eyhung

Josh, you are the go-to guy when it comes to hands in bridge books. I found the hand you mentioned, it's : [hv=v=n&s=sat98hkt2dak86c42]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] and the auction went 1♥ - P - 1♠. And yes, they were vulnerable against not at IMPs for the 1NT overcall. It's a great 14, though. Incidentally, opener had a balanced 15-count with 5 hearts and did not double (probably fearing a stealing responder.) Responder had Q743 Q J9432 953. Also, Meckstroth comments that partner's sandwich 1NT is less defined than a opening strong notrump because "they may be bidding his suits, and then he has only two choices -- Pass and 1NT." No offshape takeout doubles? Unclear ... to be fair, double feels less attractive on this hand because both majors have been bid.

Hm, Siegmund, I don't know. I'm blessed to be living in an area with strong local competition (the SF Bay Area) -- the power rankings usually equate my sectional games as equivalent to some regional pairs in remote areas, so my experiences of a regional pairs may not be calibrated to yours. I do think it's best to play a natural sandwich 1NT in NABC+ events / Gatlinburg -- all the hands I mentioned occurred in NABC+ events. It feels difficult to sort out hands later when you have to double on both balanced strong hands as well as shapely takeout-double strength hands. For what it's worth, my general style in system choices is to use tools that work against the best opposition. I figure if I am playing against weak opposition, they will either not be able to take full advantage or hand me points in the cardplay, and any systemic gains will probably be wiped out by added memory strain ("sorry, partner, I forgot 1NT was artificial in this event").

Justin -- I didn't mention double because I didn't feel I had the experience to comment on the superiority of double vs. 1NT. I have not yet doubled with an off-shape hand in this position -- usually I can bid 1NT with confidence (good 15 or 16) or pass (13-, and trust partner would have overcalled with an appropriate hand). This hand is pretty ugly for a 15-count, so maybe an offshape double is best, but the point of my post was to point out the subtle advantages of 1NT in this position. I think gnasher's point about hand-type is pretty good -- the most likely strain for our side is notrump, and we are taking a slight risk by bidding notrump in exchange for a precise level-setting auction without getting sidetracked into clubs or spades with so many soft red cards. I think you exaggerate the low frequency of hands where we can double. I will pretty much double here on most hands [EDIT: with takeout double values] containing 4 spades and 4+ clubs, even if they have red values. But lying about the 4th club on this hand when it screams notrump seems to be going a little too far. MarkDean -- you're right, support doubles should be irrelevant against good opponents, but in practice some good opponents aren't completely confident -- such as a pickup expert partnership, frequently seen in the lesser NABC+ events. Also, when responder is frequently stealing, either opener has to have more values than normal for the double, or responder will pull on hands he shouldn't. Fred has quoted Jeff Meckstroth on how he hates to defend or declare 1NT-X. I imagine other top players feel the same way. After starting to play 1NT in the sandwich position as natural, I have not yet gone for a number, and have already won 3 boards where it occurred, so the treatment looks like a winner to me. As for non-natural 1NT sandwich bids, I used to play them but I have given them up as I started playing against better competition. I found that the extra descriptive value of the sandwich 1NT does not compensate for losing the natural overcall against thieving opponents. This includes the top Poles: Balicki stole my teeth out last year by responding with a light 1H while I was playing an artificial sandwich notrump. I held a balanced 16 with a doubleton spade, so I passed and we missed a vul game. The balanced 15-18s come up much more frequently when RHO regularly responds on 4 or even 1 HCP. Larry Cohen is also on record in his books advocating the natural sandwich 1NT, saying that it's indispensable in top-flight modern bridge. If you play at a lower level, by all means, use the artificial sandwich, it should work fine, but I strongly suggest you change your methods if you start playing up.

I think it depends somewhat on your opponents and their methods. If they look like solid types who have their bids, I would pass, this isn't a very good 15. But oddly enough, if they are excellent players playing support doubles, they are likely stealing and I would bid 1NT to get across my values and shape. At the SD NABC, my partnership twice had to overcall 1NT on similar hands in this position in order to get to our normal game of 15 opposite 10-11. Both times, responder (Curtis Cheek, Norberto Bocchi) had a super sub-minimum (1 or 2 HCP IIRC) and was trying to steal.

