion from what is expected and is a ridiculous, unilateral bid given the alternatives available. Your method of justifying the 2C bid by quoting percentages is a common trap many people fall into. The fact that your answer mentions

negative double as a viable option is irrelevant to my -1. The -1 is for trying to justify the horrendous 2C bid by insufficient and misleading analysis. Anyway, I think this discussion would likely end up wasting too much time, so end of discussion for me.

+1 for providing probability distributions. Now I can estimate the chances of getting a 3- or 4-card club suit from partner, times the likely "penalties," to compare a raise to 2C with other alternatives.

Your options are:
Double
Double would suggest that you have at least 6 points and that you have at least 4 of the unbid major suit (hearts). I think this is the best bid as it accurately describes your hand. Now that your partner has this information he can decide how best to proceed. If your partner has hearts he can bid them, if he has a strong club suit he can rebid that.
With 10+ points you could still double, but it's often preferable to bid something that shows the extra strength.
2 Clubs
You would normally need 4 clubs to bid this, so this is not a good bid if you only have 3 of them. It happened to work out OK for you on this occasion, but you could easily have ended up in 3 clubs (possibly doubled). There's obviously less risk with this kind of bid when non-vulnerable, but even then it's very unlikely that this is your best option.
Pass
This isn't a particularly poor bid, but double is better. If you'd passed it's quite likely your opponents would have ended up in 1 spade which presumably they would have made.
If you'd only had 6 points and were vulnerable you might prefer this over doubling.

The negative double would show 6+ pts. The part about "usually no more than 9, and partner knowing roughly the total number of points" is incorrect. And, 2C is an awful bid.

Edited, hopefully a bit clearer now.

You normally don't bid 4 card suits at the 2 level, even if you have 10+ points. Especially not, if you can show your 4 card heart suit with a double. I suggest your remove that last sentence. +1 though.

Finding an good 8 card major suit fit should be your first priority. Game contracts in the Major suits require fewer tricks than a minor and offer more possibilities of making tricks than No trump.Therefore, after a minor suit opening bid, most good players explore for an 8 card major fit by bidding four card suits up the line on the one level hoping to find a compliment four card holding in their partners hand. If partner also holds 4 cards in the same major he will raise to the appropriate High card point level for his hand and this will become the trump suit. Therefore on the hand above you should bid 1h promising 4 hearts and 6 or more high card points. Negative doubles are an important tool that help to help find the 8 card major fit when the opponents overcall. Negative doubles allow you to show four card suits when the opponents overcall bypasses a the card suit that you wanted to bid at the low one level. When the opponents overcall a one club bid with a one diamond call a negative double allows responder to show both majors with one call.

-1 for suggesting a bid that can't be made in this situation: the bid to you is 1S, so 1H is not an option. The problem is what to do when 1-level bids are no longer available.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
How do I Detect/Defend Against an throw in In Bridge?
When I see declarer draw trumps, and then start to "eliminate" (ruff out) one or more plain suits, my biggest fear as a defender is of a throw in. That is, the declarer will put me on lead because I'll give him back the trick he needs with say, a "ruff-sluff."
If I knew for sure that it was ME being thrown in, the solution might be simple; discard high cards that the declarer might try to use as a "throw in" to me.
But perhaps declarer was trying to hurt my partner with a "throw in." If that's the case, maybe I should retain my high cards in a key suit so that PARTNER doesn't get "thrown in" in that suit.
And what if declarer were following a simple ruffing strategy without intending an throw in? Then throwing away a key card might give him an undeserved extra trick.
Defending such a play might not be so hard if I can detect one in the making. Are there good, or at least "established" ways of doing so? Or is this something one learns the hard way by trial and error?

Please don't use the term end-play to describe the class of end-plays known as throw-ins. End-plays comprise all the play combinations that occur towards the final (ending) tricks of a hand, and many end-plays comprise aspects of both throw-ins and squeezes.

@ForgetIwaseverhere: Revised the question by removing references to endplays.

Now the key - against a good Declarer, you are always defending against an end-play until Declarer claims. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to determine which end-play(s) are available to Declarer (by accurately counting the hand out) and eliminating their constraints.

Unfortunately, the literature seems to be lacking regarding this (unlike squeezes!).
The key to any good defense is counting, trying to figure out what is going on and what is likely to happen.
There might be some indications that declarer might be going for an endplay. As you noted, one of them is when declarer is ruffing out side suits. This is actually one of the most common ways for an endplay in suit contracts (and even has its own name, I believe: Strip and EndPlay).
Sometimes your own hand will make you alert to the possibility of an endplay, for instance, you hold AQ of a side suit over declarer and declarer probably holds the K etc.
A count of declarer's/defense's tricks, and an idea of how he might try and obtain them might give you another clue as to whether an endplay etc might be coming.
The best way would be to get familiar with the hands which might have an endplay, and that can be done by playing (with good players) and reading.
For reading, I would recommend Killing Defense at Bridge I,II by Kelsey.
Not sure if it helped answer your question.

It's a good start.

Let's look at three specific (basic) cases of end-plays:

Simple Squeeze
Here a single defender holds the only guard in two suits. The key conditions for this end-play is that (a) the count is rectified; and (b) both guards remain in the same hand. The defence is to attack one or both of these conditions by, respectively, (a) holding up on a winner; or (b) transfer a guard to the other hand.

Throw-in
Here one defender holds a specific guard and is vulnerable in the sense that some number of suits cannot be led by this hand without losing a trick. Also, prior to being put on lead, all safe exits for the vulnerable hand must have been stripped. This end-play can be defended by (a) putting the vulnerable hand on lead before that Defender has been stripped of safe exits; and (b) stripping all vulnerable suits from the other side before the vulnerable hand is forced to lead.

Double Squeeze
Here each defender guards a single suit, plus a third suit is guarded by both. In addition to the constraints (and defences) noted above for Simple Squeezes there is often a key entry requirement between Declarer's two hands that must be retained until the count is rectified and the initial squeeze card led. This additional constraint provides an additional defence, by leading the suit with the entry condition and forcing out the key entry card(s).

Count Rectification
All end-plays require a count rectification, meaning that the number of tricks already won by the Defence is a precise number determined by the contract and type of end-play being employed. If the number of tricks already won by the defence is either higher or lower than this number at the critical time, then the end-play will fail.
However the rectified count is always at least one trick different between a throw-in or squeeze for the same contract. To defend the former Defenders must win their last sure trick early, while to defend the latter Defenders must win their last sure trick late. So whether defending a throw-in or squeeze the first imperative for Defenders is to first determine what type of end-play is being attempted. As usual, the only way to do that is to have counted out the hand fully, preferably even before Declarer has.

In their excellent folio Eliminations and Throw-Ins David Bird and Marc Smith devote the entire last chapter to defensive techniques. I will only list them here with a brief description.

Do not assist in the elimination process
On occasion Declarer may have difficulties to complete the elimination (or strip), such as entry problems. Simply refrain from assisting.

Retain an exit card
Recognizing and executing this requires that you have identified the throw-in at least as early as Declarer, and have countered it by exiting early with a possibly safe card to ensure possession of the guaranteed safe card later on.

Unblock an honour to avoid the throw-in
This is a way to attempt transfer of the guard to partner.

Cash winning cards early to avoid the throw-in

Hold-up an Ace in the elimination position
This is most likely when being thrown in holding Ace three times, and may have the effect of end-playing Declarer instead of yourself.

Discarding so as to give Declarer a guess
An example of a ruse, where you discard in a manner that misleads Declarer on the placement of key cards, so that he makes an incorrect deduction.

Play the right card when thrown-in
Occasionally you can force Declarer to a guess by a choice of which card to win the throw-in with.

Look for a useless ruff-and-sluff
Occasionally giving Declarer a ruff-and-sluff forces Declarer to sluff a winner instead of a loser.

There are many books on card play and defence at Bridge, but Guy Leve with Encyclopedia of Card Play Techniques at Bridge has attempted something I believe unique - a comprehensive collection of nearly all named card combinations. The first couple of chapters are pedagogical, laying a foundation, with the later chapters moving through several dozen progressively more complex techniques from Dummy reversal and restricted choice to assorted Notrump and Trump Squeezes.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
In Bridge, Does It Make Sense to Pre-empt in Fourth Seat?
In one of my games, there were three passes. Fourth seat elected to "pre-empt," three hearts with something like the following:
♠xx ♥KQJxxxx ♦Jxx ♣x
One of the opponents doubled (for penalties), after having passed, with something like:
♠Axx ♥ATxx ♦Kxx ♣xxx
The result was down two (doubled, not vulnerable). The three non pre-empters had about 11 points each, hence no bids.
I asked, "Why did you do that? You could have broken even by passing out the hand."
Bidder responded, "I bid my cards, that's what you're supposed to do with seven of a suit."
Did he overlook the issue of "position"? That is, if the bidder had been THIRD seat. after two passes, would pre-empting have made much more sense, to presume that (barring a freak distribution) that fourth seat might have had all the cards and that the pre-empt might then have saved a game?
Did it make sense to pre-empt in fourth seat with the cards that the bidder held? If his hand had been somewhat stronger (say a king of diamonds in place of the jack), could he have had a positive "expectation" with a different bid, such as a "weak" two hearts, or even one heart?

This hand should surely pass. It does make sense to open at the 2 or 3 level in 4th seat occasionally, though; see: http://larryco.com/BridgeArticles/ArticleDetails.aspx?articleID=315

I've always understood the general rule to be: open with a weaker hand than usual in third seat, but with a stronger hand than usual in fourth seat.  As such, no, it seems like probably a bad idea to pre-empt in the fourth seat, for a couple of reasons.

