Manastorm

I noticed something as a declarer, which seems to fool GIB. Sometimes there is a dangerous switch, which you don't want to see. One way to tackle it, is to make GIB decide early what to do. The simulation GIB does has a greater error, when there are more cards left. However you can improve the situation by playing certain cards. If you have AKxx in a suit, you should take the ace early. The effect is that GIB is more inclined to lead that suit now, since its simulation sometimes suggests it is the winning action to cash out KQ in the suit. You wouldn't bare the suit like that would you, but GIB doesn't know it. If you don't cash the ace, the simulation may consider opening the suit very dangerous and by doing so increases the chance of an unwanted switch.

East is given information A and west B about an agreement. Why isn't A and B the actual agreement? Isn't an admission that I miss spoken and yes partner is correct just self serving and gains advantage. After all one side was given the right information and the other not, instead of potentially both sides were given missinformation. Secondly, if A and B is deemed the correct agreement, then it could well be an illegal agreement with due consequences. Why system notes at home dictate what the agreement is instead of what actually happened at the table? Why should the notes have any relevance in the case?

It seems that 6NT is more likely to make with the remark than without. Surely the law doesn't allow it.

The video was quite revealing. If things are as they look like, heads are going fall soon. 11000+ viewers means that every bridge player has watched it, someone from WBF should look it also and do something. I can't believe BZ got away once, incomprehensible! Honestly, there has to be profound changes how bridge playing is arranged.

BW has several threads about past and ongoing BZ investigations. It is hard to follow them, when they are sprinkled all over. Does anyone know the right thread to follow? And if Kit Woolsey is going to write something about it, I would like to know asap.

Would it be simplest, if the combined explanation is the actual partnership agreement. If the explanations are essentially the same, no problem. If they differ enough, then it is a disclosure problem or an illegal agreement and dealt appropriately.

I open 1♣ and repid 1NT, however I am not surprised, if 2♣ is a winner. We tend to have one of the major suits wide open, which often leads to 90 or -50. 2♣ making is going to cover 90, sometimes opponents let us play 2♣ when we are in a low scoring contract, but would rather balance over 1NT. I am not too worried that opponents outbid us easily, because 3♣ seems to be a nice spot versus a random balanced hand. If I repid clubs, I am probably done whatever happens next. However after 1NT I can still balance with 3♣ or 2NT, if opponents try 2M. I don't think it is a good idea to open this hand and give up when opponents find unsurprising 2M. I would more inclined to pass this hand, if I didn't have such a nice playing strength. I think minimum balanced should cause more worry, because there is very little to do, if opponents compete over us.

I mean two equivalent ranges, which you can disclose in two ways. 13+ -16 or 14-16 add upgrade lot, could be light, use judgement etc. If both ways are a legitimate way disclose of your methods, can you decide which you use at the moment you are asked. The point is not to send a message to your partner, but to control your opponents methods. If you are asked several times during a session, can you vary your answer between the equivalent versions.

I mean one range, but two equivalent representations.

No trump range can be hard to explain completely that's why people use common phrases like 14-16, 13+ - 16 and so on. Some think that you can use equivalently 2 different ranges: for example 13+ -16 for 14-16, if you upgrade frequently. If that is really the case, can you then disclose which ever you wish when asked to your benefit? Give lower range when you wish your opponents bid and higher range when you don't. Maybe your opponents defense varies depending on your range and you wish they use a certain method over another depending on your hand.

I agree that partner can't have the cards I am wishing, unless without any justification 3♠ was forcing.

I would try 4♣ in case we have a slam.

It seems that, if one changes agreemensts to 15+ or strong for 1♣ and 22+ or strong for 2♣ you are safe. Maybe you can include strong options creatively in other places too as it seems you can call what ever you want to as strong.

I bid 2♠ showing a minimum opener. I agree with 1♠ opening. This is better than a bad 12 pointer, which I usually open.

Pass. Both majors are almost wide open. Opponens aren't going to lead safe and wait for you to cash 7 clubs.

I pass. I usually pass balanced minimums that's why I would consider passing 3♥ also, though I admit it is not easy to pass.

I dont think you can assume missbid at all. All you know is that partner alerted 2♥ and nevertheless chose 4♥. What you can think of it is unclear. Assuming relay responses cover all the possible hands, you are more or less facing a situation where a gibberish system is presented to you and you are left with an undefined 4♥ response. I would pass in that case for sure. When you are doubled, how likely would you do anything. I would pass and let partner clarify, if there is something to do. I take back alert part as you should not be allowed to know that a bid was alerted even when it was. So you cannot be forced to assume so in case of no alert either.

I go with ♣AKQxxx/x, ♦HHxx/x, void in hearts and ♠ A, singleton or void. One void is pretty clear, because otherwise she would have no reason to blast. Good clubs are needed for tricks. ♦HH to avoid 2 trump losers. Spades are harder, because 5nt would indicate no losers outside trumps, therefore a spade loser is a likely possibility. Would she do this with a singelton spade and a trump loser. It is very risky and probably unnecessary. Another possibility is that RKCB could take us overboard, so maybe 2 aces response would cause trouble, but that doesn't seem to make any sense. At least RKCB problem can be excluded.

If I was west I would not bid 4♥, because I would not be sure how many hearts partner has. She could be showing good spades, but wants me to support, if I can. I have clubs covered once, so I try 3nt instead and let partner continue from there.

I am wondering are we allowed to play bridge the way GIB plays - without memory of previous events.

I pass. I tend to believe partner didn't double, because he couldn't. It is unfornate, if opponents kept their eyes open and found the best spot, which seems to be quite possible. If the most pairs found 4♠, it was surely hammered, if partner was greedy. I can't correct it fully anymore. For example 3 out of 4 bid 4♠, then I am trying to beat a minority for an improved score. I prefer the opposite.

Partner is balancing, pass.

Is pass really an option here? I fail to see the merit. I get hearts in first, have 2 clear suits to offer and opponents haven't bid. If I was worried that opponents could outbid us, they are less likely to do it now. I should be much happier than at start, when I clearly had something. If you give me those cards every deal, I beat anyone in pairs.

1♥. I like 5-5 shape, good high cards, the only downside is a bad singleton king. I think this is a much stronger hand than a minimum balanced, which I would open. I am not afraid of losing a partscore battle, I win some too. If partner shows a good raise, would I try 4♥? Of course.

I double. 4-4 in minors and some values is lots of information in one bid, I even have Ax in ♠ as an upside. xxx in ♥ is usually a bad combination, but I don't see this as a close decision.