eyhung

The full LC Standard card is available on the Bridge Winners website through the convention card editor as a template. Larry Cohen himself has personally edited it and it will not be changing, so you can use it as a model for a BBO convention card template. Full disclosure: I am an administrator and editor for Bridge Winners.

Hi, I'm an administrator for Bridge Winners. I'm surprised to hear that the contact links are broken, we get feedback on a daily basis from many other users. If those don't work for you, you can email us directly at support@bridgewinners.com. We're launching first-time code to cover the Vanderbilt and there were some problems in the code that caused the performance to be very slow. Some of these performance issues should be gone now.

I'd suggest changes that, instead of being based on how easy they are to deal with, are more based on frequency of use (and thus are easier to defend against based on frequency). And then it might actively influence a larger pool of players than the scientists. My top choices would be: 1) Allow Woolsey over NT as GCC. Fairly common in high-level bridge nowadays, and even in clubs in my area. 2) Allow Polish Twos as GCC. I don't play them myself but they look useful, are straightforward to defend against (treat them like weak 2s), and again, a significant # of (mostly European) pairs play them. 3) 1m - 2H as an invitational balanced hand or a strong jump shift as GCC. Usually the opponents don't want to bid after this start, and it's pretty useful as a constructive tool. 4) 3NT Reverse Namyats (showing a good 4M opener) as MidChart. Right now it appears it's SuperChart which seems fairly ludicrous to me. This convention is not common but moving from Super to Mid would be a good start. Distant 5th) Allow Multi-2D as GCC. We gotta start learning sometime -- the rest of the world feels like they can deal with it.

Well, I guess I now know the worst hand I'll ever hold in my life. I was dealt : 753 53 6543 6542 in a Swiss match this year. I took a photo of the hand and it's on my cell phone. Pip count is 58. Seems really difficult to get less than 50.

Other two suits, and for simplicity I don't play that minors vs. majors matters. In my experience, partner's always the joker, so penalty is a poor treatment. Being 5-5 in the other two suits does come up (albeit rarely) and it's priceless when it does. I love this treatment so much that my partners often refer to this as "Eugene's favorite double".

I am a long-time partner of Joel Hoersch and I have his Joelcoby notes. If there is enough interest in it, I would be willing to publish an article on it on BridgeWinners.

Hallelujah to keeping track of completion rate. I assume that the Flash software will alert you if you are about to take an action that will cause your completion rate to get "dinged". Will Windows users also get dinged? What is the criteria for determining a "new member"? Date of first login, # of logins, or both?

The two situations are not analogous. The decision on whether to bid/pass is much easier when partner has already asked us to bid (via takeout double) than when he has passed (over 1NT). Competing at the 1-level in a suit partner is known to have support for vs. competing at the 2-level in a suit partner could be void in is like night and day. Not to mention that 1NT is a much more precise opening bid than 1D in standard systems, so responder is well-placed to judge correctly.

Perhaps chasetb didn't mean to conflate the "rude scientific New Yorker" with Larry, who is fairly well-known as a class act both at and away from the table.

East also autopasses in balancing if he has 0-9 HCP.

Did another 1000 and changed the passout parameter to have East (balancing) pass it out when holding 0-2 hearts (I tend to pass it out with shortness in the other major.) Slam = 754 No slam = 246 Unlucky slam = 58 [partner has 3 cards in a major but slam cannot make] No 5-level = 67 May be passed out = 44 ---------------------- So the answer on this sample was : 67 make 10 or fewer, 179 make 11 (and at least 58 are unlucky), 754 make 12 or more.

I've always treated these types of hands as 1S/6H and have been reasonably successful doing so, but I admit my sample size is not large. I have never been passed at the 1-level, but the argument that slam may not be making is a reasonable one. Let's see what a sim says. In 1000 hands (no constraints on the unseen hands) 608 make slam in spades 544 make slam in hearts 270 have no slam in either major 2 may be passed out (defined as North has 0-5 HCP and 0-1 controls, and neither East/West have a 2-level overcall (although that definition is not robust)). I don't think the risk of a passout is very high, especially given that we are unfavorable. Looking at the hands with no slams in either major, some are slams you want to be in single-dummy, but fail due to a foul break, while others are just bad.

Interesting you posted this hand today. It is similar to a hand I was reading in a bridge column yesterday where Lauria decided to drop his LHO's doubleton queen after RHO, known to have four, went out of his way to not discard one, causing Lauria to believe that RHO did NOT have the queen. Link: http://aces.bridgeblogging.com/?p=2188

I should add that the best time to bypass is when you have mediocre spades and a heart fit (Qxxx Kxx Ax KJxx is a clear 2♣ response for me), and the worst time to do so is when you have good spades and no fit for hearts. I'm not saying that I'm always bypassing, just that I'm willing to bypass and get my values off my chest, and try to sort out finding a 4-4 spade fit later.

I guess you'll have to be pretty harsh on me, Siegmund, because I was convinced to start bypassing 4 spades to show a game-force only a couple years ago and I think it's greatly improved my bidding. Auctions after 2/1 gf are one of the strongest parts of the system, just like auctions after a 1NT opening in sayc, and I think the tradeoff is well worth it. You lose some definition on the 4-5 hands but you gain much more by being able to convey your general balanced strength immediately.