Leaderboard

Funny that, if I read partner's bidding correctly he is raising me to 4♠ and showing me where he lives in case the opponents make a white on red sac at the 5 level... Trying to improve the contract by introducing a new suit at the 4 level when we're red and they're white is asking for trouble. If you're broke and you don't like spades you can pass and then pull if the opponents manage to hit you.

Sadly many of the votes in the poll are by members who joined today.

Keep hands about cheaters out of BBF entirely imo. Nuke the actual thread in question. It's clearly just a "look how smart I am, I caught some cheaters" thread, which is a waste of time. It can't possibly be constructive to encourage discussion where the only result is a bunch of people with tinfoil hats who think everyone on BBO is a cheater and online bridge is rigged. Even in the face of a lot of evidence we can't prove definitively the users cheated, and even if we do we really can't do anything anyway, so what purpose would it serve? Make sure people are aware that they can send hands to abuse@ and let that be enough.

Honestly, I am a little bit torn on this. I think the thread is inappropriate, malicious, and the dozens of hands posted in it really slow down my browser :S I do think that it is not unreasonable to post a hand from time to time where you suspect something icky is going on. Doing this with the intention of having the forum posters either reinforce your suspicion or debunk it, i.e. posting with an open mind rather than with a foregone conclusion of the suspect's guilt (not naming any names, of course). Basically, this is like using the forum as an appeals committee of sorts. In view of this, I am actually not sure where I stand on Ben's yes/no rainbow. I think that perhaps such threads should be judged on a case-by-case basis, the intent and approach of the OP is nearly immediately evident. You can tell whether the OP is convinced of the cheating and just trying to expose (in which case it is a case for abuse@) or whether they're trying to make sure that there isn't another explanation that somehow eluded them because of their limited bridge knowledge. --- guess I chose "no, but..."

If you believe that there may be MI then you call the TD. You are drawing attention to a possible irregularity, which is your right. I think on the actual auction it was not sensible to do so because it has no upside but a potential downside, but it certainly is your right. No, you do not need proof of an irregularity to call the TD: it is the TD's job to determine whether there has been an irregularity and what to do about it.

Luke, I think perhaps you misunderstand some of the basics of economics. The Democrats have been in power during a time of low growth or even recession. It is normal in such times for a government to spend more. The time to cut the deficit was before this, during the 1995 - 2005 period when economic growth was strong. It is the failure to take action in this time which allowed the American deficit to reach such a level. My understanding of the situation based on international news (I am in Europe) is that the 2 sticking points remaining are whether the bill should be complete (Obama's choice) or temporary with a second bill next year; and, most crucially, whether the President can raise taxes. My feeling is that Obama is actually being pretty smart politically here by showing weakness and offering alot to the Republicans up front, but nonetheless holding onto red lines on the key issues. If the Republicans refuse to compromise now they will surely get the blame from the American people for the resulting fallout. It is easy for the Democrats to catalogue their concessions and there is really no answer. This would likely lead to a second term just as hawkish Republican action did for Clinton. The smart thing for the Republicans to do now is really to concede this point, thus alleviating themselves of most of the blame for the probable pain that is coming, while also making great political capital for every tax rise that Obama makes ("We told you so!"). This approach would, imho, most likely lead to Obama losing the next election, assuming the Republicans can find a candidate that is not too far to the right.

Congress Continues Debate Over Whether Or Not Nation Should Be Economically Ruined Got to look at both the pros and cons. B-)

Bidding goes 1♦-P-P-X 2♣-X Is this Takeout or Penalty or something else? My partner and I are asking. Thank You

And most of them voting to delete the thread. Wonder why that is, or who it might actually be? Seems obvious to me that it's a single person generating lots and lots of accounts.

I voted no. If there is some legal liability issue for BBO then obviously they shouldn't allow it. If BBO judges it is bad to have this kind of thing for business reasons, then that is their call and I accept that. But I don't think these posts should be made illegal just because mods or a majority of posters don't want them. It's not freedom of speech in the classic sense because the forums are private property, but it's still important for a minority, or even just one person, to be able to express views that most of the rest of us disagree with.

No matter how many times the BBF regs say "sorry, but this hand alone is not conclusive enough," the tinfoil hatters will still think they've been cheated. They will still suspect every time something weird happens that the opponents must have a wire. They will still make a lot of noise about how everything is rigged and everyone from Country X is a cheater. They will still complain that 99% of experts are actually novices. This is why I think even a single containment thread where posters can post suspicious hands is a big waste of time. Matmat's post about a thread where people can post suspicious hands just isn't practical, because the evidence will never be strong enough to answer definitively.

