Leaderboard

Double, if partner bids 2NT Lebensohl I'll be a coward and bid 3♣. I don't like this hand nearly as much as I like the average 17-count.

Software for Bridge Simulations and Studies DealerV2 is a significantly expanded version of the program first written in 1990 timeframe by Hans van Staveren of Amsterdam. The original version is still used today by BBO for generating deals for bidding practice and the like. The code, binaries and documentation for DealerV2 are available on github at: https://github.com/dealerv2/Dealer-Version-2- The latest version of dealerv2 includes the ability to use Richard Pavlicek's library of over 10 Million solved deals. Having a source of __solved__ deals greatly speeds up studies of various kinds. More than 100x faster in some cases. The latest version of dealerv2 also includes a feature which allows the user to write his own extensions to DealerV2 functionality. The 50 page User's Guide explains how to use the many new features of DealerV2 to conduct simulation studies efficiently. The program has been written for, and runs on, Linux. There is no Windows port available at this time. However it will run on Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL) without problems and the instructions for doing so are included in the documentation. Show_RP_DB is a program written in C, that can take deals from Richard Pavlicek's library of over 10 Million solved deals and print them out in a brief PBN format. RP's Library is in a highly efficient binary format that is not human readable. This program shows how to extract the deals from the library and decode them into something easier to use in studies and simulations. The tools to create RP's Library can be downloaded from his website: www.rpbridge.net. These tools run on MSDOS. If you do not have such a system, the github repo also includes a copy of RP's library. Because Github limits file sizes to 100 MB the library is in 3 separate pieces which can easily be concatenated together. The repo is at: https://github.com/dealerv2/Show_RP_DB JGM 2023/03/21

Is it specific wording that matters or the broader category of type of rights that were intended to be protected that matters? There is no right to privacy or right to vote specified in the constitution; does that mean the justices were insane when they ruled about these implied rights? Because the right to abortion was previously ruled to be implied by privacy rights, themselves implied, there is no right spelled out. The starting point should be that the constitution is an imperfect document and other than broad categories should not be pigeon holed into precise meanings. Is that not sane?

Have you seen the suits and hands people preempt on at favorable these days? South could have a triple stopper and a strong hand. Or Axx and be able to hold up and prevail if can keep west off lead, opener may not have a side entry. Or a stopper and a long suit source of tricks, might have to gamble sometimes on partner providing some useful help for the ninth trick.

[hv=pc=n&s=sq6hjda9642cakj53&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=2s(preemptive%206-9)p3s(weak%20raise)?]133|200[/hv]

[hv=pc=n&s=st987hj642d643c73&w=sak2hk7dajt85ca98&n=sj53hat93dk972c62&e=sq64hq85dqckqjt54]399|300[/hv] The bidding started out with west opening 1D, north passes, east starts a 2/1 with 2c, south passes, west bids 2d, pass, then east bids 3c. We used to play Q-minorwood but due to not playing bridge for a long time, we have not reviewed this so it is not on our card. I sense a possible slam, so I said 4NT, and partner responded 5C (1 or 4). Now, I desperately want to bid 6 clubs, but the lead is coming from east and I have a K doubleton of hearts. I am concerned about losing 2 hearts, and I am not sure if partners one card is the king of clubs or the ace of hearts. We played 5c making 6 - and this is an especially bad score because we could have played no trump if bidding below slam. Is there any way I can find out about the critical card which is the QH? Our cue bids are 1st round control, so it would have take a lot for me to show the KH so partner could make a decision based on his queen. Very few people in the field made it to slam - but it is not the strongest field. Most people played 3 NT. Thanks in advance.

We play that opener's 2NT rebid shows either 12-14 or 18-19 HCP. (Responder assumes it's 12-14.) If responder then bids 3NT, opener will raise to 4NT to show 18-19 HCP. Opener's jump rebid of 3NT shows 15-17 HCP and a hand that didn't bid 1NT for some reason (probably 5-4-2-2). We also play that notrump rebids promise stoppers in the unbid suits but not everyone plays that way. We play the same way after 1M-2m, so this keeps things internally consistent and easy to remember.

He doesn't, which is ironic given how much more apppropriate it seems than the ill-conceived powers to meddle that he is currently conceded (such as attempting to stop Declarer from making a POOT or asking about his potential revoke). My point was the irony of this contrast, rather than a request to allow him to refuse to revoke. I don't have strong feelings either way on not revoking: on the one hand it would be logical to allow him to refuse to revoke (or better, make it an infraction to comply with Declarer's request) but on the other hand it creates a perhaps dangerous exception to the desirable principle of being a passive agent, as axman points out. Stop there, we actually agree up to this point :)

Much appreciated. "Years of mycroft" - ah that makes a lot of sense. I have been told two things many times in my life: You write like you speak; And you can be very confusing, especially with frequent side-tracks, when you speak. Yeah - okay :-). I intend (if I can figure out how to use PedantPoint) to display actual bullet points, and perhaps the text as an after. So I only have to fix my notes for *after* I've confused them with my talk.

Good question. I usually pass 3NT without much thoughts since 3NT isn't doubled and 4♦ may not be any safer. But on this hand I probably should have bid 4♣ as 4♦ just requires partner to have no more than two hearts, or maybe opps don't take their heart tricks on time. Also, 3NT-1 (or -2 depending on how the heart split) is a likely bad score as it doesn't look like opps can make anything. Another option is to bid 5♦ to rightside the contract. On a spade lead it is easy for them to find the heart switch if my hand is in dummy. Unfortunately, 4♦ isn't to play so if I want to declare myself I have to bid 5♦. On a good day, partner has a stiff heart so 5♦ is cold regardless of who declares. Then again, if I pass I can bid 4♦ if they double it. I don't think it should matter what fabric opps are made off. Except that now I know about this specific Argine weakness. Unless it was a simulation fluke.

If partner is looking at four hearts and knows that I would have competed with 0-1 hearts (LoTT), then he also knows that opps are in a 7c fit at best. That would make a penalty double more understandable on some hands, especially now that we need a good board. I hope that's what's going on. So Pass.

I've used G3NT a few times with Argine and only once did it respond 4♣p/c I'm still not certain what criteria it uses to decide. With a human partner would you still pass with the South hand?

Do I want to defend 2♥x opposite a 3343 9-10 which is what would be suggested as partner's hand, not sure I do. Worst case, AJx, Qxx, Q10xx, xxx, considerable danger this is making an overtrick, I bid 2♠, unlikely to be doubled and may get out for -1 or even make if the spades split.

Pass. That's not my bid btw, that's my reply to "To save or not to save" :) What I do not get here is how partner can X now, and only bid 2♦ first time round. It does not add up imo. Except if West has overcalled on 4M at the one level (!): it happens, and the opps. are in a Moysian, and partner has 4 trumps and about 9 HCPs. Maybe West has psyched, that is a possibility here, but not much of one imo.