Laocoon166

In case you have not logged into BBO and seen the announcement here it is: You will note the incredibly short notice and lack of explanation. I am curious why BBO have chosen to do this and can only assume there is some legal reason. Any US lawyers who can hazard a guess? BBO charge a rake of $0.02 a hand to play, so I would have thought it was quite a nice earner for them. I would welcome comment from any BBO representatives. As far as I know BBO is the only place to play money bridge/rubber bridge online (someone please correct me if I'm wrong). There are alternative online bridge sites emerging to counter BBO so I'm even more surprised they are dropping this edge they have on those competitors (unlesss they are being forced to). A real shame imo.

Dbl seems obvious to me. OP doesn't say whether playing mandatory support xs or not however

No, and neither player is close to a move. Imagine South with same values but 3145 instead - then slam is poor and you would not think twice about it.

Okay - assume for the purposes of this hypothetical that he would always lead the suit. Perhaps his partner had bid diamonds or something.

Imagine you are playing a contract and LHO leads the ♦6. You can be 100% sure that the lead is from a singleton or doubleton and you need to guess which it is to make the hand with no other clues. Assume (from the auction say) that it is impossible for LHO to have been dealt more that 2 diamonds. Say the spots you are missing in the suit are 2, 3, 4, 6, 8. LHO's lead is therefore from either 64, 63, 62 or 6, so it is therefore 3:1 more likely to be a doubleton? Correct? (Even a bit more considering that a priori the doubleton holdings are more likely to have been dealt than the singleton holdings). To continue this line of thought imagine that LHO had led the ♦3 instead - either from 32 or singleton 3. Now it might seem that odds are roughly 1:1. However is there an element of Monty Hall restricted choice or something to suggest that the lead is a singleton? i.e. There are 10 (4 + 3 + 2 + 1) possible doubletons, and 5 possible singletons. When LHO leads the 3, 9 possible doubletons are eliminated and four singletons. The 3 is therefore twice as likely to have been in the singleton group than the doubleton. Am I making sense?

Right. So the software should probably be programmed not to do that. I've seen it several times now.

Often when you click on a player's name on Vugraph the software gets the name wrong. For example in the UK Gold Cup today it has Peter Crouch playing with Ron Smith from the US, where of course it is Nicola Smith... I don't know how the names are allocated but there are going to be plenty of players called 'Smith' or whatever - it seems absurd for BBO to assign the players names automatically. (Somehow I doubt the Vugraph operator chose that name from a drop-down menu) It's embarrassing for BBO and the player at the table. Can we get this sorted?

I really can't be hassled with learning suit combination tables - life is just too short, and besides often there will be some consideration on the deal which means that the "book" answer is not suitable. I'd much prefer to be able to work some of them out at the table, or at least have some intelligent thought about them. However with some I don't know where to start. Let's take the combo that prompted this thread. I had AQxx opposite J987 in the trump suit. (As it happens the J987 was the closed hand). On the face of it it doesn't look like a difficult one. I understand that you need to pick strategies and compare them regardless of what the opponents do. But here several come to mind. What's the thought process if you don't already know it? Is it possible/worth it to get good enough at this that you can begin to do it quickly at the table? Thanks.

[hv=pc=n&sn=Laocoon166&s=SAKHAQ874DJ53CAJT&wn=Robot&w=&nn=Robot&n=SJ9832HK5DAK2C642&en=Robot&e=&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1H(Major%20suit%20opening%20--%205+%20%21H%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B)P1S(One%20over%20one%20--%204+%20%21S%3B%206+%20total%20points)P2N(Jump%20in%20notrump%20--%202-3%20%21C%3B%202-3%20%21D%3B%205%20%21H%3B)P3N(4+%20%21S%3B%208-13%20HCP)PPP&p=D6]399|300[/hv] Matchpoints. How do good players approach hands like this? You could score anything between 8 and 13 tricks and the line to maximise that number seems like a maths problem that I have no idea how to solve at the table. What's a good strategy? ♦6 lead; leader is GIB who I think leads passively at NT according to DD simulations.

With all the entries, threats all over the place and 11 winners I imagined that I might be able to do some sort of clever strip squeeze. Perhaps nige's rather (excuse me) rudimentary line is the best. I'm sure it is at MPs where you want to try for the overtrick.

Yes - a lead would be helpful! Lead was a small club to the 10.

[hv=pc=n&ss&s=SA63HKJ9DA6CAKQ72&n=SKQJT94H87DK53C43&d=n&v=o&b=1&a=2SP2NP3DP4NP5DP5HP6DP6NPPP&]399|300[/hv] What's the best line to make the contract at IMPs? And at MPs is it worth just playing off clubs to get the over when they are 3-3? EDIT: Lead is a club to the 10

Apologies. I misread you post. For me I find it troubling that a TD had that opinion. I don't know what basis there is for it in the laws.

Exactly. On what basis were your opposition claiming this right Spyder? I don't believe they have the right to any such thing. Zel has hit the nail on the head imo. It concerns me that an EBU TD thinks this way...

Yes, we are. I was just drawing an analogy with the similar situation of asking about an alert, where the opponent might inadvertently be misled if he draws an inference about why you asked a question about that alert at your turn to call. I still don't agree that I could be giving out MI by asking a question at that point, nor do I agree that a ruling against that practice would be correct. See my post above (24) for why I think 73D(1) does not cover this situation Well I thought it was interesting. I think you are wrong about this. My understanding accords with what Zelandakh says, and that partner cannot change his call if you pass. Law 21B(1a) says that a player may change a bid which he made based on MI "provided his partner has not subsequently called." Therefore passing would disable partner from changing his last call.