It seems to miss the point of pre-empting entirely.  Usually, a pre-emptive bid is meant to deprive the opponents of bidding space, in a semi-sacrificial (or possibly fully sacrificial!) way.  If the opponents have shown no interest in bidding... what do you think you're doing?
If you're not pre-empting to get in the opponents' way... what ARE you doing?  Your partner has passed and thus has about 10-11 points at best.  What contract are you hoping to make with  about, or slightly less than, half the points of the deal?

Having said that - it could be a good idea to bid on a pre-empt hand in fourth if, for instance, you had 90 points below the line in a game of rubber bridge.  But make sure you are doing it for the right reason.  If your partner has a dogmatic belief that pre-empt hands require a pre-empt bid, without any seeming understanding of what a pre-empt is for, then perhaps he needs to be send back to Bridge school for a refresher course!

+1: The question is backwards.
It should be: "Does it make sense to preempt in 4th seat", rather than "NOT preempt".

@Aryabhata: Edited title per your suggestion.


text:
Is A Good time Make a "Penalty" Double When Your Defensive Tricks Exceed Your "Allowance"?
Most contracts are predicated on the supposition that the defenders will win some tricks. If game can be made with "26 points and eight trumps," this leaves 14 points and five trumps to the defenders as an "allowance."
The defenders' 14 high card points gives them an "allowance" of at least three tricks. (They actually have the material for four tricks, but it is assumed that the declarer will be able to "ruff," or otherwise neutralize one of them.)
Suppose one defender has JT98x of trumps. He has the whole trump "allowance" for his side. More to the point, this holding will take two trump tricks, whereas if they were split 3-2 (which occurs 68% of the time), these five trumps would take zero tricks.
Absent the jack of trumps, the defenders have an "allowance" of 12-13 high card points which should be good for three tricks. Their two trump tricks are clearly above their "allowance." Does this fact make this a good time to double for penalties?
And how do you guard against the possibility that the double will scare the opponents into a better contract, or that revealing where your strength lies would cause declarer to alter his play and make the contract?

I will refrain from adding an answer, as I don't think this is an appropriate question for this site. But I suggest you read this article: http://www.bridgeaholics.com/articles/classics/SJSimon.html, and buy the book from which it is taken.

The question you ask is just too broad to have a specific answer (for instance, look at the number of pages in the article I linked to and it is still incomplete!). If instead you had asked for books/articles that discuss penalty doubles, then I would upvote the question. Discussing penalty doubles in itself isn't appropriate for this site.

@Aryabhata: I revamped (and hopefully improved) this question. Please delete any of the above comments that you feel do not match the new version. I will delete this comment when you are through.

Please don't do that. Ask a new question. I say this because this one already has answers.

@Aryabhata: Now I am confused. I actually started by asking a separate question. Then I saw the old one and remembered that a moderator on this site once told me to merge the two if they were "similar." But moderators on other sites seem to prefer "fresh" questions. (So I've actually done it "both ways" with the same question.)

The age of the question might matter. This is almost 2 years old. Let it be :-).

How long is a piece of string?
There are few guarantees in Bridge, but if the opponents have bid up to a contract that you think is over-optimistic, then you weigh up the extra points you'd be giving your opponents if they somehow make against the significant rewards you'll receive if they fail, and act accordingly.
I used to play a lot of casual Bridge online, and while it's a little bit odious, there was a phenomenon known as the "Pogo double" (Pogo being the name of the site).  If the opponents are going to win the match anyway if the contract makes, you might as well double them, just in case against all the odds they fail.  There was no conceivable downside, so people did it, even though to my mind it was somehow "not cricket"!
Your concerns about helping the opponents find a better contract by doubling them are very sensible.  I think in such situations you just have to look at your hand and consider, what do my opponents not know that I know here?  If, for instance, you have 5 cards in their proposed trump suit, doubling is all very well but will alert them of the unfortunate split.  Even if they don't "escape" to a different contract, by making the double you told them to watch out for an unusual lie of cards, and this may help them make a game they might otherwise have lost due to incautious play.
I'm not sure there are any hard and fast rules, but I think you generally only want to make a penalty double if you're certain of your defensive position, or near as dammit.  There's a lot that can go wrong when the opponents have been warned that's something up, and generally you get a lot more egg on your face when you double opponents into game, or give them their "insult bonus", then when they go down one or two undoubled as opposed to doubled!

My sense is that if the opponents are bidding sensibly, they figure to either make their contract or only go down one. That's not enough of a margin to double on, unless your distribution, etc. suggests that they will go down (at least) TWO. With, say KQJT of their suit, you have three FORCED tricks, but with Jxxxx (even though it's longer), you're taking your chances.

@Tom, I've played with a lot of people who don't bid sensibly ;) If you're playing with people who you're confident know what they're doing, then a penalty double becomes very hair-raising - have you really interpreted the lie of the cards better than they have?  Even so, I'm pretty sure that people mess up their bidding even at quite high levels of play.  I've also played with partners who doubled opponents into game because "I had quite a lot of points, I didn't expect them to have such a good distribution!"  Best to be as cautious as possible about your doubles even in casual play.

In that case, maybe the time to double is when the opponents have a misfit, or for some reason can't seem to "stop" bidding.

@Tom: Oh yeah, the most delightful thing ever in Bridge is where your opponents are exasperatedly bidding themselves ever higher while staring daggers at each other, and you almost can't wait for them to stop so you can get your penalty double in :D

Here is something of a "compendium" of answers from the site. The first thing to note is whether the opponents are bidding rationally or not. One "irrational" situation arose in the comments with thesunneverset, when opposing partners seem to be 6-1 or 7-0 in each others' suits, and are obviously bidding against themselves in a "mIsfit." Then a penalty double is clearly called for.
The rest comes from a link provided by arabhyata, who declined to answer for himself.
http://www.bridgeaholics.com/articles/classics/SJSimon.html
But if the opponents are bidding rationally, the time to double is when they are surprised. Such a surprise might be if they bid game with a 5-4 fit, and you had KQJT, or maybe QJT9, or JT9xx (in an eight card fit). Your cards happen to be stronger because they are connected than they would be individually, and your opponents won't count on you having ALL of them. Ditto, in the NT example I gave if you are sitting "west" in relation to a NT bidder, with KQJxx and two side kings.
On the other hand, you might refrain from doubling with a "strong" hand, or something like Jxxxx. Your opponents will probably go down if you keep quiet, but may find a squeeze or endplay if you warn them by doubling.

I am slightly more cautious than the average good duplicate player, but not much so. I only double when I can "see" where the defensive tricks for a two-trick plus set will come from. One obvious exception is aggressive part-score doubles at matchpoints when the opponents are vulnerable, and a +200 is usually tied for top.
Update - To address the question more precisely:
Definitely not!
Using this as your guideline will cause you much pain, as astute declares use this additional knowledge to make their doubled contracts. Regularly. Often the only reason declarers go down on bad distribution is that they don't know to protect against it, or can't correctly determine which defensive hand will have it. Give them this knowledge, and the edge is theirs instead of yours.


text:
In Bridge, How do I Differentiate Between My Partner's Signals on Defense?
On defense, there are attitude, suit preference, and count signals. My guess is that the play to the first trick would represent an "attitude" signal for a suit. Beyond that, how do I differentiate between this, and one of the two other signals. Is it mainly the context of the play? Are some signals more useful in no trump hands, and others in defending suit contracts?

It's a good question - in Bridge we spend a lot of time memorising the precise significance of all sorts of bids and responses in our chosen systems, and then when it comes to the much more uncharted world of defence, we feel lost without strongly prescribed, objective meanings for the plays we make and the responses we receive!
I don't have a perfect, systemic answer, but what I would say is: think about what information you NEED from your partner, and then about the ways he may have at his disposal to communicate that information.  After the dummy is laid down, you and your partner will probably have some idea what course the game is likely to take thereafter.  If this suit is a non-starter, then watch partner for an indication of which suit he'd like you to switch to.  If you're winning the first trick and hope to carry on leading it, watch partner for negative or count signals so you don't get trumped when it's most inconvenient.
Long story short: it is context-dependent.  So don't agonise about what a single played card means in isolation (that way madness lies - it could just be a singleton after all!)  Instead ponder what information would be useful to you to help you defeat the contract, and watch partner like a hawk for any unusual plays that may be trying to give you that information.  As time goes by your partnership will hopefully develop a rapport that will enable you to communicate effectively in various situations - and that's the route to playing great Bridge!


text:
In Go, Why are "High Point" Openings Seldom Seen in Modern Play?
I'm talking about opening with the "high point" of a "shimari, such as the 3-5 or 4-5 point.
The disadvantage is that it allows the opponent to enter near the corner, such as the corresponding 3-4 point. But having an "extra" move in the corner should compensate for that fact.
One thing I've noticed is that "high" and "low" playing styles alternates every decade or so. That is, "low" is all the rage for about ten years, until everyone knows how to play low, then "high" is rediscovered (after having been neglected).
Could "high" be about to be rediscovered after a period of neglect, and would this mean that we'll soon see more "high" openings, particularly by White.