Agree, however, blatantly lying about the purpose of a thread in order to gain some sort of satisfaction by publicly exposing cheaters (but being oh-so-clever in how you do it) is more absurd. The PM I posted was unsolicited, and I don't think that the sender had any expectation of privacy when he sent it. My contention is that threads of that nature have no place on the forums -- especially after the poster sends a PM confirming that the thread is all about cheating. Apparently Ben and others agree. If you disagree, Ben has mentioned that he's going to create a thread with a poll to discuss the matter, and I encourage you to make your voice heard. Posting a thread saying "no I'm not accusing them of cheating -- their system is just the best in the world! Look at these magic boards," and then sending unsolicited PMs to posters from the thread about how the people were obviously cheating seems like an equivalent infraction to making public accusations of cheating.

I think arguments can be made either way. If one held void Jxx QJ109xxx xxx, one would like to run to 4♦ here, since the opps may well let your partner languish in 3♠, counting undertricks in 100s, and not doubling precisely because they have no defence to diamonds. Otoh, scared bridge is rarely winning bridge, and I think it better to use 4♦ here as forward going. I expect spade tolerance rather than primary support, but I do think partner is showing values, such that I can retreat to 4♠ or raise diamonds. If I had to guess what an unknown partner meant with 4♦, I would guess he meant it to play....the first type. If I had to guess what one of my regular partners meant, I'd guess the second, since we generally default to not trying to improve even a probably hopeless contract in these situations. Having decided to bid, I don't know what to bid! I think I'll bid 5♦....playing him for the equivalent of Ax Qxx KQxxxx xx, where 4♠ could be in trouble on a 4-1 break. Besides, on some hands where he has the premature rescue, we may make 5♦ anyway

It was interesting to watch Obama and Boehner speak one after the other last night. And it's heartening to see the contrast between the two speeches made clear: Boehner’s Response Is Work of Political Fiction: Jonathan Alter "Bearing false witness" is evidently not a sin when used to advance the free lunch cause.

While we're creating rules, I'd like to point out it's quite uncommon to post private messages on most forums on the internet.

Yes :rolleyes: Partner will have to rebid 3NT on some misfitting minimum hands, so you must be strong enough to support that. I haven't heard the question asked, even in England, for more than twenty years!

It may be convenient here to regard the 3♣ bid as game forcing, but should it be? Suppose you want to invite. What options do you have? 1♦-1♥-2♦-2NT Yes an invite when you have a suitable balanced hand. 1♦-1♥-2♦-3♦. This should just raising the bar and not invitational. So it makes sense for 3♣ to be forcing to 3♦ or 3♥ both of which may be passed. All the same I agree that 3♥ rebid with a minimum openening hand would have been appropriate. I would take the 3♣ bid imply a 5 card heart suit. Thus to bid 3NT with a singleton club looks wrong. Does it have to be a 5 card heart suit? It seems not.

There is something very peculiar about this thread. Several posters have said that by calling the director North has given UI that they would have taken action over 3C had they known that 2S was not a SJS. My question is why. Is it not better to call attention to a possible irregularity irrespective of whether you would take action or not? Otherwise not calling the TD also provides UI. Apart from that I think David said pretty much all that needs to be said (as usual).

Firstly, it's not a great slam so I wouldn't be too worried about missing it. Secondly your methods really hamstring you, 4N is normally quantitative in this sequence, if you use 4♠ as asking, you can enquire about the queen of trumps and won't miss the slam when it's laydown like when partner has Q♥ instead of the two jacks. What do you play 1N-3♥ as ? (I play a weak no trump habitually so where we're in a slammish auction, responder can bid 3♥ with a 6 card suit to put the weaker (12-14) hand down on the table). Here, 3♥ would actually save you space as partner can just bid 4♥ to show 3 card support and no side first round control by your methods, cue bidding firsts and seconds would work better on this hand as you'd know about K♠ and lack of A♦ before 4♥. Again 4♠ to ask for aces is key here, as you'll find out you're missing A♦ and Q♥ and probably not bid the slam.

RKCB is a convention to find out if you are missing 2 cards which are likely to mean slam is bad "off the top". You never use it if you would not bid slam holding 4 key cards. I think Responder also has to have a way of showing 1-suited slam interest while consulting partner which you suggest is not possible in your current system. Note also that it is more common to play 4NT in this sequence as quantitative, something like a 5332 16 count. There are many possible solutions to this but most are unsuitable for this forum. However, it is simple to play 1NT - 3H as natural with slam interest to start a cue auction. If you just want to RKCB you can follow 3H with 4NT and have gained a little information along the way, and if you only have a slam try you can make a cue bid. In any case, in keeping with the first paragraph, once East decides the hand is worth slam they are duty-bound to bid it upon finding that 4 key cards are held.

