Leaderboard

I still think it is wrong that I only get 6-4 from this farce: http://webutil.bridg...84411008&u=ye17

I blew the defence on a hand in a county match at the weekend. Teams-of-eight, cross-IMPs to VPs. [hv=pc=n&s=st9875432hq6d4ct3&e=skqht7542da76cq54&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=1d1n2d4s5ddppp]266|200[/hv] Opponents (EW) are playing Acol (but have a curious aversion to doubling 1NT overcalls). We (NS) have an agreement that partner signals attitude on the lead of the ace, count on the lead of the king, at the five level or higher (standard signals, high-low to encourage or show an even number). I led ♥K to see how many tricks we could cash. I know that playing the queen under the ace or king normally shows the jack, unless it's a singleton (or the jack's in dummy), but does this apply in a situation where we're probably just trying to cash our tricks? I won't give the full deal, as I just want to know in principle if you think South should play the queen here.

Declarer does not have Jxx. That would leave partner with AKx and that is an ace lead. Similarly partner does not have AKxxx as that would not be a 1NT overcall, so it is clear that partner has precisely AKxx. That seemed so obvious to me that it was not even worth putting into the previous post!

Compared, of course, to the very polite, understated views of those on the right, especially with regard to uppity blacks in high office, or women with the temerity to run. Ah: republicans: such caring, compassionate, polite people.

This is a fairly common assumed agreement in my area. I mostly run into it as a director after 1NT-X-p-2♥; p-2♠-p-indignant 3♥ (the alternative, 1NT-X-p-2♦; AP in the 3-2 fit doesn't usually result in a director call). That should give you a good idea of what I think is the biggest problem with this treatment. I will not play this; I don't run from 1NT-X without a bad hand and a place to play (2NT being an exception: "I don't think we're getting 1NTx enough, pard") so I want to be able to run out into all 4 suits. Also note that as a weak NTer, I'm almost always happy when the opponents rescue me from 1NTx, even if they're right; 1NT is frequently a better preempt than a weak 2, and I'm always happy when the opponents rescue me from my weak 2s as well. Sure there's an advantage to having the strong hand concealed; there's also an advantage to having the strong hand on opening lead. There's also an advantage to being able to play 2♣, possibly doubled, rather than 3♣, more likely doubled. I frequently couch my opinion more colourfully (I think Helene has quoted me effectively).

I think this is a terrible idea. you absolutely need to be able to play 2c. Transfers are useful when responder can be strong. you first transfer and then bid no trumps or a new suit. that way you avoid having to jump to show strength. but here advancer can't be strong as he would have left the double with a strong hand. so there is no reason to play transfers

Hello Polixenes and welcome to the BBO forums. Like yourself and Steve, I like a 2NT advance - 13+-15 with heart values seems like a reasonable description. Could it be that the problem came on the 3NT call or in the play? Was there an alternative making game available?

Elyk25-M1cha 5-5 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:e4dc7d1f.dc6b.11e6.90ac.0cc47a39aeb4-1484626664&u=Elyk25 Only 2 more matches to go! Waiting on veryfy and broze to accept my invitation. I'm assuming bobhew32 will deny my challenge again, but I will contact him once more. Waiting on sep123 to complete the challenge on his end. It expires in 13 hours. I completed all boards.

sieong - jeffford76 3.5 : 6.5 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:1c9c0050.dd41.11e6.90ac.0cc47a39aeb4-1484718240&u=sieong

My group status olegru - 5.5:4.5 - http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:0f467b16.db55.11e6.90ac.0cc47a39aeb4-1484506905&u=tonywuhk#a broze - challenged stoppiello - 3.5:6.5 - http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:82922f92.dc5e.11e6.90ac.0cc47a39aeb4-1484620915&u=tonywuhk#a m1cha - 5.5:4.5 - http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:325e9847.ddbb.11e6.90ac.0cc47a39aeb4-1484770675&u=tonywuhk#a cherdano - 6:4 - http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:be9159c0.da9b.11e6.90ac.0cc47a39aeb4-1484427313&u=tonywuhk#a herzas - 4:6 - http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:03e8a3db.dcec.11e6.90ac.0cc47a39aeb4-1484681691&u=tonywuhk#a veryfy - challenged bobhew32 - challenged sep123 - played Elyk25 - 2:8 - http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:088eba25.dc6c.11e6.90ac.0cc47a39aeb4-1484626723&u=tonywuhk#a

m1cha - tonywuhk 4.5 - 5.5 http://webutil.bridg...4770675&u=m1cha

stoppiello 8 - herzas 2 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:60a1bc20.dc5e.11e6.90ac.0cc47a39aeb4-1484620858&u=stoppiello I think I saw Elyk and M1cha report the results....have two remaining, playing now, the other no answer yet (challenge is 2 days old)

m1cha - elyk25 5 : 5 http://webutil.bridg...4626664&u=m1cha

RR. Group 1. Nige1 = 5.5. Pio_Magic = 4.5.

