Leaderboard

For me xx=first round control, 4♠ = minimum, 4♦/♥= controls, pass is a hand that is too good for 4♠ but may still have a red suit control if they are particularly interested in hearing opener xx to show a void.

"Not often penalised" means... not often penalised. It would be rare to give a procedural penalty. It does not mean that it is rare to adjust when there is damage. I think it would be an improvement for the laws to permit "small", etc, as legal designations. Provided it is used consitently it seems unreasonable to expect declarer to change to saying "six" in this specific case. Of course we would still be able to adjust if a declarer who normally specifies the rank were to say "small" in this case: that is a variation in manner which could benefit him, so he should careful to avoid it (73D1). I am glad this is an invented case; provided declarer normally says "small" I do not want to adjust, but I can't see a legal reason not to as the law stands.

Can anyone tell me how to get to partnership Bidding?

[hv=pc=n&s=sqt754ha42dt7caqt&w=sj3hkq95dq5432c75&n=sa986h76dakj6ckj3&e=sk2hjt83d98c98642&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1sp2n(Jacoby)p3c(minimum)p4n(RKCB)p5s(2+Q)p6sppp]399|300[/hv] IMPs; Lead K♥; table result +1430 Our 'friend' from a North London club, who looks and behaves like SB, was involved in another dispute recently, after a quiet few months. South was known to be a sharp operator, quick to exploit the foibles of weak players. West led the king of hearts against this poor slam, reached because North thought 3C showed a non-minimum, and South thought it showed a minimum. South won the heart lead and led the ten of diamonds, covered (perhaps wrongly) and won with the king. Declarer now cashed the ace of diamonds and called for a "small diamond" from dummy. When, East, not the sharpest pencil in the box, discarded, the hand was over. SB, West, called the TD and argued that the expression "small diamond" was a breach of 46A, and declarer "could have been aware" that the infraction would benefit his side, increasing the chance of East going wrong, as it could have given East the idea that the "small diamond" was not a winner. How do you rule?

I have a basic question that I can't find the answer to easily. After, say, 1♠ - (P) - 4♣ - (X) - ?? What are the standard meanings of the responses: P, XX, 4♦/4♥, and 4♠? I assume 4♠ is minimum with no slam interest, 4♦ and 4♥ would be control showing and denying club control. What are pass and XX? Does one show 1st round control, and another show 2nd round control, or is one of those bids neutral and give partner the opportunity to show a control? By extension, what are the meanings of partner's bids if I pass and the auction rolls around to her: 1♠ - (P) - 4♣ - (X) - P - (P) - ?? Does XX show a second round control, 4♦ and 4♥ guarantee 1st round control? Thanks!

Oh, this thread and the question that began it is not weak at all. The matters that it raises are of considerable importance. Here is some fellow who has departed from a legally required procedure in respect of the calling of a card from dummy. He has done so intentionally in order to gain some advantage. Law 72B is clear: a player must not infringe a law intentionally. Of course, only philosophers know what that means; the rest of you think that it means "with intent to break the law". It does not. Law 73D2 is clearer still: "A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of [...] any purposeful deviation from correct procedure". In calling expressly for a small diamond, South was purposefully deviating from correct procedure in an attempt to induce an error from East, and a score adjustment was in order when this machination succeeded. At least, that is (or so I surmise) the view and the intent of the OP. He has the Law on his side, and the Law is the true embodiment of everything that's excellent. On the other hand, I have just attended a tournament at which every single player (including myself) broke the Law a good few hundred times over the course of a weekend. What did they do? Why, they asked for a small card from dummy. Were the Directors called when this happened? Actually, no. What would they have done if it had happened? Their protocols doubtless proscribe them from telling the paying customers to go and boil their heads, which would in this case be a pity. "The common law", said Travers Humphreys, "is founded on common sense. The other law is made by politicians." Calling "small", or "small diamond", is technically an infraction of Law, but is a procedure so well established by custom and practice that to all intents and purposes it is legal, or (what is not quite the same thing, but ought to be) "not illegal". It is to be hoped that Laws 46 and 47 will be revised in the next edition of the Laws so that what has been done by everybody on what must be a total of billions of occasions does not constitute a breach of Law. To that extent, this thread has drawn attention to a deficiency in the Laws that ought to be rectified. It raises also questions as to what is and what is not a "legitimate swindle", if there can be such a thing. Such matters are entirely subjective, and if experience has taught me anything it is that people who think one way cannot be reconciled with people who think the other way even though both may be equally right or equally wrong. Incidentally, if Grosvenor were East, he would have ruffed the third diamond with the two.