I don't have a database at my disposal so I can't provide hard numbers over time to confirm this, but I believe one of the reasons high point openings saw emerging popularity was that white was attempting to play quickly in order to overcome the lack of komi.  There was also the "threat" of playing extremely complicated joseki such as the taisha, which would provide more opportunities for black to squander his first move advantage by making a mistake in fighting.  As the "New Fuseki" movement took hold, high openings continued to see play because of experiments using more influence-oriented openings, but over time things settled down and now with the extra handful of points white is not under pressure to play so severely.
That said, 3-5 point, etc, openings are perhaps uncommon relative to 4-4 or 4-3, but I would still not consider them rare. They are even more common if you include an approach to a corner that is ignored, and the attacker is first to continue locally - this is effectively the same things as playing a 3-5 or a 4-5 opening with a 3-4 "invasion"

Looking through my database (about 71,000+ games), it becomes clear that the high openings have always had a smaller than usual incidence than the 3-4 and later the 4-4. However, it never really fell out of use by professionals.
If you are thinking about amateur play, that could be possible. I have no data on amateur games in my database. I think that it has always been desired by the player at an initial disadvantage (White before komi, both with komi), favored by aggressive players, and favored by those who prefer to make shimari backwards to prevent the east approach.


text:
Are there times when "doubling" will not help the opponents make the hand?
In bridge, if I "double" (the stakes for) an opponent's contract, it usually means that I see a way to defeat the contract. Of course, declarer hears my double and will reasonably conclude, "Tom has the key cards," and "finesse" around, or "endplay" into me. In this case, declarer will have a better chance of making the contract than if I had kept quiet about my strength.
I am asking about possible exceptions to this rule.
One might be, where I know that declarer overbids and gets into games with 22-23 hcps and no compensating values in distribution or extra trumps. I have 7 hcps, and unless dummy has a maximum, partner will have 10 (the majority between us), and we will be odds on to defeat the contract.
One expert (I believe that is was Sheinwold or Jacoby) opined that a time to double was if you had no trumps (and good high card strength). If opponents have nine, and declarer plays you for the Hxxx (H is a random honor) of trumps that your partner actually has, s/he might be unpleasantly surprised. Best of all, partner might have xxxxx or Hxxxx, with the 5-0 break in an eight card fit being the nastiest of all.
Do either of my examples or other instances hold where a double does not help, and may mislead declarer in the play?

Double on the basis of your partner's hand, for one.  Bidding is complicated :-)

Other than the pedantic answer (any time Declarer can't possibly make), there are plenty of times that it doesn't have the impact you're suggesting.
First off, there are a lot of ways you can end up in a doubled contract.  You might make a negative double and then your partner passes to convert to penalty, for example. That gives declarer some information, though, so I assume that's not in the spirit of your question.  However, there are other possibilities...

Auctions where opponents make a pre-emptive or sacrificial bid, where it is obvious that they will not make the contract to both defenders.  In that case, a double is simply pro forma, and either player might make the double simply based on bidding position.
Auctions where a double is optional (showing strength), and the responder passes the double, give only limited information to declarer since both players have shown something
In some duplicate forms, there are auctions where it is clear both sides have a game, and one side must double the other side in the hope to set by enough to exceed the points likely made at the other table(s); again, that won't convey very much information.

Secondly, you certainly point out an example where one player knows of a problematic distribution for declarer, but it doesn't convey information as to which player has the trump stack.  That's a risky bid, though, and I'd usually not make a double solely based on a trump lack or a trump stack, as it's not worth letting Declarer know there's a trump imbalance.  A doubled contract where the double comes out of nowhere is a big "be careful" sign to declarer, and will inevitably make them more likely to make the contract than they would be if not doubled - even if they don't know who has the stack.  And having 0 means partner could have 5 - or could have 2, and they could've underbid their 6-5 trump fit.
I don't think doubling based on opponents bidding a tight game, when you don't have anything special for yourself, is a great idea either; it can be appropriate in duplicate when you are in a competitive situation and they bid something that doesn't make sense - either you get enough points to compensate for you not getting the contract or they get a top board anyway - but it's still quite risky, and in the situation you describe (they having, say, (12-14) and (8-10) and you having 7, partner having 9-11) it seems like a poor choice as if they're in an unreasonable game you do well anyway, but obviously it's situational.  Again, you're more likely to put them on high alert than anything else.
I think overall, though, any bid shows some information to both sides; it's the nature of bridge.  The question is always whether you have conveyed information that is detrimental to your side in excess of the value of the information conveyed (or the points earned, in the case of the double).  I don't think it's a good idea to double to "mislead", as first off you mislead everyone at the table partner included; and second, then you're just gambling, which is a bad idea unless you're really down and need a miracle.

One thing I want to clarify: I'm not saying any double exists that conveys no information.  That's certainly not the case - every action you take conveys some information.  Tom's question asks about a bit more than that, in my interpretation; over whether every double gives significant information to declarer, which I think is not the case occasionally.

Doubling the grand slam off he ace of trumps will not help declarer make it.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Can you raise a one bid with only two "filler" honors in a suit?
Suppose partner bids one of a (five card) major. Normally you need three of the suit to raise.
But expert Marty Bergen has opined that if your suit has four honors, you can bid it as if were one card longer. Mr. Bergen also wrote, "When partner promises a six-card suit, you can support him with a singleton honor."
So if I have KJ (or KT or QJ) of my partner's suit, I'a going to play him for a suit with two more honors: AQxxx, ATxxx, or even QTxxx. In that case, partner and I would have four (possibly five) honors between us. And in the worst case (partner has xxxxx, we'd have two honors). So I'd raise to two with the aforementioned trump holding plus a side king, because I've "borrowed" an extra (small) trump for my bid, based on my interpretation of Bergen.
Is this a reasonable interpretation of Marty Bergen's dictums? Is this a reasonable move to make even if you don't always agree with Marty Bergen?

Whichever opponent you have supposedly borrowed this extra trump from is very likely to double you for penalties. If you enjoy going minus 200 and 300 against the opponents part-score be my guest to play this way. BTW - Do you play for money anywhere? I would like to join the game.

@PieterGeerkens: "Money." One tenth of a penny a point. Winner takes home about one dollar.

I don't play for less than one cent a point, and prefer 2 or even 5; too bad that you're stakes won't cover my travel costs.

Certainly it's reasonable, whether or not you are a Bergen acolyte. But it ought to be a rare hand where raising with only two trump is more attractive than the alternatives. These situations come up more often in competition. For instance, if the auction started
(1C) 1S (2C)
I would be happy to raise to 2S with something like
AQ
Kxx
xxxxx
xxx

I agree with Pieter that if you have fewer trump than partner expects you ought to be near a maximum in high cards. This point was made many years ago by Edgar Kaplan.

There are a myriad problems with this approach when added to a non-Bergen system, particularly if partner is not in on the new agreement.
The missing trump is roughly equivalent to missing over 1.5 points. Thus the bid should not be made with a minimum raise as you suggest, because the missing trump has made it a sub-minimum raise. Thus only with 8-9 HCP should you consider making the bid, and these are exactly the hands where you would like to accept a further action from partner but no longer can due to the missing trump.  Bidding this way will in many cases result in you playing a 5-2 major fit instead of 4-4, which traditionally is held to play almost a trick worse on average. In other cases you will be forced to play the 10-trick major suit game instead of a better 9-trick notrump game - remember the missing trump is strengthening either an alternative trump suit or a no-trump stopper, or both.
Bergen specializes in playing a very eccentric style that emphasizes low-point high-fit contracts, especially in the majors. This style of play requires a strong understanding of advanced declarer play concepts by both partners, as well as a very good system agreement to avoid playing inferior contracts. While this approach works well for Bergen, there is a reason that few other top players choose to play the same approach.  Either play the whole system, or recognize that Bergen's style is actually not suitable for the game played by you and your partner.

I find QJ (and likewise KJ and KT) a problematic holding. When "stranded," QJ could be worth as little as 1.0 to 1.5. In the middle of partner's five card suit it should be worth a whole three, and often more, call it an average of 3.5. To compensate for the 1.5 value of the missing trump, I would need four points in side honors (7.5-1.5= an adjusted 6). Likewise, counting KJ as 4.5, I'd need three points (a king or so) in side honors. Wasn't planning a two-trump raise with 6. (In my questions, I have a tendency to "sneak" in a extra jack or other upgrade somewhere, as a result of my "algos.")

@TomAu: The absence of a small accompanying trump is a significant flaw in the trump holding, especially in a weak hand, easing the ability of the opponents to pump declarer in their own long suit and hindering communication between the hands. This flaw rates to be about 1 point, negating any added value from having combining honours. Evaluate QJ alone as 2 to 2.5 points. most definitely not 3 or more.  QJ alone is likely to be a better holding in partner's side suit than in trumps.

In general, I prefer not to raise a one-level opening bid without the requisite number of trumps, as one tends to use the law of total tricks to decide how the level to which to compete.
When partner has opened a weak 2 bid or overcalled in a pre-emptive manner, you are in control and raising with fewer trumps but a lower honour is feasible as you know you are filling partner's suit and producing more winners should it be trumps, and that a 4-2 split is not likely to affect partner too much.
Also in game bidding, you will sometimes consider a 5-2 major suit trump fit with honours in partner's suit although you can't guarantee here partner has honours too.
My favourite singleton to hold opposite a pre-empt is the queen. The assumption is that partner has pre-empted with KJ10xxx which could potentially have 3 losers against a 4-2 break but if my singleton is the queen it is probably 1 loser, losing to the ace which you are always going to lose to anyway. Jack is next best (partner has KQ10xxx) and then king (partner has AQxxxx or AQJxxx or AJ10xxx etc.). Having these and quick tricks outside I will certainly be looking for game.