Tony -- Thanks for the compliments, it's nice to see someone who can take criticism well. I also came to bridge through rubber and for a while, I, too, shared your views. But once I learned that IMP vs. MP are practically different games, and learned the techniques unique to each format, I realized that by applying winning matchpoint principles in MP events, one can win more consistently than by applying winning IMP principles in a similar IMP event. To me, the most important decision on the board was not in your endplay technique or the opening lead, but in your partner's decision to use Stayman and play in the 4-4 major-suit fit rather than 3NT with two balanced hands with a combined 28 HCP. Partner is even 4333, making it even more of a no-brainer. I think all good matchpoint players would just raise to 3NT. (Heck, I would raise to 3NT at IMPs too, but I expect more dissent.) At MP, 3NT rates to be the percentage contract either by force or through the opening lead (people tend to lead more aggressively against 3NT, so it more frequently blows overtricks, which is well-rewarded by the scoring). Yes, there are hands where the percentage action is not correct -- usually when partner has a 5-card spade suit or a worthless doubleton in clubs -- but it's still the percentage action, just like bidding aggressive games vul at IMPs. Having a board determined mostly by the bidding is not unique to matchpoints -- consider this recent thread about an IMP hand : http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=36139&hl= In that thread, all the good players are bidding 3NT with an average 6-count because it's vul at IMPs. If your partner had made the elementary (to these players) IMP mistake of passing 2NT, it doesn't matter whether you could operate a three-loser triple squeeze to make 4NT -- you [as a partnership] lost the board in the bidding, and that error is so great any brilliancy or blunder in the play becomes practically irrelevant. Now, maybe your skill at IMPs is such that you think 3NT is automatic, but it wasn't so for the original poster and at least one contributor to these forums. Similarly, on your matchpoint hand, I think 3NT is automatic by your partner. His Stayman decision was a major error given the scoring, almost on par with refusing to take a finesse with no other alternatives, and as such, "doomed" you to at best a 54%. And actually, if you think about it, 54% is not that bad, showing that even if partner makes a major bidding error, you can still recover a significant amount in the cardplay. If "your soul is destroyed" by a 54%, I think you need to adjust your expectations. If anything, IMP scoring makes great cardplay skill irrelevant more frequently -- we've all played hands where declarer is always making 9-11 tricks in 3NT, or 8-9 tricks in a 2-level partial, and nobody really cares what happens after the auction. The skill at IMPs is that when great skill is required to bring home a contract, the reward is significantly greater than than the reward at matchpoints. Matchpoints is more democratic -- each major decision is worth roughly the same (half to a full board), and major decisions occur more frequently, so two great MP players will be hard-pressed to score below-average unless the field is full of great MP players.

You're projecting your attitudes towards bridge onto others. Speak for yourself. I for one, think there's a lot of skill in fishing out an overtrick in an otherwise-dull 3NT or judging how to go -100 vs. -110/-140 in a contested part-score auction, or making a momentous high-level decision on -500/-650, or judging between the safer 4/6M and the unsound 3/6NT. Even game vs. part-score decisions are usually harder at MP, it's not IMPs where it's "see red, bid game". And opposed to IMPs, more boards feature a significant decision that can greatly affect your score -- there are far more unmeaningful boards at IMP pairs than at MP. Yes, IMPs rewards certain skill-sets (such as safety play technique, or defending for the perfect cards) much more frequently than MPs. But it's presumptuous of you to say that skill-sets such as avoiding overtricks are lacking in skill. If anything, matchpoints defense is often a lot harder than IMPs defense because of the overtrick factor, you have to cater to a lot more possibilities. A few years ago, I was chatting with a star who frequently posts to these boards (name withheld if he does not want to be associated with these comments) and he told me he was disappointed whenever he scores less than 50% in a quality pairs event. At the time, I thought he was being arrogant -- from my perspective there was enough randomness in MP that could easily drop you below 50%. But lately, my opinion has changed to his. Playing with a competent partner, I am irritated when we score below 50% because usually to get below 50%, we have to make a significant # of errors -- there are so many meaningful decisions in a 24-26 board session that it's really hard to drop below 50% if you are consistently making percentage decisions. Of course, said star has now advanced to being disappointed scoring below 54% in NABC+ events, but hey, it gives me a target to shoot for. :) If that's the case, why do the same pairs (Berkohen, Gitelmoss, etc.) keep winning MP pairs events, while the national IMP pairs are practically random? (I believe only one player has ever won it twice.) Where does it say that declarer has the right to be in control of his fate? As long as one of the two partners (dummy and declarer) can make a decision that controls their fate, that is skill. True, declarer has more of an opportunity to control the partnership's fate on a board, but sometimes, the board is won in the bidding by the dummy (or the opponents, via a bidding/leading mistake). The more opportunity for a mistake to be punished / good decision to be rewarded, the more skill there is in the format, and for my money, the skill required to win a MP Pairs event > IMP Pairs; and the collective skill required to win a BAM event > KO event > Swiss event.