Ok, the names are withheld to protect the innocent... Given the auction, I think RHO made a mistake on the first trump lead, but who would blame somebody for playing second hand low on a 5 lead? http://www.bridgebas...HJ%7Cmc%7C10%7C Dummy leads trump 5 at trick 6 and wins the trick, stealing an extra trick. (I think.)

They're probably just a bunch of communists... ;) Rik

Coffee-housing should be stamped out. So should bridge-lawyering. In this case one player may or may not have been coffee-housing. His opponent was clearly bridge-lawyering.

I disagree. North fits in the 6-9 total points range, counting 3 points for the club void. I would consider making a stronger bid with the North hand, not a weaker one.

I've mentioned before that my middle son, Daniel, needed parathyroid surgery when he was a freshman in college. Instead of the surgery that was strongly advised by his doctor there (and that would have laid him up for weeks in the middle of his first semester), we took him to Mayo for a minimally invasive surgery during his winter break. All went well and we needed to take him home to the Upper Peninsula the next day. Realizing that we had a long drive in the winter, the Mayo folks had scheduled us for our release consultation first thing in the morning. Going over the schedule with them the afternoon before this was to take place, the scheduler asked if we'd like to come in an hour before they ordinarily opened so that we could avoid night driving at the end of our trip. We did, and the doctors came in early to go over the results with us and to explain what we needed to look out for in the days and months ahead. That was only one of many positive interactions we've had with Mayo and their service.

Lighten up Mr Ace :)The deal is amusing and, as usual, JLOGIC's remarks (and yours) are instructive :) Incidentally, The site of Thomas Andrews illustrates how GIB and dealer can be used to remarkable effect :)

Without discussion it is forcing, but if you run simulations you can show that playing it NF and guessing the right game when you are stronger will win more often than it loses. However there are other methods that are better - Rubinsohl (basically transfers with a few twists) is one worth looking at (http://www.bridgeguys.com/Conventions/Rubinsohl.html).

The problem is that they are explicitly forbidden by the laws; IMO they shouldn't be. Law 46A says "When calling a card to be played from dummy declarer should clearly state both the suit and the rank of the desired card," and "should" is defined to mean that failure to do so is an infraction.

4♣ is some kind of natural game try for me so it is up to south to pick the final contract. Given his club values I would bid 5♣ and let North choose between pass and 5♦. North is not close to another bid over 4♦.

I agree (a little) with the top-directors. The thought experiment you should make, would be more like: "What if we played with screens, and the sled comes through with a 4♠ bid. What do you do then?" In the actual circumstance, this experiment would lead me to believe, that there where no logical alternatives to 5♥ Best Regards Ole Berg

Sure, you only adjust if you think there was damage, ie if you think the infraction might have changed the outcome. Unfortunately, much as I might like to believe otherwise, if a declarer who normally says "small" was to say "six" in this case, I think there is a reasonable chance it would wake East up. As I say, I do believe that it is completely unfair to expect such a declarer to do this, but the solution to that is to change the law. Obviously it is far better to discuss this sort of problem in a theoretical setting and get the law fixed before it actually comes up, which is exactly why Lamford's threads can be so valuable.

The real coup would be if north had ruffed with the K with KJ or something, that would be amazing

I think everyone would blame them when their partner has already ruffed with the king...

