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.

Why is that important? Is standard procedure notably different elsewhere?

I strongly doubt this is the case. By that logic whenever I asked a question about an alert and an opponent was misled into thinking that I might have made a call at that point, then I could be ruled against. What you are suggesting seems to amount to revoking the rights that a player has to ask questions at any point during the auction at his turn to call. Thanks Zelandakh. I hadn't actually considered that additional advantage. Interesting.

Misleading this way is not usually classed as MI, but he's right that you're not supposed to do it. I disagree that there has been any "misleading" at all. As you say above it is similar to the question about whether you should always ask about an alert. I don't think a player who always asked about an alert in a particular spot would be guilty of misleading in any way. Regarding Law 73D which you cite: 73D(2) clearly does not apply as there has been no "attempt" to mislead. The potentially relevant sentence in 73D(1) is "players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side", "variations" referring to "manner" and "tempo". I don't think this practice would fall foul of this law for two reasons. Firstly, since the leader would always ask questions at this point where they have one, there is no "variation" in what they do. And secondly, it seems that by making sure they always follow the same procedure they would be satisfying the requirement in the law that they be "particularly careful". In practice I can't imagine that any director would actually make a ruling against this practice using this law. Just to clarify in response to some posts above, yes, I am only advocating doing this when it is going to be your lead, not partner's.

As I understand it misinformation is when you explain the meaning of a bid inaccurately or when you fail to alert a call that should have been alerted. That's not what's happening here. In fact the only 'information' I would be giving anyone is that I have a question to ask, which I do. I think perhaps you have not understood or I have not been clear. What I'm proposing certainly isn't illegal as far as I can work out. What law forbids it?

Well, ideally you will be asking questions that might inform your lead and so it should take up no additional time. Just imagine in your head that you have already made the final pass if you like. I'm not suggesting asking frivolous questions. This is probably true, and might be a good reason for not following such a practice. Then again that opponent would have no real recourse to the director. It would just be a case of sour grapes if he assumed from my question that I was going to take another call and played accordingly. This isn't necessarily the case though. I know some (advanced/expert) players who profess to be very ethical who ask questions at their turn even when it does not affect their call for the exact purpose of not giving UI when they ask and they do need the information for that call. I agree with barmar that the two situations are analogous. However saving time is not an issue here because you are taking up time you were going to use up anyway, just before your final call instead of after it.

Yes, I don't mean that you should ask questions in every auction where you are in this situation! Sorry if that was not clear in the OP. My criterion for asking or not asking would be pretty simple: whether or not I have a question.

The situation I'm talking about it when both partner and RHO have passed and if you now pass you will be on lead. I don't know about other jurisdictions but in the UK the procedure is to pass, ask any questions you have about the opponents' auction, lead face down and ask partner if he has any questions. So my question is, is there anything wrong with habitually asking questions about the opponents' auction before you make your final pass? It makes no difference if you are going to pass anyway but if you are considering doubling and want information, the fact that you always ask questions at this point will conceal the fact that you are thinking about doubling, both from your partner and from the opponents. If you usually wait until your lead to ask questions, then when you ask questions during the auction at your final turn to call everyone at the table will know you are thinking of doubling. Of course this practice might be best avoided when you think that if you double that will not end the auction and that questions you ask might give useful information to partner, but that is extremely rare. The practice would also help to reinforce the habit of thinking about what you are going to lead before doubling a contract! So what would you think of a player who habitually does this? And is it an improvement?

Perhaps not, but it sure confused me. The author doesn't mention anything about 'guessing' the layout and seems to imply that the correct line is to play for clubs not to break. I was just doubting if that was the case. Assume Yes, that makes sense. Thanks.

Thanks inquiry and others. I agree that the point of this deal was a defensive one: East's excellent return, especially as it is not close to being immediately obvious even double dummy how the return should give declarer a losing option. As gszes says with two small spades in hand you can play for the squeeze and chuck one when combining your options. However Love doesn't mention that the return is so good that you may now g down! He also doesn't mention the possible spade/diamond squeeze against West, so it appears there is more to the deal than he invisaged. If I knew Julian Pottage I would inform him. As for how useful I've found the rules in the Love book, I'd say that as I improve as a player I am looking more to what end position I want to achieve that the theory he lays out. However sometimes this is not always possible. I do get a sense of naturally which order to cash my tricks but it will be reassuring the one time in my life an RFL squeeze turns up at the table that I can check if my own intuitions match with the book theory.

I have a question about one of the deals in the double squeeze chapter of Love's book (Deal 19). Hopefully it is not out of line to post it on here. This is the deal: [hv=pc=n&s=sj7ha4dk765cakqj2&w=sq86h8652djt943c3&n=sak543hkq7dq82c76&e=st92hjt93dact9854&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=6nppp&p=djd2dad5stsjsqsadqh3d6d3d8s9dkd4hah2h7hth4h6hkh9hqhj]399|300[/hv] First three tricks (included in the diagram): ♦J ♦2 ♦A ♦5; ♠T ♠J ♠Q ♠A ♦Q ♥3 ♦6 ♦4 You have 11 top tricks and will need a squeeze if clubs don't break. The author remarks that East has made a strong return by killing one of the spade A/K and that now you have to cash your tricks in the correct order to perform the double squeeze with clubs not breaking. See the author's suggested line by clicking on in the diagram above. You can see that you upon cashing three hearts you have to throw a club from dummy and when you run AKQJ♣ West will be squeezed in spades and diamonds. However it seems to me that this line gives up on some layouts where clubs break 4-2. For example: [hv=pc=n&s=sj7ha4dk765cakqj2&w=sq8h8652djt943c83&n=sak543hkq7dq82c76&e=st962hjt93dact954&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=6nppp&p=djd2dad5stsjsqsadqh3d6d3d8s9dkd9hah2h7h9h4h5hkhthqhj]399|300[/hv] Now when you play the last heart winner you can't afford to pitch a club because they are breaking. So am I missing something here or is the author? So should you make the contract when clubs break 5-1 like in the first diagram or should you actually go down when East returns the ♠T? Is there any way to combine your chances?