ArcLight

Ken, in addition to writing great books, you also manage to write cohesive sentences. And the WTF was a nice bonus. Are you 16 years old yet? I can't wait to see how good a writer you will become once you reach puberty. I am asking a simple question, who so nasty? What is wrong with opening 1♥, then bididng 3♥ over pards 1NT response? Why is this wrong? Is it that the 15 HCP you have isn't so good, given the Jx? You need better quality points? Even with the pretty good Heart suit?

I thought 1♥ - 1NT, 3H shows 16-18 points and 6+ hearts (the 1NT bidder will probably have 2) 3 - K9 6+2 length = 8 - AQT732 1 - J5 5 - KQ5 = 17 points. Deduct 1 from Jx and you have 16 points, and 6 hearts. The hearts are ok, not like Q97643. Why is this not a 3H response? Or is this not considered good enough to upgrade because of the Jx? 2H shows a 13-15 hand with 5 hearts, doesn't it? What would have to be added to this hand to make it worth a 3H rebid?

>The Main Bridge club provides you with all the stress you need. :( :( :lol: You want stress. Try playing with randsom pick up "Advanced" pards and try and visualize what their hands are based on their bididng. Like not supporting your preemptive bids when they hold 4 trumps or inroducing a new suit when they have 3 card support for you major. Lots of good stuff.

This can easily make, if pard has the right miniumum cards. The chances of success may be a little less than 50% In IMPS I would bid game. In MP scoring - If you bid 3H, the ops need to bid a minor at the 4 level (or 5+ level). I think 3H is enough.

Nick, Any system or convention can have failures along the edges. Some lucky distribution can allow a 23 HCP slam to make , while a different combination of 30 HCP can result in a game failing. I don't consider this hand woith a Drury response. Move the Spade Ace to Clubs. Is that a game you want to be in? What if hearts split 3-1 (with the Q not stiff). How about 4-1? This is not a good game to be in, it just worked out. You can make a grand slam with 5 HCP, doesnt mean you wnat to look for it.

>Congressmen in theory should be the smartest people who live the least morally objectionable lives. After all, they will make all the decisions (directly or indirectly) in relative absence of the majority. So they need to have good intentions and utmost respect for the law and the citizens and all, besides the inherent wisdom and talent at making swift, precise, unemotional decisions And what makes you think US Congressmen are not the smartest and most moral people ;) I live in New Jersey and the politicians there are the most honest. :) They constantly put their constituents needs ahead of their own. :lol: :lol: Q: How do you tell when a politician is lying? A: When his lips are moving.

>Arclight, you can learn a lot even if the system is different. Look at Blackshoe's post. Look at the priciples; Standard does not mean SA, it means what is standard in your country. Don't be so narrow minded, you might find something you really like. I try not be narrow minded. :) I think the "answers" to many of the problems are not obtainable because the bids in the authors "Standard" (not Polish CLub) system are pretty different form what most would consider "Standard". What this means is unless you know what the authors system is, you wont be able to solve many of the problems. I think "Standard" is nebulous but is probably not radically different overall from country to country, even if there are some differences in certain areas. (ex. some in Australia are fond of the short club 1 ♣ opener with just 2). Now if this is some Polish standard then it may be a great book for someone who knows that system. >If you read a bridge book with an eye towards understanding principles, rather than getting bogged down in "that's not the way I'd bid it!", then IMO it really doesn't matter what system is used. "understanding principles' is a very generic term. You would not be able to solve thes eproblems becaus eyou would expect a player to have a certain distribution based on their bidding. When you look at the answer and see they ahd something different,, because of the system, it wont really help you. It will "help" in a minor way, when you se ethat yes the bid makes sense in the context of the authors (non-standard) expectations. But it wont help you solve the problems. I don't think most people will get much out of this book because the bidding wont follow what they expect. They wont be able to solve many of the problems. They wont learn principles, because they may know them, and were just misleads by the different meaning of the bid. I liked the format of the book, and with a coauthor (revising teh bidding) it could have been much better. I don't think this will be of much value to anyone other than those who know what ever "Standard" system the author is using, and also to those interested in system design. They wont be able to solve the problems, but they might be interested in an interpretation. I would guess he does mean some sort of basic polish club (WJ). It is usual if a polish grandmaster says heshe plays natural, heshe means polish club, a not too fancy variation. If he REALLY means natural he would probably say Acol, or SA if the material written for american or BBO public. For someone who knows whatever teh author considers "standard" I would recommend this book. If you know what the bids mean, you will certainly enjoy it more than I did. Since it was translated into English I assumed it would be a "standard" that English speakers are familiar with, rather than a Polish Standard.