I would have responded 2NT since it is usually best to show 4 card support as early as possible in such auctions. The actual opening hand has a clear acceptance of any invite in spades.

The first thing the director said to you was wrong. As you point out, Law 9A1 governs, along with 9B, which says that once attention is drawn, the director should be called, anyone (including dummy, during the play) can call him, and nobody should do anything else until the director rules. The second thing the director said to you is more of a problem. First, what would you have done differently over 3♣ had you known 2♠ was weak? After all, you couldn't take action over 1♣. B-) Second, consider partner. He's heard you call the TD. Maybe he has a clear action over a WJS, maybe not. If his action is not clear (he has one or more logical alternatives) then any action he takes may result in a ruling of illegal use of UI. There's a thread here somewhere which discusses whether calling the TD may provide UI. I can't remember if we've reached a consensus yet, and if we did I'm not sure "yes" is the right answer, but then I'm not sure "no" is the right answer either. Anyway, if there's no consensus here, there's probably no consensus among ACBL directors, particularly at club level. Add to all that the fact that if you were misinformed, did not call the TD when you first suspected you might have been, and it later turns out that you were damaged by MI, the TD will adjust the score in your favor — which is a better result than no adjustment, or an adjustment in their favor because your partner is deemed to have used UI. Note that the law on MI requires the opponents to call the TD at the appropriate time, and correct the MI in his presence. Of course, in spite of the law, players rarely do that. They just tell you their partner got it wrong, and leave it up to you to call the TD if you feel like it. Frankly, when I call the TD in this situation, I tell the TD "we have established that West's (or whoever's) explanation was incorrect; East said so. However, East did not, obviously, call you before correcting the explanation, as the law requires". Mostly, TD's ignore the last bit, but I can hope that someday one of them will wake up and tell the opponents to do it right. :D

A direct X as described here with several of my partners = We own the hand, so we either bid game or double whatever the opponents bid. So over 2D doubled I would bid the three card heart suit just to continue the auction. If partner has diamonds we may end up in 3nt. If the opponents stick their noses in again, a double by partner is for business. A double by me will be viewed as DSI (do something intelligent) which may be pass if partner has the diamonds.

Can partner really have a hand that is wide open in ♣?, as some have suggested. If you say yes, then I would like to know why he isn't just as likely to be wide open in ♠?. I say responder must have 2nd round control of ♣(with length) for his 4♥ bid to make sense. Similarly, responder needs to have a control in ♠ for slam to have a legitimate chance. In this scenerio, I expect partner's ♣ length to provide a parking place for my losing ♠'s, failing that the AK♥ might let me shake his losing ♠. Practically, I would commit this hand to slam, I just don't see an intelligent way to stop short. I'm bidding 4NT and going to grand if he shows 3 keys.

Considering only bridge tournaments, what difference is there between a women only national level tournament and a for example, minorities or whites or whatever race only national level tournament?

You've found this site. That's a great start. There's a lot of resources on here and they will lead you in many directions - all positive I hope. Stick with it and seek out the best advice you can find. There's been some recent posts on the best way to learn the game. It differs for different people and you need to figure out what works for you. Good luck!

The claim was having women's events promoted bridge among women, who were underrepresented at the elite levels. Quick, name one transgendered/transsexual person to reach the R32 a national KO event in the last 10 years. The TS/TG population is estimated around 0.5 % to 1 % of the US population. Name one TS/TG in the top 100/200 of bridge. The question can be asked, what is the ACBL doing to promote bridge among TS/TGs ? They are underrepresented in both the elite and non-elite stratas of the game. How about by income? 6 % of ACBL members earn between 35 K to 50 K. This group is vastly underrepresented at the elite levels of bridge, in fact at all levels. What is the ACBL doing to promote bridge among this group? We should have a National Championship just for this income bracket by your logic.

For me: If the fact that partner declined the game try made you certain there's no slam, bid 4H. If not, cuebid over 3H. The way I play this doesn't convert 3D into a cuebid. It's still a long/help/short/whatever-you-play-it-as suit.