As I understand it, your big fear opposite a "one" (as opposed to 2 or 3 bid), is that your partner's five cards are xxxxx. Because QJ is quite useful opposite KTxxx, ATxxx, or AKxxx, and to a lesser extent, Txxxx. On the other hand, if you have xxx opposite xxxxx, you're "up the creek" anyway, even if you have eight. It's hard for me to think of holdings opposite which xxx works better than QJ.

IF I have 3 small opposite 5 small, if the suit breaks 3-2 I have 3 losers whether they are trumps or not and at NT I have less chance to set up the long cards in the suit than I do if they are trumps. And yes, my fear is that partner does not promise a good quality suit, just length, unlike a pre-empt where it normally promises good cards in the suit too.

However that is not my only concern. It lies to partner. When partner has pre-empted the decisions are all mine. When partner opened with 1 it's still a joint decision.

I don't consider this "lying." When raised, I am hoping (in this instance), to see xxx "or better." By my calculations, QJ is "better" than xxx. Likewise, I consider KQJx "better" than xxxxx, and would not be unhappy to see partner open with it, even playing (adjusted) "five card majors."

KQJx opposite xxx, normal 4-2 break and having to use those beautiful trumps possibly for ruffing... I'd rather not. AKxx maybe, at least then I can ruff twice with small trumps and guarantee to also make ace/king, and possibly can draw 2 rounds too so only the long hand can ruff with what are winners anyway

With a dummy of xxx, I'd "hate" to see you declare with xxxxx. Because then the opponents have AKQJx and can take 3 or 4  tricks in "our" suit depending on the split. With QJ in dummy we'd take one trump trick more if you have as much as Txxxx or even 9xxxx.

They're always going to take at least 3 tricks in that suit, whether they're trumps or not, unless they are blocked or simply fail to lead them. If it's no trumps we're going to take forever setting up that suit, if we have quick tricks outside, which are essentially stoppers.

I grant you there are times I'd like to see QJ there rather than xxx. If you open 1NT I transfer 2H you bid 2S and that ends the auction. I have K109xx and nothing else outside of worth. Spades need to be trumps or they hold up the ace and we don't make the tricks there. Your 1NT opening hopefully contains quick tricks outside and I'd rather see QJ for 4 likely spade tricks than xxx although at least you'll have the entries.


text:
Should you overcall with a (slightly) weaker hand if it is more "disruptive?"
In bridge, if you overcall two clubs over an opening one spade, you haven't taken up much bidding space, because your overcall hasn't kept your opponents out of any suits, only one NT.
If you overcall two clubs over one diamond, you've done quite a bit more damage, because you have prevent your opponents from bidding a major (or no trump) at the one level.
Does it therefore follow that you can overcall two clubs with a slightly weaker hand over one diamond than a one spade bid because the "disruption" to the opponents is significantly greater?
That is, assuming all other things being equal, like vulnerability and part scores. Perhaps the type of game might make a difference in the answers.

There's a world of difference between "Can one ...?" and "Should one ...?" I can rob a bank, but I shouldn't and won't. What is your question, as your use of can actually implies a question of legality in this case rather than appropriateness and wisdom.

@PieterGeerkens: OK, changed to "should."

The short answer is that your supposition is correct. Just be sure to discuss it with your partner since you always want him to know what to expect.
For more see Mike Lawrence's The Complete Book of Overcalls in Contract Bridge.

I like to think that 1-level overcalls have three purposes, at least two of which should be fulfilled to justify the overcall:

Showing values
Directing the defense (ie showing a good suit you want partner to lead)
Preempting the opponents

So eg I'm happier to overcall 1S over 1C with a weaker hand than over 1H.
2-level overcalls are trickier. It is far easier for opponents to penalize you at the 2-level, and it's more difficult for your side to make the game-partscore decision when you have the bulk of the high cards because there's less bidding room.
One rule I've heard is that a minimum opener with 5332 shape is insufficient for a 2-over-1 overcall, but many ten-counts with a good 6-card suit are sufficient. And it does seem reasonable to stretch a little to bid 2C over 1D, but not too far. As a friend of mine likes to say, 2-level overcalls are serious business.

I've kind of wondered about 2. If South opens 1 spade, and you're West (in the direct seat), you're going to open anyway. If you're East, you will need to overcall to direct the lead, but then you're in the balancing seat, where a different set of rules apply.

Sometimes responder becomes declarer (especially when the opening bid was one of a minor). Sometimes you have a broken honor holding in your suit and can't afford to lead it yourself, so you hope to get partner in with your opening lead so they can switch to your suit.


text:
What is a proper bidding sequence after a "weak 2" bid?
In the opening game of a rubber, I dealt and opened two diamonds (weak) with the following:
(s) J3 (h) 54 (d) KJ7532 (c) A42. Partner responded two hearts. I passed with my two weak hearts, fearing a "misfit" and we made five because partner had the following:
(s) 65 (h) AKQ32 (d) A84 (c) KQ5.
Basically, we lost the two spades and took the rest (the opposing hearts divided 3-3).
Even allowing for the favorable heart break, we felt that we could have bid higher. Partner said that if she had it to do over, she would have raised diamonds.
Was there, in fact, a better bidding sequence? What should I have bid if we were playing "Raise only non-forcing" (RONF)?
Given that partner and I hadn't discussed this matter before, I was afraid that partner might have bid 2 hearts with as little as  (s) 65 (h) AKQ32 (d) T84 (c) 765 (as some others in our bridge circle might). Is partner supposed to have an opening hand (or better) when she takes me out of 2 diamonds with 2 hearts?

In general, you should assume partner has bid correctly. There is essentially no world in which bidding 2H is a +EV action with (s) 65 (h) AKQ32 (d) T84 (c) 765; if partner in fact had that hand and you get in trouble because you bid on, this is a good point for discussion after the session.

@ruds: Actually, a hand with AKQ432 (an extra "x") is known as a "weak pull," and is a "second" weak two bid that should be passed. So the key is coming to an agreement with partner.

I don't deny that some people play them. I just deny that this is a useful bid.

I'm not at all sure what the prevailing agreement is by rubber players, but the Standard American Yellow Card is marked "RONF" (raise-only non-forcing), which I suggest you and your partner adopt. The SAYC booklet has this to say:
“RONF” on the card means “Raise Only Non-Force.” A new-suit response is
forcing one round and shows at least a five-card suit. Opener should raise a major
suit response with a three-card fit, or perhaps with a doubleton honor.

With no fit for responder’s suit, opener rebids:
 With a minimum weak two-bid (5–8 points), rebid the suit at the lowest level.
 With a maximum weak two-bid, name a new suit or bid notrump.

The reason for playing RONF is that it is very rare that you can profitably improve partner's preempt to a new suit when you hold a weak hand and a void in partner's suit (which is one situation in which many beginners try to bid 2H over 2D). On the other hand, it is not so uncommon to have the potential for a game across from partner's preempt with a hand that has its own suit (as your partner had here). What's more, the gain from finding those games is much higher than any loss that may be prevented by improving a partscore with a nonforcing bid.
In fact, your hand is not weakish. Your suit is not so good but you have an outside ace. I would put in 2NT with your hand. Now you should discuss further bids with partner, but I would suggest that responder's next bid should be taken as a concentration trying to determine whether 3NT is the correct contract (unless opener rebids the suit), so I think a reasonable auction is:
2D   2H
2NT  3C
3D   3H
4H   5D (1)

(1) Partner may also consider passing given that you've shown a heart doubleton and denied a spade card; they can see two spade losers are likely but a club loser is not (would you have bid 2NT without a spade stopper and without the club ace?), but that a diamond loser is also possible. If hearts are 3-3 (36%), you'll (usually) take the same number of tricks in hearts and diamonds, meaning you can make 4H when 5D goes down. When hearts are 4-2 (48%), you'll likely make one fewer trick in hearts than diamonds (making 4H when 5D makes). It's only when hearts are 5-1 or worse (16%) that hearts is likely to be a a worse contract than diamonds.

i would suggest you look into +1 Ogust (2H) wherein opener responds +1 = bad hand bad suit, +2 = bad hand good suit, +3 = good hand bad suit, +4 = good hand hand good suit. assuming a 5-11 weak 2, i would conclude i had a good hand & suit & respond 3D. partner then can choose between 3NT 4H & 5D. in duplicate responders 1st bid & openers 2nd bid must be alerted.   keng

There are two sequences, one more "standard" than the other.
In Standard American, a bid over a "weak two" is "invitational" to game, and requires 17+ high card points. That's because opener may have as little as 5-6. S/he's worth a game only with a maximum (9+) points. So two hearts was proper with the responder's 18 points, and knowing that, I might have re-bid three clubs to show the ace, and responder could have gotten us to game in either hearts or diamonds.
The other sequence is known as a "weak pull." That is, the responder "pulls" the bid to two hearts with AKQ432 (six hearts and no side values) on the theory that her six  hearts are probably stronger than my six diamonds. (Plus, we get 60 instead of 40 if we make two of a major.) Alternatively, the responder could have had AKQ32 of hearts and either the ace of diamonds or king of clubs (basically an opening hand) for the weak pull. In either event, it's a "second" weak two bid that I must pass.
These are two very different bidding systems, and the proper response would be the one that you have agreed with partner prior to the hand.
Edit: Upon double-checking with partner, she prefers to use the "weak pull" (12-13 high card points and five cards is fine). Under the circumstances, I had no right to expect 18 from her and did well to pass.

