PhilKing

Perhaps they should have been in Bali.

I have no idea what is going on, so I bid 4♠ - I don't think partner is splintering and I don't think he has hearts. And I am pretty certain I disagree with his bidding. :ph34r:

Birthday paradox obviously applies.

To the 4♥ bidders, is partner supposed to move with: ♠xxxx ♥Kxxxxx ♦x ♣xx :blink:?? Or look for grand with: ♠Kxxx ♥Kxxxxx ♦x ♣xx If you don't have a way of showing a 2452 hand that is the nuts, and differentiate that from a more mundane 2452 18-19, you have no chance.

One can easily tag on a flexible 1♦ opening onto a Polish framework. Since balanced hands can be opened 1♣, you can play 1♦-1M-1NT as unbalanced and forcing (16+). This way, you clean up the 1♣-1♦-GF diamond sequences. Over 1NT: 2♣ - weak relay 2♦ - 9+ relay

I'll go along with double.

Question 1: It's just a matter of sytem but my take is that you can put more hand types through a jump to 3♠. For one thing, the chances of having a spade splinter in this sequence are very low given the absence of any opposition bidding. So I would play: 3♠ = various. 3NT asks: .....4♣ splinter, minimum .....4♦ 2452 OK .....♥ ♠ splinter 4♣ = huge splinter 4♦ = huge, 4-6 4♥ = 2452 huge (as in the hand we have) The principle is that with minimum game raises, we keep our hand type campouflaged when responder does not have slam ambitions. To make it consistent, you could jig it around a bit, but be aware the spade splinter basically "never" occurs. Question 2: if we raise to 3♥, we have limited our hand - responder has no need to differentiate good and bad slam tries. As a matter of theory, when one player has limited their hand serious/non-serious does not apply. I general terms you should play step one as asking for shortage in these sequences.

Serious question - do you go by the name of Lord Moly B down at the club? :ph34r:

But he has indadvertantly kept himself in the game - when the defence clear trumps, he will have to resort to plan B. A ♦ at trick two keeps us on the tightrope, and we have a (potentially winning) counter whatever they do next.

It's a pretty obvious sacrifice - the real story is why they did not do so in the other room. I don't have the hand records to hand, but from my recollection, North showed a diamond feature on the way, which South took to be the ace. Fit jumps were not played in those days, so South doubled and lead a diamond, I believe.

They just play a fourth round of hearts, tapping the long hand, whilst the other defender pitches clubs. You are at least two off now, I think.

I am pretty certain the Doctors played "straight" against us in Beijing after set 2 (and I only saw one dodgy lead in that set), but they may have known they were being closely watched - certainly by us, but also, as I mentioned, by the WBF officials.

In my second scheme, you have all 4 suits covered, so 1NT is free for 45M nf and 2♣ for 54M nf if you wanted.

The auction matters - I need to know what West knew when he led a low trump. On the assumption that North opened 1♥, West is either short in hearts or has them well held himself. Since I probably can't make it in the former case, I will play West for QTxx or similar. I will need more luck than that - I need trumps to be 3-3 in most scenarios. So: Trick 1 - ♠K, assuming that holds ... trick 2 - ♦ How things go from there is up to the defence. If they win and play trump trump, I will go with my original read and take the heart finesse. This may lead to an overtrick or down two. If they continues diamonds, I need to be careful, but essentially I can always get home if my read is correct.

Maybe he used to work for the NSA ... They apparently have something called Cottonmouth-1 that enables them to access computers not connected to the internet.

I would advise learning what inversely proportional means. If other factors remain constant, ???? ??? ??? ??? has more losers than ??????? ?????? - - It's not rocket science! :P

Perfect hand for the system. B-)

I might be being a bit thick, but if I opened 4♥ (which I would) and 5♦ came back to me, I would have thought I had an obvious pass.

There are a few cases from high stakes poker where Trojans were planted on to a player's computer giving the villains remote access so they could play against the mark with full knowledge of the cards. In most bridge competitions, one often sees unmanned computers between sessions. It doesn't take a huge leap to see what could happen - and one probably would not have to be a computer genius to do it. One doesn't even have to crack any generating codes (and that has certainly happened a few times in the poker world as well). Edit: a quick look at Google (and Youtube) shows that basically any of us (apart from Wladow probably) could do it with a few minutes training: www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUlivXL1Y0Q‎

If only someone had a database which could provide hands from top-level competition where this sequence has occurred ...

It's basic theory. Diamonds are not important enough to use up your most economical call (that's the main reason we play transfers in the first place). You generally only want to show diamonds when you have no major, and if that is so you may as well cut out the one level. I won't go in to the possibilities of two-under transfers, but if you don't like complication, then you are free to play something simple.

Strewth! It's all changed since I was there then ...

Since when did diamonds become so important after 1♣-x? Just because Bocchi plays redouble as diamonds does not make it right. If you don't like 5-card major transfers, try this: xx = hearts 1♦ = spades 1♥ = clubs 1♠ = diamonds That way, you get to show all suits in a timely manner, and give due weight to the majors.

Er, we can get (almost) the lot. After 3♦: 3♥ = one 3 card major 3♠ = no 3M, unsuitable for NT from weak side 3NT = no 3M, happy to play 3NT 4♣ = both 3M After 3♥: 3♠ = nat 3NT = 5♥ But the problem here is one of information leakage.

The first structure is wrong as has been pointed out before, because it wrong-side 3NT in 2 instances (go through them and you will see what I mean). Ken's wrong-sides when responder has five spades and opener has neither. You can do better as follows: 3♦ asks: 3♥ = no 3M 3♠ = 3♥ 3NT = 3♠ This only wrong-sides NT when responder has 5♥ and a desire to play 3NT opposite no fit. And when opener has no 3-card major, responder can bid 3NT or bid 3♠ as an artificial probe suggesting 3NT, but only if opener is suitable.