I don't see why you're so eager to attribute fawning patronage. I think there are plenty of people who are willing to go on board against stars, including stars (for example, jdonn and jlall frequently disagree). But when all the stars agree on a certain action, I find it telling, and I learn. So I'm find with hearing a chorus of similar viewpoints -- as long as people are being honest about their opinions. For what it's worth, I used to aggressively double in these types of situations but stopped doing so after Fred posted something that pointed out why it wasn't such a good idea. I like to think my results have gotten better since then.

Great book, but more than a little out of date if you ask me. I believe it's over 30 years old. Same for Lawrence's overcalls. His hand evaluation book has the most value currently IMO. Lawrence's overcalls book just got updated to a second edition, I browsed through it recently and it's a lot more current. He now recommends jump raises as pre-emptive, introduces the concept of the mixed raise (and the jump cue), and goes over a lot of areas that should be discussed by any serious partnership. It still doesn't treat this situation, though, because it's a problem for opener, not overcaller/advancer. Balancing doesn't seem quite so out-of-date as the original Overcalls. If anything, I find the frequency of balancing auctions keeps going down -- my opponents are responding lighter and lighter.

Can you tell me what the constraints for these are? ### non-overcall over 1D ### doesn't handle two-suiters yet proc pass_1D {hand} { [space] [space]if {[preempt $hand]} { return 0 } [space] [space]if {[spades $hand] >= 5 && [hcp $hand] >= 8} { return 0 } [space] [space]if {[spades $hand] >= 6 && [hcp $hand] >= 5 && [ok_lsuit $hand]} { return 0 } [space] [space]if {[hearts $hand] >= 5 && [hcp $hand] >= 8} { return 0 } [space] [space]if {[hearts $hand] >= 6 && [hcp $hand] >= 5 && [ok_lsuit $hand]} { return 0 } [space] [space]if {[clubs $hand] >= 5 && [hcp $hand] >= 12 && [good_lsuit $hand]} { return 0 } [space] [space]if {[hcp $hand] >= 15} { return 0 } [space] [space]if {[diam_dbl $hand 13]} { return 0 } [space] [space]return 1 } ### non-overcall over 1H ### doesn't handle two-suiters yet proc pass_1H {hand} { [space] [space]if {[preempt $hand]} { return 0 } [space] [space]if {[spades $hand] >= 5 && [hcp $hand] >= 8} { return 0 } [space] [space]if {[spades $hand] >= 6 && [hcp $hand] >= 5 && [ok_lsuit $hand]} { return 0 } [space] [space]if {[clubs $hand] >= 5 && [hcp $hand] >= 12 && [good_lsuit $hand]} { return 0 } [space] [space]if {[diamonds $hand] >= 5 && [hcp $hand] >= 12 && [good_lsuit $hand]} { retu rn 0 } [space] [space]if {[hcp $hand] >= 15} { return 0 } [space] [space]if {[heart_dbl $hand 13]} { return 0 } [space] [space]return 1 } [diam_dbl] is essentially a hand that has 13 support points (1/3/5 for shortness) counting diamond shortness, and valuing unsupported soft diamond honors as 0. So Axxx Kxxx x Kxxx would double 1♦, but Axxx Jxxx Q Kxxx would not. [heart_dbl] is similar but evaluates heart shortness. The support point number is an argument to handle takeout doubles at higher levels. [ok_lsuit] and [good_lsuit] use Kleinman's berry suit evaluator, OK is 15 berries or better, Good suits are 18 berries or better. http://dannykleinman.com/Documents/BRIDGE%2037%20POINTS.pdf for more info on berries. I should collapse all the suit evaluators to use berries as an argument, but I just discovered the berries idea recently. One of my pet projects is to come up with a reasonable set of heuristics to model early actions to use in simulations and then contrast with heuristics supplied by other leading players. I haven't had as much time as I like to do this. You are clearly an excellent player, Andy, so if you want to share your heuristics with me on when you should open 1NT with a 6cm, for example, we can take this to e-mail and I can build a simulator that will "bid like you".