Get a better partner Tom; this is a terrible system because it gives up on game (never mind slam) every time partner has a fit, and encourages partner into auctions where you can get doubled on the misfit.

authors: اكرم سمير خلاف


text:
How high do transfer bids (to 1NT) go?
In today's bridge column, opener opened 1NT with (s)A94 (h)AQ97 (d)763 (c) AQJ. Responder had
s)KT (h)KJT863 (d)K52 (c)86.
At two different tables, both pairs got to 4H, but in different ways. At Table 1, responder bid directly to 4 hearts, played and made it. At Table 2 responder bid 4 diamonds (transfer), and opener bid 4 hearts, and was set by a diamond lead through responder's K52, and the K of clubs "offside" opener's AQJ.
My understanding is that the reason for transfer bids was to protect the opener when the responder had a weak hand. For instance, a responder might bid "garbage Stayman" with (s)xxx (h)xxxx (d)xxxxx (c) x. That is, zero hcp, and a clear desire to play in anything except clubs (or NT). Likewise, a responder might bid two diamonds (transfer) with "nothing" and an indifferent five card heart suit. Of course, a responder might also bid Stayman or a transfer, with 8-10 points, while needing help to determine the ultimate suit and level of the contract.
But in the above example, the responder had 10 high card points and a six card suit, enough to bid (and play) game on his own. Why use a transfer in such a case?
Do some pairs play that only two level bids are transfers and higher bids are "natural?" Or do most transfer bidders keep the transfer mechanism even at the four (game) level? Put another way, does a transfer at the two level follow one convention and a transfer at the four level follow another convention?

To answer your last question, the two transfers have different names: Jacoby and Texas. There are pairs that play Jacoby but not Texas.

@Aryabhata: That's very good to know.

While the original idea for Jacoby transfers may have been to make the strong hand the declarer (in the 1950s, when Jacoby played with his wife, he bid naturally but she used transfers over partner's 1NT opening so that he would play more hands; this sort of agreement is no longer permitted), that is not their primary benefit.
The primary benefit of transfers is that it gives responder a second chance to make a call. Before transfers, responder to 1NT would bid 2H to play, and had to bid 3H game forcing; this left no room for invitational calls that also showed a major suit. Transfers allw responder to start describing many types of hands with a call at the 2 level, and free up 3-level bids to show other types of hands.
Combining 2-level (Jacoby) and 4-level (Texas) transfers, you can differentiate between the following types of hands:

5+ in a major with no desire to play a game (1NT-2D-2H-Pass).
Exactly 5 in a major with invitational values (1NT-2D-2H-2NT).
6+ in a major with invitational values (1NT-2D-2H-3H).
A balanced hand with a 5-card major and game forcing values (1NT-2D-2H-3NT; some pairs agree that this promises 5332 shape and others include some 5422 hands).
A more shapely hand with a 5-card major and game forcing values (e.g. 1NT-2D-2H-3C shows 5+ hearts and 4+ clubs).
A balanced hand with exactly 5 cards in a major and slam-invitational values (1NT-2D-2H-4NT).
6+ in a major with game forcing values but no interest in slam (1NT-4D-4H-Pass)
6+ in a major with slam interest (1NT-2D-2H-4H).
6+ in a major, asking for key cards (1NT-4D-4H-4NT).

These are just the basic agreements with Jacoby and Texas transfers; with some discussion with your partner, you can also ask for key cards after showing a 5-card suit, show shortness (either to avoid 3NT with a gaping hole or to find a 29-hcp slam when the hands fit well), and show other useful hands.
As for the example that you mention, the pair using Texas transfers got unlucky -- making the 1NT opener the declarer gains far more often than not from an opening lead perspective.

Great answer - if the question had been 'How are Texas transfers played?'  It seems OP is asking 'How many people play them?' which is probably not answerable.

@TimLymington: I would consider this as a great answer, even though I technically did not ask the Texas transfer question. (But I did add a line to obliquely refer to it.) I like to wait a day or two before actually accepting this as the best answer.

Interestingly (but very anecdotally), my weak NT partnership plays transfers, for the "extra sequences" reason (but also because people stared at us before, waiting for the "transfer" announcement that never was going to come).  We also play 4-level transfers, but because of the "12 opposite 12 doesn't have a 'strong hand'" issue, we play the SA Texas variety (where 4C and 4D transfer to H and S, and 4H and 4S are natural).  I know, heresy, whatabout Gerber :-), but being able to decide who plays 4M has gained significantly over time.


text:
Did I "really" have too many points for the following bid?
Not vulnerable versus vulnerable, I was sitting third position  with the following hand: (s) KQx (h) --- (d) KJ9xxx (c) K8xx. (All x's are 7 or lower.)
I opened 2D, a "weak two" after two passes. One of the opponents protested that my holdings exceeded the 6-10 hcp point range for a weak two. Technically, I had 12 hcp, but I downgraded my hand for the following reasons:

I subtracted 1+ points for the lack of aces and Ts.
My KQx of spades was a "clunky" holding whose true value was closer to 4 points (a single ace) than 5.Between this and 1), I adjusted the value of my hand to 10 hcp.
My lack of hearts meant that the opponents would have a heart fit unless partner had six. A bid of one diamond would be easily overcalled 1H, an opening bid of two diamonds would have some preemptive value.
Partner either had less than six hearts, or if he did have six and passed, he was very weak, meaning that with my RHO also having passed, LHO (fourth seat) would be very strong.*

The opponent felt that my bid preempted partner. I said that I have "barely" an opening hand (with a minor suit), and partner's pass said he didn't, so I had little fear of missing game. Was I really too strong to open one diamond instead of two?
*If I had 12 hcps in say first seat, I would attribute an average of about 9 hcps to the remaining three players. With two passes to my right, I guessed that they would average 7 hcps each, 14 in total. Adding 12 for me would leave 14 for my LHO, and most finesses would be "onside" for him.

Third seat preempts could include hands which you would open normally. With a passed partner you can preempt a lot more freely. In this case I would say it is not a good idea: you have defensive values and against a passed hand you can potentially still make game (which you will never find if you preempt). There is no need to find excuses to downgrade. People will have better results if they stopped downgrading altogether. Even if you decide to preempt, 2D isn't really helping you (opps will likely find their fit). Perhaps try 3D.

At these colors and in 3rd seat, a 2D-opening could easily be something like x, xxx, QJT9xx, Qxx. Just be a good boy, and bid 1D. You won't have any rebid problems either. If you want to pre-empt, bid 3D (might be a tactical choice of some merit if your majors were reversed). But, any pre-empt also invites partner to sacrifice over their 4 of a major. This hand is not a dead duck on defence, so that may backfire.

I'd rather bid 1d there, not 2d. I think it's as likely you have game as they do; unlikely in either case, really.  But you're discounting your partner having, first seat, something like ten points and a five card spade suit.  That's 4S in the bag, if the points are useful ones (not wasted QH or whatnot).  6-7 spade tricks, a few in diamonds and clubs, and you're all set.  You don't want to miss that!
Really, you have more like a 14 count here anyway - with the diamond length and the void, your hand is worth more than a normal 12 counter.  Bid 1d and see what happens - you might end up in a makeable 3NT, 4S, or who knows what else.
If your 4th seat opponent has a 12-14 count, they're probably not in game anyway - as you said, they have 7 opposite them on average, right? - and so you're not preempting anything useful.  On the other hand, if they have an 18 count or whatnot, where a game is a likelihood, your preempt was pretty useless in my opinion - they can double, get some information from their partner since they have to bid over the double, and be in just as good of a position as if you hadn't bid at all.
One other thing: if you're going to do this regularly, you'll need to annotate your convention card to indicate that your weak 2 range is 6-12 3rd seat.

Regarding "conventions," my partner and I play that an opening 1 bid requires at least 13 hcps or 2.5 quick tricks. Here I have 12 hcps and 2.0 quick tricks, meaning that I'm not supposed to bid 1D But with my "opening" values, I would bid 2D. I'm new to the club, but the others know about my (new) partner's preferences.

You're certainly not required to open with that - though I'd consider such requirements in third seat fairly old-fashioned - but it's certainly a matter of personal preference.  (You also aren't counting any length/shortness points here, either of which would take you to 13.)  But on the other hand, if that hand is a weak 2, your card must indicate that in the section on 2 level openers (as opposed to saying 5-10, which does not include the above hand by any reasonable definition of points).

Actually, my partner was more concerned about defensive tricks than missing game. He said that he wanted 2.5 quick tricks for 1d, because with 9 hcps, he would not want to double an opposing two level bid, whereas he might if you changed KQx of spades to AKx of spades, and downgraded K of clubs to J of clubs to compensate. So it seems that the solution (after consulting partner) would be to declare to the rest of the club that "6-10" could be "6-12" if we have fewer than 2.5 quick tricks in the hand.

Sure, that's fine, or even just leave it at 6-10 and just pass this hand.  There's no rule saying your weak 2 range and your opening range must be adjacent.

You have underbid this hand by about 8 points.
This hand should not only be opened 1D, it can seriously consider a jump rebid of 3D showing 16+ total points. Courtenay would count it as a five-loser hand, two tricks better than an opening bid at seven losers.
You may not have any aces - just a 1/2 point deduction - but you have tremendous shape, working jacks to upgrade, and good spots.
If partner has as little as ATxx xxx Qxxx Ax, a bit less than opening values in first seat at an unappetizing eleven points, you are making 6 Diamonds.
If Partner has instead just Axxx xxx Axxx JT five diamonds is excellent and six has chances.

New club, new partner (new city). My new partner was glad I didn't open 1d; he wants 13 hpcs (I had 12) or 2.5 quick tricks (I had 2.0) from partner (or himself)  for defensive purposes. He preferred my 2d offense heavy bid, and my 3d rebid, opposite his xx in diamonds. LHO had 17 hpcs and 6 hearts, in line with my fears. It seems to me that the thing to do is to make the policy "official;" tell the club that "weak 2" could be up to 12 hcps with less than 2.5 quick tricks when "Bob and Tom" are partners.