I just Read K. Martens book "Bidding Like Music - Hand Evaluation" :lol: I really liked the format, a large number of competitive bididng problems. ANd he suggests some special meanings of bids in certain situation. The problems centered on visualizing the 3 other hands. Potentially great material. The big problem I had is while the author said the bididng system would be "Standard", I don't think most of his auctions and interpretations make sense in Standard American. Plus in some of the solutions he says in "Polish Club" this is what you do. Except we aren't using Polish Club in this book. I think a systems nut (like Ken Rexford) might enjoy the book a bit more than I did. If "Standard" means a pretty different system, then the book is not of use to 90% of potential readers. Too bad as there is a lot of good stuff in there.

DealMaster Pro has 2 nice advantages. 1 - its got a built in Double Dummy Ananlyzer (Deep Finesse) so you can get a DD evaluation of your simulation 2 - you can use its GUI to quickly define teh parameters However, its not as powerful as Deal becaus DEal is its own programming language and if you take the time you can specify things in greater detail. DMPro will probably cover >90% of the simulations you are interested in.

p 2♥ 2NT p, 4♥ p ? S: K x H: A K Q D: K Q J T 9 C: J x x What does the 4♥ bid mean? Solution hidden:

From my notes on Mike Lawrences 2/1 books and his CD. The 1M 2C - 3NT bid: Tough one! 2NT shows 12-14 or 18,19, so what’s left is 15-17. But that’s covered by a 1NT opener. Mike Lawrence suggests it shows 2 small cards in pards suit. (1H – 2D – 3NT). However this will not occur frequently.

Ever notice how many adv/expert pick up pards have "RKC" in their profile. Then you have to ask 0314 or 1430? In general I guess 0314 might be more prevenlent? 55%-45%? But why guess?

I got 17/20 and mistook 1 fake for a rel smile. It seemd pretty easy, as the real smiles moved their face more, and their eyes wrinkled. Interesting post.

1. 1♥ was an underbid, I'd have bid 2♥ 2. The 2♠ bid showed a BIG hand, pard should not have passed. 3. With that good a hand, and pard bididng 1♥ I would bid 4♥, not 2♠, since the 1♥ was limited to 0-8. It takes little to make slam, assuming the Club finesse in on side. 5 hearts to the Ace, or 4 hearts to the QA. Slam takes so little. But maybe pard is broke. If I bid 4♥ he will know I have a montsre and will hopefully act. If one suffers a bidding disaster, I think its sufficient to say "pard DBL, followed by a new suit shows a very strong hand" and leave it at that. Then quietly leave after the hand, without yelling at anyone.

I would be unlikley to find this at the table because: 1 - I can't think as fast as an experienced expert 2- I can't count as accurately as an experienced expert However, doing lots of book problems, does help and maybe someday I will make a play like this at the table ;) Whats interesting is I just reread Mike Lawrences "PLay Swiss Teams with Mike Lawrnce" and a very similar hand is presented. You have AQx under Kxx and must unblock the Q so pard can get in.