Its not Imps man. Didnt look at the boards but your 710 and 480 might have been minus positions.

Elyk25-Tonywuhk 8-2 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:088eba25.dc6c.11e6.90ac.0cc47a39aeb4-1484626723&u=Elyk25 Also, bobhew32 has denied my challenge again, as well as ignoring a PM while he was online asking him to accept the invitation. I suspect he has no intention of competing in this challenge. Can anyone else in group 2 verify having the same issue?

herzas - tonywuhk 6.0 : 4.0 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:03e8a3db.dcec.11e6.90ac.0cc47a39aeb4-1484681691&u=herzas

You are safe, no video coverage of the Camrose planned.

He's made it clear that he is happy to sign off on tax cuts for the wealthy. That should be enough to have him considered a True RepublicanTM by the DC Republican establishment. (They don't care about abortion or opposing gay right or any of that stuff unless it helps them win elections in order to cut taxes for the wealthy.)

The election means that the Dems have very little say in what happens. So what should they do? I hope that when the 2018 elections in the House and Senate roll around, they will be able to say more than "I boycotted the inauguration". Here are some thoughts: With regard to the ACA, they could acknowledge that the voters, intentionally or not, have set the stage for its repeal. They could strongly advocate for the replacement to be fully developed before the current plan is repealed. Moreover, they could suggest, but only if they mean it, then they would like to work cooperatively in developing a replacement. As things stand now, it is not clear if even Reps have any say in the development. Trump is almost done designing it, so he says. As if Monday he will set it out, Tuesday the House will approve, Wednesday the Senate will approve, Thursday he will sign. That is not going to happen even if, and I doubt it is so, Trump has something of substance ready to go. If the ACA had been a cooperative effort from both sides of the aisle and the White House, it probably would be working better, would have had broader support, and it would have been easier to fix the glitches. That didn't happen. Past is past, we could try to do better. Rehashing who is to blame is not my idea of doing better. Not that I think any of this will happen. I don't, or I try not to, live in a dream world. But in two years there will be another election, in four years there will be another presidential election, and the Dems will have to say what they have done, or at least what efforts they have made. It has to be more substantial than boycotting the inauguration. As for legitimacy, the first election I voted in (1960) Kennedy made a huge fuss about a non-existent missile gap. The first election I took an interest in (1952), McCarthy was calling Stevenson a Communist. There is a lot of crap during elections, we cope as best we can. People voted, the machines weren't rigged, we have, for better or worse, the Electoral College system, Trump won. On Friday, he becomes the president. That's the end of that phase. If Dems want the support of the people two years from now, they need to get started showing that they can accept reality and deal with it as productively as possible. We can hope.

Yes, and also the prospect of president Pence is arguably worse.

While I am no fan of DT personally, I think hoping for his death is in poor taste.

sieong - xbabarx 6.0 : 4.0 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:5bea5423.dc80.11e6.90ac.0cc47a39aeb4-1484635453&u=sieong Remaining challenges to jeffford76, samboone, zenoo have been issued and waiting to be accepted.

crazy4hoop vs. el mister: 5-5 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:4c40d917.dac6.11e6.90ac.0cc47a39aeb4-1484445589&u=crazy4hoop I think that this challenge simply expired since I got 50% on each board and none of my opponents' scores are listed. Did el mister drop out or do I just need to reissue the challenge?

m1cha - stoppiello 6 - 4 http://webutil.bridg...4503334&u=m1cha @Elyk25: I found your challenge and accepted it, gonna play it tomorrow.

ovncylmz-el mister: 7.0-3.0

Elyk25-Stoppiello 6-4 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:792d3e9e.dc5e.11e6.90ac.0cc47a39aeb4-1484620899&u=elyk25

http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:2ed1dc51.dafe.11e6.90ac.0cc47a39aeb4-1484469592&u=Stephen%20Tu Stephen Tu 7 - 3 mkgnao

ye17 5½-4½ zenoo http://webutil.bridg...84410982&u=ye17 ye17 6-4 nekthen http://webutil.bridg...410924&u=ye17#a ye17 6-4 xbabarx http://webutil.bridg...84411008&u=ye17 Having played the first 2 boards badly, xbabarx appears to have tried to get the challenge cancelled by not playing the last 8 boards, despite being online quite frequently during the last 3 days. These boards have therefore been scored as 50%. Had they been played, I would have hoped to score rather better than this. What is the appropriate method of flagging this behaviour? jeffford76 and samboone haven't responded to my challenges, so they have lapsed.