@TomAu: Check the ACBL Convention chart - I believe that is an illegal convention except in Extended Team Play: i.e. that a "weak two" must be weaker than an opening bid - total points not HCP.

Weak 2 is fine at 12 if that’s not an opening bid in their conventions.  6-12 is a common range for weak 2s.

My new partner is the most conservative player in the club (I'm the new "second."). Bob said after the hand, "I'm glad you didn't bid 1d with that hand." (He wants 13 hcps (I had 12) or 2.5 quick tricks (I had 2.0) for an opening bid, because he wants defensive tricks for doubling opponents.) Partnered with Bob (and no one else), my hand was not worth an opening bid. Also, my reading (or misreading) of the convention chart is that an opening bid must be be stronger than the weak two range, not that the "two" bid had to be weaker than the opening bid.

@TomAu: Bad bridge remains bad bridge - regardless of your partner.  I have serious doubts that even [Alvin Roth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Roth_(bridge) and Tobias Stone would regard this hand as unsuitable for an Opening Bid of 1D.

@forget It is not correct to say  that "a 'weak two' must be weaker than an opening bid" under any of the ACBL convention charts. Any 10 HCP hand can bid (provided the bid is natural) at either the 1 or 2 level under any chart, regardless of total points  Whether this is good bridge is a very different question. But it is a legal greement.

I would open the example hand of  (s) KQx (h) --- (d) KJ9xxx (c) K8xx. with 1D every time.
There is room for judgement and partnership style, and if your partner really does insist on a solid 13 HCP for an opening, then a weak 2 is better than a pass, but I wouldn't ant to play again with a partner who opened this with 2D.
As for the concern about 1D being overcalled with 1H, if they have a heart fit, they also have a bad split and may well get in too deep, expecting a better trump split.
There are many hands partner might hold where game can be made, but is unlikely to be reached after a 2D opening. For example, if partner holds:
AJxxx; xxx; Qx; Axx
After an opening of 2D you probably get a bid of 3D passed out, or possibly raised to 5D. If Ogust is used 5D is likely, and 3NT possible, but 4S will never be reached. Over 1D the auction might be
P - P - 1D - P
1S - P - 3S - 4S
Played in spades I would expect 5 spade tricks, 1 or 2 heart ruffs, 4 or 5 diamond tricks after the suit is set up; and 2 club tricks. There are no spade losers, no heart losers, 1 diamond loser, and no club losers. A small slam is a likely result.
Even with a weaker hand for partner, such as
ATxxx; xxx; Qx; Qxx (9 HCP) 4S might very well make, but will not be bid after 2D.

I took the liberty of changing Jd  to Qd in your example. I had KJd, so you can't.

How many tricks are you making in a Spade contract on Heart lead, and a duck of the first round of Diamonds? How many if Spades break 4-1? Game probably makes on careful play, but the fastest and surest way to go down is to start counting 11 or 12 tricks before the hand is properly set up. Even ducking a Heart opening lead might be worth considering. Communication will be delicate. In IMPs I definitely prefer 5D to 4S as a final contract.

@Forget with a 4-1 spade break and a H lead, there would be  a problem yes. When opps get in with the Ace of D, another H is led. I don't aee that ducking a D helps opps.. If two H are ruffed, declrare may not be able to avoid a trump looser and a a 3rd H lead. I never said it was cold. At IMPs 5D might be safer, yes.

Almost all 12 hcp point hands should be opened at the one level (a stronger bid than a "weak two.") The main exception is a hand with a "flat" 4-3-3-3 distribution, something like (s) KQx (h) xxx (d) KJxx (c) Kxx. (All x's are 7 or lower.) This should be passed because you need to subtract one point for the bad distribution, making the adjusted total 11.
Your hand with six diamonds and no hearts is clearly better than the passing hand above, so you should open it with one diamond.
Take away the jack of diamonds so you have  (s) KQx (h) --- (d) K9xxxx (c) K8xx. (All x's are 7 or lower), and you should still open one diamond with 11 hcps and six diamonds. Change the distribution to  (s) KQx (h) x (d) K9xxx (c) K8xx. (All x's are 7 or lower), that is five diamonds and one heart, and you might consider passing. And I would pass with
(s) KQx (h) xx (d) K9xxx (c) K8x. (All x's are 7 or lower), that is a 5-3-3-2 distribution and only 11 hcps.


text:
How does Magic the Gathering play differently with proxies?
I was once a kitchen table Magic: the Gathering player, but I quit because the cost of buying enough singles and packs to create a competitive deck (or even a fun kitchen table deck) was simply too high. Furthermore, it seemed like the person who spent the most money on packs and singles would win the most games, and I did not want to spend ~$300 on just one deck.
So I was wondering, if I convinced my friends to use proxies instead of using regular cards, would it make the game play solely based on who is the best deckbuilder (or netdecker!), or would using proxies hurt the game by ruining the TCG aspect of the game? Also, what house rules permitting proxies have you used?

There's no good way to answer this as it's purely opinion. It all depends on what you and your friends personally find fun. If you think it's fun to play with the best cards MTG has to offer, then of course it will be more fun with proxies. If you think the fun lies in building whatever decks you can with whatever cheap cards you have lying around, then it will be more fun without proxies.

As Gendolkari says: this is very much opinion based and depends on your wants and needs as a player or playgroup.
As for the rules regarding proxies, these can be kept relatively simple, but again this depends on your wants and needs. In my playgroup we have the following house rules regarding proxies. Any number of cards in a Modern deck can be proxied, but we don't allow proxies in Commander or paper Pauper; we don't play Standard. It must be clear to all players which cards are proxies and which card each proxy represents. Apart from this we follow the usual deck building rules.

cheap decks can potentially be very good. just google a bit for "budget decks" or something. there used to be a "building on a budget" column on the wizards site. you can still find it in their archive here: http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/archive.aspx?tag=buildingonabudget&description=building%20on%20a%20budget . And in my opinion, if not playing in sanctioned tournaments and just playing kitchen table magic is more about fun than winning. I for instance really like decks with weird combo's that I like even if I would only win 1 in 10 games with it.

You could also just play pauper, where you only use commons.

I have (hopefully) made the question more objective and wonder if it can be  re-opened in its current form.

It is still just asking how is magic played if you have access to every card in the game and the answers will vary from person to person

I think this question is answerable in its current form. As long as we stick to experiences we had rather than opinions we guess may be true, answers might be within SE's rules.

Depending on the context there may actually be an answer. I think that that if you play an eternal or casual format (meaning most/all cards are legal), then you will run into the issue that your kitchen-table meta will end up in a state where you have a limited number of decks which are simply "the best" and the only variety is in how they deal with eachother. On the other end of the spectrum is a fluid format like Standard, where that effect will be less pronounced and the proxies will simply allow you to play the "best" version of the deck with all intended cards, which can be instrumental.


text:
Elimination when a player loses all herds, but still has a Chupacabra
I'm looking for a rules clarification for "Chupacabra: Survive the Night" by Steve Jackson Games.
The rules state:

Any player who loses all his dice is out of the game, even if he hasn't attacked yet on that round!

If a player rolls a combination of herds and at least one Chupacabra and all of their herds are taken are they eliminated? They still have at least one dice because of the Chupacabra.
The clause stating "even if they haven't attacked" seems to allow for them to have Chupacabras and still be eliminated.

@bwarner I guess that answers my question

@murgatroid Not necessarily, if someone else decides it should be something else, that's fine.  I just wanted to give it an actual game tag of some sort, and figure we don't tend to care about the subtitles.

Asked in June? Bah. All that work calling SJG for nothing.  I thought this was a new question :P

From talking (on the phone) with the lovely people at Steve Jackson Games in Austin:
If you still have a die, you're still in the game.
Rolling a Chupacabra essentially means you're safe and can't get kicked out of the game that round. There's no way to "kill" a fellow Chupacabra.
I think that when the game rules say "Even if they haven't attacked" they mean "Even if they haven't had a turn yet".


text:
Is this movement through other trucks in Auf Achse correct?
I've the 1987 edition of Auf Achse. Would be interested in an answer for that and if it's any different in the 2007 version.
When moving past other trucks, the rules translation we have (from the Games Cabinet, a pre BGG resource) uses the word 'miss' for the occupied space, so we treat the occupied space as if it does not exist.  However, I'm not that confident of the translation given a number of other errors.
We play that a roll of 3 results in:
-- Started here -- Empty space -- Another Truck here -- Empty space -- Ended up here --

Is this correct?

Fine with leaving this title edit, since it is in context, but note that this is not necessary for search engine optimisation. Stack Overflow is optimized so that tags are indexed by search engines along with the content of the question. See Should questions include tags in their titles?

@ire_and_curses Ok, useful info, ta.  As a human browser I actively prefer the game name somewhere in the title of others' questions, so that was also part of the motivation.

The 2007 rule book PDF I have says "It is permitted to drive through spaces with trucks." Unfortunately, I don't know where I got the PDF so I don't know if it's an official translation. It has the 2007 Schmidt Spiele artwork though, so could be.
The SpotLight on Games rules translation from 2003 (and thus presumably for the 1987 edition) (here) says "However, it is allowed to pass another player's truck in either direction."
Neither says anything about skipping the space though. I've always played it as the occupied space counts but you may not be able to stop on it. (In 1987 rules, you can't stop on it if there's a truck there. In 2007 rules, 2 trucks can occupy a highway space. You can still pass them even if the space is "full" though, so long as you end on a legal space.)