[hv=pc=n&s=sahak4dqjt873caj5&w=skj72h9862d64ckq2&n=st983hjt3da9ct643&e=sq654hq75dk52c987&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=p1dppp&p=ckc3c7c5h8hjh7h4dad2d3d6d9dkd7d4c9cjcqc6h6h3hqhkdts7c4d5djsjs9s6dqh9s8s5d8sks3s4sas2stsqhah2hth5cac2ct]399|300[/hv] unfortunately some mistakes were made in the actual play of the hand and I ended up having ♠A ♥A ♣5 opposite the three tens with LHO having ♠KJ ♣K

Anyone know if this passed?

Robson wrote about a newcommer in a snobbish male only club in London, who in the postmortem told an opponent how the latter could have made the contract by "counting the hand" The response: "My dear boy, I don't count. I consider counting a vulgar middle class habit"

Im new to the game and taking a beginners class at my local bridge club.My question is what books would anyone thats been playing for awhile recommend?

2 weeks ago. Opponents bidding: East- West 1NT - 2♣ 2♦-4♥ pass West: "I thought your 2♦ was transfer to ♥." They played 4 ♥, down 2 on 36 points and 2-2 fit. There were 3 lines in protocol, our was in the middle. Both other pair played 7NT. One re-doubled made, other just doubled, down two. The only picture card on our line was Ace.

Not a comment but certainly a pretty stupid play. My partner got locked in dummy with 6 tricks left playing NT, dummy had: ♦AKQJ5 ♥8 RHO had: ♣A ♦xxx ♥J10 The other hearts had gone so a normal person would claim their diamonds and give up a heart (and maybe a diamond) but my partner knew the oppo better than me. He cashed his 5 diamonds and RHO kept the ♣A !!!

I don't know if it was fancy, obv, or lol, but I played righty for doubleton diamond and ♥KQ ♣K.

I had this auction: 2♠ 3♦ 3♥ P 4♥ AP This made and when we whipped out the traveler, the diamond bidder, who couldn't analyze the hands, looked at it wrong and the following conversation ensued: Opp1: I knew it! We can make 5 diamonds! Opp2: I had 2 points. Opp1: It's not all about points! It's about distribution! Opp2: I had 2 points and 2 diamonds.

That might be useful but I also think the splinterer being able to show a void is super useful if he has shown 0-1 in the suit he splintered in. Even your keycard responses are much better if responder gets to show his void so he doesn't feel compelled to do so after keycard, or he can XX then over 4H bid keycard himself despite having a void since he's shown it etc etc. A lot of the times a slam is missed or a bad slam is bid in splinter auctions are when you have ace opposite void and misevaluate it (since it's good opposite a stiff, but it's duplicated opposite a void since partner has probably upgraded for his void), or when responder has the void and opener goes low.

I can't believe you think Obama suggested socialized medicine. Still, I think you hit on some important points. One thing I can assure you of is the administrative costs of medicine in the US is outrageous compared to other industrialized nations that provide some form of national healthcare. Of every dollar spent in the U.S. on healthcare, about 30% goes to "cost of doing business", which has nothing directly to do with promoting health care for anyone.

The insurance company that gets the best rates for hospital care is Medicare. Not for drugs though because you ban Medicare from negotiating with the drug companies. A simple fix would be to give everyone access to Medicare's negotiated prices for all services, and let them negotiate with drug companies. Also legalise parallel imports from Canada and the like. Also, change your patent and copyright protection laws. As for what happened, well it's obvious. Everyone else went down various degrees of a national insurance / single pay scheme, and you didn't. The specific issue is that you have misaligned incentives. The insurance companies are rewarded for denying your coverage. This is literally the most profitable move for them to make at any point in time. It is also the opposite of what you want as the customer. The only way to fix this is by having the insurance companies incentives aligned to yours. There is a similar incentives misalignment in the US about primary care and acute care. In the US the hospitals are finacially rewarded if you come to hospital and need expensive treatment for something easily preventable in primary care. (There are probably similar incentives to overtreat in primary care, but getting people to show up to primary care is hard enough). But for you the customer, going to hospital is a bad outcome. Incentives are misaligned again. You could do this in lots of ways, and I invite you to think of some. The reason public sector insurance works better is there is no profit motive for the government to screw you out of coverage, and they can capture more of the positive externalities created by keeping you alive. Incentives are better aligned. Similar where the government is responsible for both primary and acute care, they want to get you out of acute care and into primary care - which is also your desired outcome.