I didn't realize this was a scientific review journal. My goal in simulation is to provide a ballpark figure, not a significant number down to the last decimal point that caters to all sorts of bidding styles. Modeling hands which would bid 2♥ on x36x, 2♣ on xx63, and the like feels like more work than the result is worth, as everyone has their own personal heuristics for these auctions. I was trying to use a set that nobody would argue with: you certainly wouldn't be surprised if partner showed up with a x36x hand that you would have raised to 2♥ with. And if a reasonable set of constraints tells me that 6♦ is on the order of 2/3 likely to make, and that 3NT is not likely to be the right contract over 5♦, then unless you can construct auctions that can convincingly determine that slam in diamonds is wrong below 3NT, I don't see the point in fooling around with 2♠ when game in diamonds is practically certain (90%+), which argues for forcing to 5♦ and giving yourself the best practical chance to investigate 6♦. Playing opposite an expert partner you trust, you can try 2♠, but my feeling is that getting into a subtle auction where you can count on partner to rebid 3♥ with Kx Qx in the majors opposite a hand that could hold ♠Txxx just leads to too many missed diamond slams. FWIW, my 1♦ openers include 11-counts, I should have stated that. Basically any hand that satisfies rule of 20 and 2 quick tricks. 10-counts, too, but that's impossible if opener can't have a 4-card side suit. As for the "quick-and-dirty" first run sim, the earlier results were based on not putting any constraints on the enemy hands, which I felt actually increases the chance of a spade singleton and thus a favorable opener for slam. I guess this was mitigated by specifying that West was a passed hand and East was a passed hand over 1♦, so opener rates to have more strength.

I like this method. But isn't hearts 0-5 also a failing case for line B? (We can assume hearts are unlikely to be 5-0 because of the failure to Lightner double). Even if we don't do the first order trick you talked about (eliminating 2% of hands doesn't change things much), that means the failing case for line B is West CA (50%) and HE 1=4, 4=1, 0=5 (30%) = 15%. which means A ~== B'. :)

And my point is that we can't. You've now described what you think 1♦ - 1♥ - 2♦ - 2♠ - 3♦ - 3NT should show : double club stop. While a few hands with a double club stop (Axx Q AJxxxx KJx) provide good play for slam, I agree that if you are on the same wavelength where partner will only bid 3NT with lots of club wastage, you are likely to make a good decision on 3NT vs 6♦. But, it doesn't seem to me that a random expert partner would restrict his 3NTs to just that: what if he holds something like Kx Qx AKxxxx KTx or Ax Qx AJTxxx QJT. No double stop, but he has to bid something over 3♦, and I would be surprised if 3NT didn't get some votes in an expert panel. Opposite these experts, you'd pass 3NT and 6♦ is great in either case. And your suggested interpretation doesn't get you to stop in 3NT opposite some of the hands you listed such as Qxx x AKJxxx Qxx (rebid 3♠) or even Kxx x AKJxxx Kxx (rebid 3♠). Face it, you have a primed-out gf hand with a 10-card diamond fit, it's going be really hard to stop in 3NT at IMPs without foreclosing some 6♦ contracts unless you've had some discussion on machinery to do this. My point is that up until your last post, it was completely unclear that your use of those two levels is going to be fielded by partner appropriately. I did say it might be possible to use the space between 2♦ and 3NT to design sequences where you could make an intelligent decision between 3NT and diamonds, but the OP was looking for a practical answer. Re: taking control, I meant : forcing the contract past 3NT and saying "we're playing diamonds dammit, how does your hand fit opposite club shortness?", that is, controlling the strain and pushing the partnership to 5♦. Apologies for the confusion -- clearly a splinter relinquishes control of the bidding to partner -- but it does control the strain, and that's what I was talking about.