Play the Spade Q to unblock and get an entry to pards hand, so he can play the trump Q. Analysis below ========================================= Declarers hand is limited to 0-8. Since he bid after 2♥, its probably 7-8. (I think LHO (Meckstroth) did not have his bid, to make the 2H bid). Declarer has shown up with the Club Ace. He also should have a ♦ stopper, either Jxxx or Ax(xx). To make the 2NT response implies a balanced shape, rather than a distributional one that wants to be in a suit contract. Whats going on in hearts? With 5 hearts, I would think Rodwell would prefer a suit contract, rather than a NT. This imples pard has 3 hearts. But would he play that way? with ♥ Q J x,would he high-low, since its safe? Im not sure of the heart situation, I think pard has one more. H 4-3-4-2 around the table C 4-4-2-3 around the table D 1-?-?-5 around the table with Jxxx they are 1-3-4-5 S 4-?-?-3 around the table with D Jxxx Declarer has 3 If Rodwell had S: J x (x x) H: x x x x D: J x x x C: A x He wouldnt be bidding on. With S: J x H: Q x x x x D: J x x x C: A x I don't think he'd offer NT, he'd bid 3♥ over 2. I think Rodwell has: S: x x x (x) H: x x x x D: A x x (x) C: A x You want pard to get in to cut down on Dime ruffs. If you play the Spade Q, Dummy wins, leads a dime to his Ace, ruffs a dime - and can't get back to hand. The clubs are gone. Pard wins the Spade, pulls trump, leads a dime and you are good. If you don't play the Q, pard can't get in, and declarer gets a spade ruff and a dime ruff, and the last spade in dummy is high.

While I enjoy Marty Bergens books, I think many of them have a lot of filler/blanks and some seem to be "churned out" (i.e. just to publish anything, and make some money - which is not good value to buy). I agree with Mikes assessment. I wish he had written "Is it Forcing" which he suggested as an upcoming book at the back of one of his books (this was 5+ years ago). I've asked him to write it, but I don't think he is interested. It's my understanding he is working on a book on major suit raises.

One thing to keep in mind is the risk/reward ration. If you double them and set them a trick 2 out of 3 times, and the third time they are doubled into game, you are losing in the long run.

Why did North run from the DBL of 4♦? He doesnt know what pards hand is, and his ♠ aren't so good.

Oh! I see what I missed :unsure: Doh! Good problem :)

What can pards shape be? 1♠ is not forcing. Can he be 5=(0/1)=7 with AK in spades and KQJ in Clubs? If so I think he would not bid 1♠ and risk that being passed out. He would jump shift to 2♠. So he is not 7-5-1-0 Then what? 6-4-?-? Then he must have additional honors in the reds He bid slam not knowing about my Club ace? I dont understand the bidding. Normally I would think it better to play in 6♠ because of the 4-4 fit. Pard should expect us to have 4 Spades if we raised his 2nd bid. He is offering us a choice of slams? I think 6♠ is the right bid, because he can get discards on teh clubs, and we can ruff one or two if needed.

>* To evade controls, for the second portfolio he chose unregulated over-the-counter derivatives which do not need a downpayment, including forward contracts. Mike, When you enter into a trade that settles into the future you wont have an immediate margin call. (I shouldnt have said FRA, just a future ). The hit comes at the time of settlement (unless the position changes by more than a certain amount) which may be a long time in the future. This is sort of how Joe Jett of Kidder Peabody was able to create ~400 million in smoke and mirror profits in the mid 90s. In this case PDmonroes article seems to explain what happened. I find it interesting that he got caught when one of the customers got flagged as having a large position and was contacted. I liked this one> To a lot of people Jérôme Kerviel is a hero. Sure, he lost his employer £3.7 billion, but by definition the people he traded with therefore made £3.7 billion. With a few reckless bets, the junior banker has created the equivalent of 3,700 millionaires among the hedge fund managers and traders of the City and other financial centres. It dopes seem weird that the system allowed him to cancel, or crete bogus trades of such large amounts. That another safeguard to add. >Officials of the bank believe Mr. Kerviel spent many hours of hacking to eliminate controls that would have blocked his super-sized bets. Changes he is said to have made enabled him to eliminate credit and trade-size controls, so the bank's risk managers couldn't see his giant trades on the direction of indexes. Did they not deactivate his account once he left the back office and became a trader? How did he know others passwords? That is a breech taht is hard to protect against.

I did rebid 3♥, unfortunately 4♥ was making. :)