1D 1H 2D 3C(D fit and 4 hearts, bid 2S with 5 H) 3D(minimum) 3H(two way, either cuebidding H (later pull 3NT) or trying 3NT, usually worry about S) 3S(S value, worry about C) 3N

Yes of course 3♠ splinter. Although we had not discussed this, my partner was I believe experienced enough to recognise this as a splinter. At the table I was sitting east and the bidding went: 1♦-1♥-2♦-3♣-4♥! I was going to bid 3♠ over 3♥ but did not get the chance. Presumably partner did not want to bid 3♥ as it could have been showing doubleton preference.

I think Mat's analysis is " spot on " !

The only problem with this explanation is that the opening post gives the impression that the auction ended at 4♠ ;)

My guess is that they were 7411/6412 opposite 1165. Not that I think that's what that auction should show.

I'm really streching here, but I'd guess N has - KQxx JTxxxx Axx or even - KQxx JTxxxxx Ax It makes absolutely no sense for 4C to be a suit, it only can be a cue , and that in turn would mean N hand has improved to such an extent that it went from willing to play in 3D to a semi serious slam try in hearts. Either this or the opponents have no freaking clue what they are doing.

penalty, you can always make a TO (responsive or DSIP) dbl after the expected correction to 2D, and expected pass of 2D by partner.

I'm not convinced 4-6 NF is a good idea, especially at IMPs. If I want to play in diamonds, Id rather respond 1NT, and correct 2C to 2D or pass 2H. For this reason, I'm more sympathetic to 5-5 and NF, or use it as a splinter.

5C. Slam rates to be better than 50% if partner can make a move over 5C.

I think the situation is worse than you say MrAce. For example, sometimes bridge authorities schedule Open Trials at the same time as important Ladies Events. In some cases it may be that women are not chosen for the Open team because they can play in the Ladies and having two strong teams is seen as better than a strong Open team and a weak Ladies team. It is hard to see how this might change in the future. Most likely it will take a rebel, someone like Judith Polgar from chess who made a point about not playing women-only events. Perhaps if such a woman won an Open BB or similar it might get discussed. I won't hold my breath though. Just a further note to Free. It is true that there are known difference between "male" and "female" brains. What is less known is that women can have male brains and men can have female brains. I do not see this as any kind of argument for the separation.

Then what is the following for you : 1♥ - 1♠ 2♣ - 2♦! 2any - 3♦ = ?

An interesting puzzle: Is it possible to balance the budget without directly cutting spending or raising taxes? Seems to me that the answer is actually yes. The main idea is to fix the economy. This will put people back to work (so they are paying taxes) and increase business profits (so they and their investors pay more taxes). It will also reduce government spending, because fewer people will need unemployment insurance, food stamps, medicaid, etc. Here's what I'd suggest to do just that: (1) Get rid of tax breaks for companies that pollute our environment, screw up our economy, or send massive amounts of cash overseas. Change the way income from outside the country is treated so there is no advantage for big companies to keep their profits sitting in bank accounts in the Cayman islands. Get rid of the ridiculous "carried interest exception" that allows billionaire hedge fund managers to pay 15% tax on their earnings. Take all the savings and put it into a huge tax break for businesses based simply on the number of people they employ. The whole thing would be revenue neutral, and instead of rewarding people who damage our economy we would reward the "job creators" that Republicans are always talking about... in exact proportion to the number of jobs they create (okay, restrict it to full-time jobs for US citizens or permanent residents to prevent gaming the system). This is not a one-time bonus for hiring (which has a lot of issues and arguably wouldn't work) -- it's a permanent tax break for companies which employ people, funded by eliminating other tax deductions. Companies will hire when the expected revenue gained from the added employees exceeds the cost of employing them (note that this is mostly independent of corporate income tax rates) -- this kind of tax deduction directly reduces the cost of adding employees and creates a real incentive to hire. (2) Stop spending so much money on military adventures. Waging war all over the globe is very expensive, and a lot of the money either gets blown up (i.e. missiles and bombs) or is spent trying to rebuild parts of other countries that we already blew up, or just goes to waste in places with a lot more corruption than we have here. We could easily cut military spending by 25% or more. Spend most of that money here at home to improve our infrastructure, where it directly creates jobs and helps businesses grow here in the US. (3) Improve our medical care system. There are two easy reforms that could save huge amounts of money (and lives). The first is to allow medicare to negotiate with drug companies as a single large buyer the way the government programs in Canada and other countries do. The second is to add a public option (basically medicare for anyone who pays the subscription fees, which should be sufficient to cover costs). Again, this is without cutting benefits for anyone. (4) Give the IRS more money and let them do their job. Enforcing the existing tax code is not a tax hike -- but could easily bring in more revenue.