Great link - thanks. That translation looks like a variant (i.e. clarified revision) of the translation I have (from the Game Cabinet), but the phrasing of some critical sentences is subtly different.


text:
In Poker, what happens if paying a blind puts a player all-in?
I have a question regarding increasing blinds in Texas Hold-em poker. I am developing a poker website. During tournaments players are not allowed to buy chips. Each player starts with 1000 chips to play. We always keep all amounts on the table (player pot, player bet, table pot etc.), in multiples of the smallest denomination, i.e. small blind.
But when blinds are increasing automatically, what should I do in the case when a player is left with a chip smaller than the small blind? Should that player be able to continue the game, or are they busted immediately (and lose the tournament)?
Example : In a tournament of four players, all players begin with 1000 chips to play. After some time, one of the four players remains with 10 chips in the pot, and blinds reach to 500/1000 (SM/BB). What should I do with that player?

If a player cannot cover a blind, that player is all-in and the bets are handled just as if that player had gone all-in on an ordinary bet. The main pot gets an amount of money from each player who bets equal to the all-in player's stake. Any further betting goes into a side pot, which the all-in player is ineligible to win.

Still one confusion in case of split the main pot when two, three etc. player got equal hand then which should be used as smallest denomination chip i.e. small blind or pot value of player who goes all in ?

@AjayKhunti: Pot value of the player. If small blind is 1000 and the player only has 500, than 500 of big blind's money goes into the main pot and 1500 into a side pot.

@AjayKhunti: Consider this an inviolable rule of poker: I can never win more money from you than you can win from me. If I only have 500 chips, then 500 chips is the most I am allowed to win from any player. The entire purpose of a side pot is then to allow other players to make further bets against each other.

In most casinos, $25 is the smallest tournament chip.  However, it may not remain so.  Periodically chips are "raced off" or "colored up".  How it is done is another topic.
However, lets use something similar to your example:  4 players, one with 10 chips (call him A), the rest with 1000, blinds are 50/100.  None of the three players raises preflop, so 4 see the floop.  There is a total of 340 in the pot.  40 in the main, which A is able to win, 300 in the side, which A is not able to win.  Flop comes.  One of the players with chip bets, one folds, the other calls.  There is now 40 in the main, 500 in the side.
Say the board is AAAAK.  All players have 4 aces with King kicker.  They all tie.  The two players with chips split the side of 500, they get 250 each.
The main pot is interesting as there is 40 in there and three players to split.  Each player gets 10 chips, but there is 10 left over.  Who gets the extra chip?  The player that is first to act in the hand (like the one who was in the small blind).

While all of this is true, it's mostly unnecessary in a computer implementation; online poker tends to keep all the chips in play because the primary consideration at play (keeping the quantity of physical chips manageable) is completely irrelevant. That said, even online poker doesn't go to fractional chips so you do have to break ties occasionally, using the "first to act" rule as needed.

In your example, it should be 310 total in the pot preflop -- 40 in the main and 270 in the side.

It is not different than any other all in.
If someone raises you create a side pot.
Say it is the BB that only has 1/2 a BB.  The question is could someone call the 1/2 BB? The common approach is the min bet is still 1 BB.

Down vote what is the problem?

I would guess that it is because the question does not mention raising. It asks "if I have $x, and the blind is $x ..."; why muddy the waters with raises?

My guess is that it's the same answer as sitnaltax's one 4 years prior

calculate the odds, seek for on line poker odds  calculator, i think it should not pose a problem. But I think it is necessary to include it so the program will not crash. I would suggest the remainder to go into the next pot or a random generator pops up and notifys players of who gets it. Hm maybe it would be fair the remainder to go to BB.
Sorry if there are rules about this, but haven't seen it yet

This does not appear to answer the question in any form. This is not a game design forum asking for suggestions; it's asking what happens by the rules, and there are rules for it (as you can see from the other two responses).


text:
American Five Card majors - using Jacoby to respond to a 2NT opening bid
Playing Bridge last night my partner opened 2NT, showing 20-21 points. I had 11 HCP and a five card major. I used Jacoby Transfer, calling 3 hearts and my partner responded 3 spades (all OK so far) I then needed to show our possible small slam hand. I did not want to call 4 spades as she may only have had two spades. Equally I didn't want to call 3NT in case she passed. I therefore called 4NT and a big debate started about whether that was Ace asking.
What should I have responded? All Jacoby Transfer pages I find on the net only specify full responses after 1NT.

Check out Richard Pavlicek's web pages at http://www.rpbridge.com for really good advice, geared to a variety of levels.

I agree with Aryabhata as far as general principle. Most beginners and even intermediate players greatly overuse Ace-asking bids -- their primary purpose is to keep you out of a slam when you have the tricks but lack controls in side suits; they shouldn't be used to get into a slam when you're not sure you have the values.
A decent agreement in this situation is to use Texas transfers as well as Jacoby. Now you can use the sequences like so:

2NT-3H-3S-4NT: Usually 5332, quantitative invitate to a small slam
2NT-3H-3S-4C: 5-4 or better in spades and clubs (this is mostly to find the best strain, but you can use the follow-on auction to look for slam)
2NT-3H-3S-4S: at least 6 spades, a faint invitation to slam (opener might look for slam with something like Kxx Ax AKQxx AJx -- rich in controls, a good source of tricks)
2NT-4H-4S-pass: at least 6 spades, no interest in slam
2NT-4H-4S-4NT: Whatever your normal Ace-asking bid is (Blackwood, RKC), with 6 spades at least.
2NT-4H-4S-5C: at least 6 spades, first-round control in clubs
etc

It is probably a matter of partnership agreement. It depends on what other sequences you have available and what they would show. For instance, do you play Texas transfers (i.e. 4D and 4H are also transfers)? There is no clear-cut answer.
But, absent any discussion, without having a found fit yet (when opening bid is 1 or 2NT), I would take any jump to 4NT by responder as quantitative, as a matter of 'general' principle.

The simplest (and I believe most comprehensive) agreement is that 4NT is quantitative by a Jacoby transferor (with 4C available as Gerber) and 4NT is Blackwood by a Texas transferor. The rationale for this style is that a Jacoby transferor cannot set the denomination, as an eight card fit is not confirmed; thus the option reverts to opener to show strength and length with his 2nd rebid. Likewise a responder with exactly 5 trumps can ask for aces with a 4C (Gerber) rebid, confirming that opener is allowed to convert back to NT after responder sets the level.
On the other hand a Texas Transferor can set the strain as an eight card fit is confirmed. 4NT would then be Key Card (if played) or normal Blackwood.
This then provides a distinction between transferring at the 2/3 level and raising to 4, versus a straight Texas transfer. The latter is sign-off, and the former is invitational with 6 trumps, but a hand that is (1) unsuitable for notrump; (2) without a singleton; (3) unable to bid Blackwood/Gerber (usually because of owning a small doubleton).

2NT - 3H - 3S - 4C as Gerber? No. "Many" people who play both Jacoby and Texas play it as a natural slam try with spades and clubs.


text:
Opening bids with no long suits
My partner and I play a strong NT and 5 card Majors. However, we're unsure how to open strong hands with no long suits.
For example, how do we open a 4432 hand with 16-19 high card points or 20-22 high card points?
How do we open 4441 hands with 16 or more high card points?

Two things: 4432 is by no means an unbalanced hand. Balanced shapes are 5332, 4432, and 4333. 6322 and 5422 are sometimes referred to as semibalanced. Also, I'm not quite sure what all the hyphens after 20/22 pts are supposed to mean.

4432, 5332, and 4333 shapes are all balanced, and should be bid as such. It is my sense that these days, it is common to open 1NT even with a 5-card major, although it is not universal. Pairs with weak 1NT openers are less likely to open a 5-card major with 1NT because they have a different set of methods than pairs with strong NT openers.
In America these days, a "strong no trump" implies a 15-17 HCP range for 1NT openers, so you'd open a 4432 like so:

With 12-14 HCP, open a minor and plan to rebid 1NT.
With 15-17 HCP, open 1NT.
With 18-19 HCP, open a minor and plan to jump to 2NT.
With 20-21 HCP, open 2NT.

4441 is the hardest shape to bid, since systems are mostly not built with them in mind. My preference is to open the lowest 4-card suit. With 16+ (not counting any singleton honor), you can splinter if partner bids one of your suits. If your short suit is spades or clubs, you can rebid 2H (slightly lying about your shape) when partner bids your singleton. If your short suit is diamonds or hearts, with 17-19 you'll have to rebid 2NT, and with 20-22 you'll have to jump to 2S when partner bids your singleton.

That is a really awkward style. Why give yourself problems in more scenarios than necessary. Did you once play Kaplan-Sheinwold perhaps, before switching to West-coast style? You seem to have a mish-mash of the two styles in your head.

@PieterGeerkens The main difference I see between our two styles comes in 1=4=4=4 17-counts. You prefer the auction 1D-1S-2C and I prefer 1C-1S-2H. When partner holds KJxxx Kxxx x xxx, I'd rather play in 4H than 2C. I think that's the sort of thing that will happen too often in your approach, and is more of a risk than getting too high or missing a diamond slam in my approach.

If partner is going to make only 1 bid it must be in hearts, for exactly this reason. Partner has the luxury of not bidding up the line only when strong enough to bid twice.

As I recall the original Joy of Bridge system by Eric Rodwell and Audrey Grant had opener bidding suits up the line and responder showing shape early. This has merits, but absolutely requires that both partners be In on the secret. It is thus not a Standard American system, and is incompatible with SAYC. If you play this way without partner's knowledge there are far more instances when one or both of you will not be able to draw correct bidding inferences, particularly negative ones.