My point about the unfairness of the 8-count example is that given that partner has a 1♦ opener, it requires a somewhat pathological distribution of high cards and shape in the side suits to make 5♦ poor. Yes, a spade singleton is unlikely -- but so is xxx given that partner has an opener and the opponents have failed to overcall or double. I expect a spade control or spade values very frequently, and the sim bears this out. When a small slam is making approximately two-thirds of the time, it seems unwise to attempt to cater to 3NT especially when it's unclear to me that partner is making an intelligent decision on 3NT vs. diamonds. Part of this is because you have not told me what your 2♠ - 3♦ - 3NT sequence shows -- but I doubt most people really know either. How does partner know that you don't hold something like AKxx Jxxx Q987 A, where heart weakness is death; or AJ AKxx Q9xx xxx where club weakness is death? Partner is just rebidding 3NT with 0-2 hearts and stuff in the blacks. If your blacks fit well, sometime you're playing in 3NT when you're cold for 5 or 6D, and sometimes you're even down in 3NT when 5D is cold. I don't think finding a good 3NT is nearly as frequent as finding a good 6D. If you can come up with a plausible sequence that could describe your hand so well that a "random expert North" could accurately judge 3NT vs. 6♦, then your approach has merit, but absent that, I think your hand needs to take control. I reran the sim with tighter constraints : West is a passed hand North has 6+ diamonds, 12-bad 16 HCP, no side 4-card suits East cannot act over 1D West cannot act over 1H Slam in diamonds makes = 690 Down in 5D = 69 Makes 3NT but not 5D = 67 No game makes = 2 Makes 5D but not 3NT = 85 And for what it's worth, my partnerships can stop in 4NT, because I explicitly define that 4NT is always strain-suggesting, never keycard, over a minor. I don't expect that treatment to be popular enough to use opposite a random expert North, but partnerships who use some form of redwood or kickback can probably do something similar. And even if 4C completely forecloses notrump, you're only missing out a small percentage of the time. I suspect trying 2♠ with the intent of stopping in 3NT on some auctions is going to lead to a missed diamond slam more frequently.

Uh, what? Sure, if partner has an 8-count 3NT will often be better than diamonds -- but partner won't have a 6331 8-count. Partner opened 1♦ and guarantees 6 diamonds. I agree with Justin -- this hand needs to drive to game in diamonds and investigate slam. Quick little sim (1000 hands) to make sure I'm not completely nuts here : Makes 6 or 7 diamonds : 62.7% Doesn't make 5D : 9.4% Makes 3NT but not 5D : 8.8% Makes 4NT but not 5D : 6.5% If you have methods to diagnose the unsuitability of diamonds below 3NT, more power to you, but you're only gaining on 2.3% of the hands if you can stop in 4NT after 4♣.

Any way to allow keyboard input of cards using the web client? I can type in a hand much more quickly than clicking on 52 different spaces.

I never expect 14 cards in a hand.

And for what it's worth, the Bay Area has had a significant number of young women playing bridge in the past few years. I can think of seven right off the top of my head. Maybe they're not good enough to represent the US, but most people aren't good enough to beat the guys like Justin/Grue/Johnny/Kranyak.

Marty Bergen also has a small book devoted entirely to Negative Doubles.

The last time I tried the sexy ♥K lead (from KJT9xxx) vs 3NT, I got the stiff ace in declarer's hand and the doubleton queen in dummy, allowing an unmakeable contract to make. So the K is definitely not without cost. The only reason I tried that lead was that my table feel told me that declarer was not thrilled to bid 3NT after I showed my long hearts and partner didn't raise, but I couldn't tell whether it was due to stiff ace or doubleton ace -- the only read I had was that he didn't have AQ.

Same hand with the S6 instead of the SJ and non-Justin dummy : Spade lead = 10.434 SD = 1.251883066109296 Diamond lead = 10.727 SD = 1.0842724042631777 Club lead = 10.652 SD = 1.1993057718256541 Spade better than Club = 232 Club better than Spade = 150 Spade better than Diamond = 242 Diamond better than Spade = 116 Diamond better than Club = 49 Club better than Diamond = 104 Looks like a spade is a huge winner now at BAM -- which confirms Evan's findings that AJxx is a really poor suit to lead from a trick-blowing perspective.