There is an upcoming mathematics talk for the general public. I have enough sense not to bother people with this ordinarily, but I thought that some of you might find the abstract , especially the last lines, amusing: More info at http://www.maa.org/meetings/calendar-events/there-is-no-such-thing-as-public-opinion

I believe that I have mentioned before the bill for hospital services that I received after my (now ex-) wife nearly died after the birth of our third child. A couple of days after the birth of our son, my wife nearly died from a kidney stone blockage. After several surgeries and a 4-week long medically induced coma, she managed to survive. All told, she was in intensive care for 5 weeks and one more week in the hospital, followed by another month of rehab in a nursing home. A few months later, a package arrived. It was a bill from the hospital. The bill was fully paid by my medical insurance. Nevertheless, it was more than shocking. The total of the bill (which does NOT include services of the physicians) was over $6,000,000. I never did see the bill from the physicians or the other emergency services. For those who believe in personal choice when it comes to healthcare, explain to me exactly how I was supposed to shop around for life saving care for my wife at the time when she nearly died? Should I have told the doctors to stop what they were doing and give me an itemized price list of their services along with their experience in handling such a case? Should I have called around to other hospitals in the vicinity (this was 1998, and the internet was still relatively in its infancy) and tried to price shop and check out the credentials of the hospital staff and the attending physicians? Of course not. Medical services, especially emergency medical services, are not like other services. When you need them, YOU NEED THEM, and there is no time to exercise personal choice in the choice of physicians or hospitals.

You don't care about 2nd round control after partner has splintered. So in the 1st sequence: XX = 1st round control Pass = strong slam interest, demands cue bid 4♦/4♥ = cue bid (below game level, 1st/2nd round are shown up the line) 4♠ = minimum, no slam interest 2nd sequence: XX = void Since partner has shown strong slam interest, you're required to cue bid: 4♦/4♥ = 1st or 2nd round control (up the line, so 4♦ with both) 4♠ = denies 1st or 2nd round control in the red suits - rather unlikely after a club splinter but maybe something like AKxx QJxx QJxx x There are other possible cuebidding agreements of course but the above is easy to remember and fairly standard without discussion. For example, here's an additional trick you can use with discussion (in both sequences): if you have diamonds completely controlled and just a 2nd round in hearts (e.g. Qxxx Kxxx AKxx x): you cuebid 4♥ and when partner attempts to sign off in 4♠, you bid 4NT to show the AK diamonds.

Ever have partner play A then K then x, asking you (Dummy) to ruff low, when playing some level of NT? :blink:

A few years ago playing with my wife against another married couple we had an auction that went something like... 1C-(X)-1S-(2D after a hestitiation); 2S-(3D after a hestitation)-All Pass. I lead the SA to which dummy tracks with JT9x and partner follows with the Q. After I give partner a ruff the dummy screams (and I mean screams) "Director!" The director wanders over and says "who called?" - the entire room starts to laugh. Dummy says "I did" and starts to launch into his spiel. Of which the director informs him that dummy is unable to call the director during the play. After we complete our cross ruff and the contract goes several down dummy now calls the director (no less loudly). The director with a straight face repeated his question "who called?" Dummy accused me of fielding the psyche so the director asked me if I knew partner had psyched. I said I did as there were three clues. (1) Partner following with the Q suggested a singleton. (2) RHO's hesitiation over 1S which showed spades (3) and LHO's hestitiation over 2S which also showed spades. Dummy called me a cheat but I was laughing so much that I failed to get offended. Cheers, Stephen

LHO opens 1 spade, RHO responds 4 hearts, and without thinking I ask, "Is 4 hearts a game forcing bid?"

These things can happen, can't they? A year or so ago I was allowed to make 2 tricks from Q 10 opposite xx and just last weekend 3 from K Q opposite 10 x x, in both cases at NT and when the suit was led at trick 1.