@woodchips I agree with that. But it's important to be aware that almost always when the auction is 1D-1S-2C, opener has 9+ cards in the minors and 12-14 HCP, sometimes opener has 9+ cards in the minors, 15-17 HCP, and rarely has a 1=4=4=4 with 15 to a soft 17. In any case, responder should often suspect partner has spade shortness in this auction, and evaluate their suit appropriately.

As already pointed out, 4432 hands are balanced and must be bid as such:

With 16-19 HCP open a minor (1D if they are 44, 1C if they are 33, else the longest) and rebid 2NT.
With 20-21 HCP open 2NT.
With 22+ open 2C and rebid 2NT.

For 12-14 pt. 4441 hands:

singleton heart or spade: open 1D and either raise partner's suit or rebid 2C.
singleton diamond: open 1C and either raise partner's suit or rebid 1H.
singleton club: open 1D and either raise partner's suit or rebid 2H over 2C. If partner bids your singleton every possible rebid is a lie; choose the smallest lie, choose it smoothly to not give partner an ethical problem; and bid cautiously unless a delayed fit is found.

Likewise for stronger 4441 hands, except the caution can be reduced a bit.

With 16-19 HCP and three points for the singleton, we are talking a strong hand. Open as above, and splinter if partner bids one of your suits. A 2NT rebid might be considered if partner responds 2C over your singleton club, but some partners won't tolerate this. Otherwise rebid as above, and await partner's rebid; Without a fit, there is no hurry to force to a challenging game.

Remember that if partner responds 2C over a 1D opening, partner promises to give you a third bid opportunity. That is the meaning of a two-over-one.


text:
Chess: Move 2 pawns one space each as first move
When I was young I remember that it was usual to move 2 pawns one space each on your first move, instead of one pawn two spaces. (ie b3 and g3 at the same time). I'm not sure if the 2 pawns had to be mirrored or not, but moving the knight's pawns was the most usual move of this type.
Was this ever legal? If not, would that be a major advantage to the player playing this way?

Sounds like a telephone-game distortion of the ability to move a pawn two spaces on its first move.

This was never legal. Rule 1.1. of the FIDE rules clearly states that the moves have to alternate. This was probably more of a house rule. Of course you can advance a pawn two spaces on it's first move (Rule 3.7b).

Fabian's answer makes it quite clear that this is not in the rules. For your followup, whether or not this is advantageous, the answer is the ever frustrating "it depends"
Most novice games are decided merely by who makes the biggest blunder first. In that regard this doesn't really do much. In fact, by exposing your line quicker, you might be doing yourself more harm than good.
Once you advance past the novice levels, then this is a huge advantage. White wins between 52% and 56% of the matches, where you would expect 50/50 otherwise. And that's just from being able to move first. Being able to interject a second move would push this even further. Even if black were able to counter with two opening moves of their own, clearly moving first is advantageous, so two first moves would be even more so, especially considering the opening moves for white are very often two pawns anyway.
One plausible way to look at this rule is that perhaps black can move two pawns to try to fight the advantage received from white moving first. But that is pure speculation. The real way to test this counteract this kind of advantage is to play a match and alternate between black and white, or have the losing player be white.

There are various "handicaps" that can be used to enable a weaker player to "even up" against a stronger opponent, and balance the odds as to who can win.
Some handicaps could put the weaker player into a technically won position. e.g. if you remove black's 'f' pawn.
Put me as white against Magnus Carlsen, remove his 'f' pawn and let me start by making 2 moves, and see how long my advantage lasts. I'm a decent club player but it's highly unlikely that he won't still get the upper-hand sooner or later.
I have been known to use handicaps whilst playing against chess software (Fritz). This can make the game more interesting. Still extremely frustrating when the bot catches up on me.
So there you go.. it was probably used as a handicap. One day they may even have a chess tournament with handicaps. However for the purpose of the "laws" of chess, there are no handicaps and white starts with a single move.

It doesn't seem like an advantage. At the early stage of the the game, "if a thing is to be done, it is worth doing well."
Moving one pawn two squares is more "focused" than moving two pawns one square each, because you get the single pawn to the fourth line in one move.
If White started 1. b3/g3 (logical, because it opens diagonals for both bishops), and Black replied e5, Black would have a good game.


text:
Bridge: Matchpoints vs IMPs: Different game?
There are at least two main types of tournament scoring: matchpoints (MPs) and IMPs. It is often said that these two are "different" games, claiming that the strategy you use is completely different.
In the first case, a difference of as little as game ten points can get you from an average to a top or bottom match score.  A double in a contract that always goes one down can turn your average match score into top score.
In the second case, more game points are better than fewer, but the scale is more graduated. In some cases, only missing a game, not to mention a slam, will really hurt. Especially if you are vulnerable (such distinction in vulnerability when trying to reach slams is not that important in MPs).
While there are different strategies according to the type of scoring, my main question is the following:
Are world class players likely to be ranked similarly given the different rankings for IMP matches and MP matches based on their "experience" with actual rankings?

There is no right answer to this question - it is simply an excuse for a discussion.

I made the question more objective by asking for "experience" with actual rankings, and wonder if it can be reopened in its current form.

It's OK Tom. I think now last question is easier to be understood. Do you also have any answer to give? Do you think ranking will be similar?

Barry Crane was throughout his lifetime regarded as the quintessential matchpoint player - yet due to his busy work schedule competed almost solely in weekend regional events dominated by a Saturday Open Pairs and a Sunday Swiss Team. His great success over several decades in both events speaks to the relatively minor differences in strategy between the two types of scoring.
One must know which game one is playing but only in extended team play, with matches longer than 16 boards, are 4-card majors or even fast-in-and-fast-out bidding systems like Crane's starting to have a noticeable disadvantage.


text:
Can This Hand be made?
I was on a cruise and we were given this quiz and I never got to find the answer.  I can see only 12 tricks.
The Contract is 7NT
The Opening Lead is the King of Spades
North
S A
H KQJ109
D 987654
C 2
South
S Void
H A
D AKQJ10
C A876543
Thanks

Of course it can be made - it wouldn't be an interesting hand otherwise.

This is a lesson in a technique called "unblocking." And yes, the hand can be made in a "roundabout" way.
The first thing you should notice is that North has five tricks in hearts, from K down to 9. The thing that prevents you from taking those tricks is the "blocking" A in South's hand. So on the lead of the king of spades, declarer takes the ace of spades (one trick) in North and "unblocks" (discards) the ace of hearts from the South hand, thereby allowing North's hearts to "run."
The second thing you should notice is that North has six diamonds that can run, because they follow South's five HIGHER diamonds. But you need to get rid of South's diamonds, first. Fortunately, you can discard them on the KQJT9 of hearts. Then run your six diamonds from North, discarding 6 low clubs. Finally play the club 2 from North to South's ace.
You have one spade, five hearts, six diamonds, and one club trick, 13 tricks in all.

Nice explanation of how the hand is read, as well as played.

@PieterGeerkens: Coming from you, highly appreciated. I'm doing my best to "get there."

Thank you very much, nicely explained and it all looks so clear now.

It is doable:
Trick 1: South trashes Ace of Hearts, North takes with the Ace of Spades.
Tricks 2-6: North leads (and takes) with 9-K of Hearts, South trashes 10-A of Diamonds.
Tricks 7-12: North leads (and takes) with 4-9 of Diamonds, South trashes 3-8 of Clubs.
Trick 13: North leads Club 2 to South's Ace.


text:
Settlers Of Catan 5-6 Expansion
If I purchase the Settlers of Catan 5-6 Expansion, is there a playable version of the game for only 4 people?

It's not clear what you are asking... if you want to play with 4 people, you just wouldn't be using any of the things that came with the 5-6 player expansion. Are you aware that the expansion is no good on it's own; you still need the main set as well?

Although it's not part of your question: I would warn against getting the 5-6 player expansion.  It makes it a very different game experience, and in my opinion breaks things.  It also means you'll be buying twice as much if you want the other expansions.  Catan is a great game for 4, but I wouldn't play it with any other number.

Although it's not part of your question, I would warn against @xorsyst's warning. The 5-6 player expansion certainly changes some aspects of the game, but in my opinion it doesn't break anything. If you find yourself with more than 4 people that want to play Catan together, I find excluding those extra people a bigger issue than anyone's perceived gameplay differences.

I tried to make the question clearer by asking if the 5-6 player version was "playable" for four people.

Yes. You can always just use the base game and leave out the pieces from the 5-6 player expansion.
Note that the 5-6 player expansion is just that: an expansion. It requires the original game in order to play it.

The 5-6 player expansion adds new hexes, ports, number chits and development cards to allow your board to fit 5 or 6 players. While you could play 3 or 4 players on the 5-6 player board, it would not be the same experience, you will find every one is too spread out and most players can expand unopposed.
Keeping the additional pieces mixed in with your base set may throw off the balance of the game. So it's recommended to remove them when playing a 3 or 4 player game. I don't remember the exact mix, but I believe the expansion adds the following

2 hexes of each basic type (forest/plains/mountains/fields/hills)
1 desert hex
1 sheep port
1 3:1 port
6 soldier cards
1 year of plenty card
1 monopoly card
1 road building card
number chits
5 extra resources of each type.

The extra resources rarely becomes an issue in smaller games. It's probably safe to leave them in, and there's no harm and using one of the expansion sets of player pieces in place of one of the basic ones. But the rest of the items can definitely throw off the balance of the game.