I looked at some of the simulated hands and realized that there were some hands where East (partner of opening leader) would overcall 1S, improving the results of the spade lead. After adding a primitive pass_over_1H filter for East (so no hands with 8 HCP and 5 spades, few hands with 6 spades, no takeout doubles of 1H, no 2C overcalls, etc.), and allowing North (dummy) to have 4 spades or 5 hearts in a balanced hand when the combined count is known to be 28 HCP, I get the following results for 1000 hands: Spade lead = 10.461 SD = 1.430568252662393 Diamond lead = 10.663 SD = 1.2381292194128852 Club lead = 10.632 SD = 1.2783623157032638 Spade better than Club = 228 Club better than Spade = 270 Spade better than Diamond = 234 Diamond better than Spade = 252 Diamond better than Club = 36 Club better than Diamond = 61 However, if we go back to the simple dummy constraints, where dummy always tries to investigate for a 8-card major-suit fit if one is possible (1000 hands): Spade lead = 10.215 SD = 1.4376515022222305 Diamond lead = 10.488 SD = 1.2959689562391281 Club lead = 10.459 SD = 1.3296943585226983 Spade better than Club = 262 Club better than Spade = 238 Spade better than Diamond = 265 Diamond better than Spade = 219 Diamond better than Club = 44 Club better than Diamond = 69 So it looks like a spade is actually the worst at BAM dbl dummy vs. Justin-type players, despite having the best trick average (you are more likely to gain multiple tricks on a spade lead, but the lead loses the board more frequently). Vs. typical Norths who always look for an 8-card major-suit fit, the spade is best.

Actually, the sim results say the opposite : a diamond (10.49) is slightly worse on average than a club (10.45) DD, but the margin of error is significant enough that it's possible a diamond is better. (Higher avg # of tricks is bad for the defense, not good.) I took the position, unsupported by the statistics, that a diamond is better than a club, single-dummy. If you want to give me constraints where LHO holds 4 spades or 5332, I'd be happy to add that to the simulation. But I believe that most people will investigate for their 4-4 or 5-3 major suit fit unless they know the combined count is at least 28 HCP -- and some always investigate. Even in the Blue Ribbons, I was cussed out by an opponent sotto voce when I raised 2NT to 3NT with a 4-card major (and a combined count of 28) and she led my major, giving us an extra trick over the field in 4M. I can also try to rerun the sim using gnasher and TimG's statistic -- frequency of win is important and can be lost in the averaging.

Incidentally, here are the relative "degrees of difficulty" for the recent NABC pair events as computed by Power Rankings (http://www.coloradospringsbridge.com/pr.htm): Nail LM Pairs 1st day : 8-9 Nail 2nd day : 10.5-11 Women's LM Pairs 1st day : 5.9-7 Women's LM Pairs 2nd day : 7.8-8.2 0-5000 Blue Ribbons 1st day : 4-5 0-5000 Blue Ribbons 2nd day : 6-7 Blue Ribbon Pairs 1st day : 8.9-10.5 Blue Ribbon Pairs 2nd day : 11.7-12 Blue Ribbon Pairs 3rd day : 12.8-13.5 To clarify, if you play in an event with 5 degree of difficulty, you expect to do 5% better than if you played in an event with 10 degree of difficulty.

Separate post for single-dummy analysis. It would not surprise me if a diamond > club single-dummy. If declarer is going to pick up a suit without my help, he's more likely to correctly play partner for diamond honors because his diamonds rate to be longer than dummy's (such KTx opposite AJxxx). In contrast the opponent's club suit on this auction is biased towards length in dummy, something like AJ9x opposite KTx,and now your lead will fish out partner's queen when it was more likely to score. A positive for the club lead is that the lead may help set up partner's long suit, but as we can see from the DD analysis, it doesn't help as much as a spade. I empathize with the people who do not like to lead spades because in a simulation Evan Bailey once ran, AJxx was the most dangerous holding to lead from vs. notrump from a top of suit perspective. KTxx (another 3 gap) was not far behind. In general I do not like to lead from such combinations, but sometimes you just gotta do it.

I strongly agree with Justin's post about recategorizing women's event points but I didn't post about it earlier because I felt writing about it would sound like sour grapes from a male player who saw his female friends getting more platinum points for smaller, lesser events. But if there is truly enough buy-in from great players such as debrose, fred, and Justin then maybe we should lobby our BoD representatives to make this change. How about for women's events, rose points? :) Also, titanium is far more common and cheap than platinum. Diamond points would be thematic, but then you'd have to rename diamond life master.