ArcLight

I think you are not in the par contract, and are destined for a bottom, unless you can make your contract. I would finesse the J♦. ---------------------------------------- Would most Souths respond after pards 1m opening? Their points are junk on offense (QJx). Pass and pray opps balance. If they trap pass, you can then redouble for takeout. Might not West bid if South passes? Maybe Hearts? Some pairs might use preemptive raises/weak jump shifts of 2♠. In that case North will pass. If a pair is using Strong Jump Shifts (a la Lawrence 2/1) they might not do so well. I don't think 3♠ will be bid by everyone. Your probable -100 will be bad unless the 2 Heart games doesnt make. If half the pairs dont bid 3S and make their contract, then your score will be at best 50% if you go down. But if you make you can get 100%. If you go down 2, your 50% goes to 0% if they switch to clubs. The 2♠ bidders wont even need the finesse to make their contract. So I'd go for it and take the finesse.

>I was playing bridge fervently during 1969 to 1973, games were usually quite well attended (except for sectionals), and there was more television available than one could possibly watch. I think TV/Computer Gaming has gradually eroded social participation in things. I don't think it happened all at once. All it takes is a gradual diminishment, say a loss of 2% a year, for many years, and gradually critical mass is lost. Or more likely, younger people watch TV, rather than play Bridge. So the number of new people entering the hobby gradually declines. >I doubt that TV is even a factor. I have some hypothesis, but I doubt that they would be popular with a lot of other people, so I shall keep them hidden (for now). Come on, out with it! :( People are not genetically less intelligent today (30-40 years later), unless its some environmental factor, like Lead or Mercury poisoning. There are other forms of entertainment that are easier, that appeal to potential Bridge players, especially younger ones. TV, Computer Games, Internet Chatting.

>Its interesting to note that the NYT has another article on the Op-Ed page written by a chess player. His central thesis is that there isn't enough money in chess to motivate the top talent to stick with the game... There was an interesting article in the Wall Street Jornal last week that told about a computer game player who makes over $100,000 plus other perks. As computer games become popular, there will be "money" to pay the top players, just as there is/was for Bridge. I'm not so concerned with the incomes of the top players. I just want there to be some decent local players so I can play and socialize with them.

Excellent Article, I agree completely. >Television served as a social replacement for bridge night. I think TV has claimed many miollions, who no longer do other "social" activities. No cure for this. >To compensate for increasing competition from technology, some sort of marketing by the various bridge organizations might have kept bridge visible, but until very recently, no marketing was done. As a result, bridge is rightly perceived as a game "my grandparents" play. I got into Bridge form the card game Spades (also a derivative of the Whist family). Everyone referred to Bridge as a game for old people, so I stupidly never even looked into it. Stereo types of the types of players can have a big impact on interest. >Bridge will never have the spectator appeal of games like poker. It's just too cerebral. Moreover, the learning curve is steep. I agree. However, Poker has one additional feature tahts hugely popular in the USA. Gambling for money. That alone can give an enormous boost to a game. All it takes are a few stories about some college student making $100,000 a yer playing poker (like day traders in the late 90's) to generate huge interest. I think a very simplified bidding system would be useful to allow new players to start playing quickly. > But it's worth trying to bring back some of the glory of bridge by getting young people engaged in the game. I agree. But everone is used to playing games and chatting online. We may play bridge on line. But that can make it hard to go over things with partners.

>>> BTW, if it's Swanson (or Truscott) that looks for such material, he'll look only for examples where it is the italians who did that, he'll never show weird US leads. >>Prove it. How do you know they are biased only in favor of Americans, or against only the Italians? Theoretically Swanson (or Truscotts estate) could sue you for libel, for this comment, >Isn't it someone's right to think something and then say it? They are presenting their opinion as a fact. Chamaco was directly saying that Swanson/Truscott would only look for examples on one side. Chamaco has no knowledge of that. He would have been better off with a more balances statement like "Did Truscott/Swanson have look for weird leads by the USA..." > BTW, I also get the feeling that some of the American opponents of the Blue Team are just being bad losers and making an idiot of themselves by suggesting the Blue Team cheated. I hardly consider Bobby Hamman an idiot or bad loser. Why not read his section on the foot tapping incident in his book and see what you think?

> If you reread the first post, it says 1D-(1S)-? >He later said, after the hand, he considered the 3S bid to be the best bid. The poll clearly says "3 Spades - Western Cue bid". So the question needs to be answered using the methods of the partnership, not your own methods. However, its ok to mention why you would rather use a different meaning for a bid. >1. a) A number of people(including myself) suggested that they want(or use) a 3S bid to be a splinter raise showing diamond support. Thtas irrelevant to the question, because its not the method used by that partnership. Regardless of what YOU think of their methods, the person was asking what the best bid was in the context of their partnership, not yours. I happen to agree with you that 3 Spades is better used as a splinter bid. But it wasn't one of the choices.

I bid 3♠ asking for a stopper since that was the choice presented in the question. 1) Do we really have enough to take 11 tricks? The 4♠ splinter commits us to the 5 level. 2) I think 3NT has a shot, and if pard doesn't have a stopper he can still bid 4♦

>I would prefer that the ACBL defend any reasonable action to the bitter end. You might, but it might not be worth it financially for the ACBL. Perhaps if you were to cover their expenses they would be happy to do so. I suggest you contact them. > I do not know anything about civil law. Then why are you making posts as if you did? On the other folder you thought this would be a criminal trial rather than civil. >Uniform Code of Military Justice maybe a little bit? Sorry, the ACBL is not part of the US military. >I was under the impression that several players were restored to ACBL membership because they either started or just threatened legal action. Lawyers are expensive. I wonder if the ACBL membership would be happy to see their dues going to pay them. Also, it would be far more difficult to convince a non-brige intermediate (level player, or better) that a pair cheated. What would you expect of a jury? 1) learn the rules of bridge 2) learn bidding 3) learn declarer play 4) learn defender play & signaling 5) bring in a bunch of experts to explain why leading away from Aces on the first card is generally very poor play? The defense would just have to get some hack "expert" ( who has scraped up 300 master points over 40 years and is a life master) to testify that underleading aces on occasiopn is good, because it fools the opponents. Etc. The downside for the ACBL is a big pay out. The upside is integrity. But why take a 10% chance of losing a lot of money if they lose, and in any case have to pay a lot of money for a trial? I don't know what the laws are on non-profit non-religious organizations suspending/expelling members. But the ACBL probably does have access to lawyers, and felt the potential loss was too great. In the USA if you can sue who ever you want. You may not win, but you can force the defendent to spend money defending themselves. If you are a lawyer, you don't even need to hire anyone, just do the work yourself. Why take any risks? The ACBL may have a 95% case, but not want to pay for the lawyers. > BTW, if it's Swanson (or Truscott) that looks for such material, he'll look only for examples where it is the italians who did that, he'll never show weird US leads. Prove it. How do you know they are biased only in favor of Americans, or against only the Italians? Theoretically Swanson (or Truscotts estate) could sue you for libel, for this comment, though I think he'd have a hard time collecting. In Truscotts book he lists a number of suspected cheats, and they are not all Italian. >2) Because the italians were accused by the US players of cheating, the organization decided to install at the tables inspectors that should verify the possible encrypted signals of the italians; this went on for a LONG time, and they were unable to find any unusual signal that might suggest signalling/cheating; What about the foot stepping incident? Was that in Argentina? I don't remember the pair. Bobby Hamman mentioned it in his book "At the Table". It was also in Truscotts book.

"Improve your bridge- fast!" by Sontag- Steinberg, 1982 On Chamacos suggestion I bought this book. I wonder if its the same book? It has the same title, authors, and publication date. Buts its geared entirely towards beginner players with 3 months experience or less. I mean its so basic that I'd say its about as tough as Bridge Master Level 1 problems. Not only are all the "problems" double dummy, they only involve 4-6 cards (the other 7 to 9 have already been played). The "problems" consist of elementary finesses (sometimes repeated) or simple end plays (with 4 hands exposed). I found the book to be a complete waste of time and money. I will send my copy for free to anyone who wants it, for the cost of shipping by US Media mail (probably around $2). Rating: F

>I seem to recall that 'just' the threat of a lawsuit has returned several players back into the ACBL. It worked for Tonya Harding! >If someone decides to sue over this matter, the ACBL will have to go to trial and win. If the ACBL lost, it might have to pay something in a seven figure settlement would be my guess. The people suing (the plaintiff) would have to PROVE their case in a CIVIL trial, not a CRIMINAL trial. The burden of proof would be on the plaintiffs not the defendent (ACBL). However, I don't think the ACBL would be happy having to pay for lawyers to defend themselves. So a rich person/company can bully another person/company through the threat of legal action. >Would twelve 'normal' Americans think that bridge players were all crazy to even consider going to trial over a card game? I think Civil juries have 6 members, but I could be mistaken. A criminal case would have 12 members. Its very hard to catch cheaters if they are subtle, and also very hard to punish them. Thats a shame as it seems that there is little downside to cheating in most cases. Reese was also suspected at cheating at rubber bridge games for money. >I have been banned from playing with one player a number of times. Why is that? Is that something to be proud of? That other players/officials suspect you and this other player of cheating? Personally I would hate to be thought of as dishonest. After reading Alan Truscotts book I have my doubt about the integrity of the famous Italian Blue team. I dont doubt their skill, but I do suspect that some cheating took place at high level events. And not just them, others have done so. I don't think enough is done to punish (at least discourage) cheaters when there is real evidence, not just talk. Hows this: Video tape them. Let their opponents review the film to see if they detect any irregularities.

>Anyway, in Germany they use French words for this. The first is Impass the second is Expass. Is this the case in France also? I find it very interesting to see all the specialized expressions to cover situations unique to Bridge. This specialized language is specific and useful becaus eof its clarity. But it can also be confusing when those words have different meanings in other languages. > My favourite in French is that "finesse" is not french word for finesse. Why are the english using a french word that the french themselves do not use? Wow. So how did the word "finesse" come to be used? Was it an old term from Whist, that was imported from France to England in the 1600's to incorrectly describe a situation?

>This is a good day. I learned something because, of course, as french speaking, I never heard that word ! In French it would be: Pierreant :) Alain, what is the term in French to denote carding High-Low as a signal?

>According to other comments, it has nothing to do with the law of total tricks, can usually be applied only after seeing both hands, and is very similar to LTC. Why not read the book for yourself? Frequently people don't describe something correctly or fully and important dealtails are left out and incorrect assumptions drawn. >Shall I write a book about an evaluation method that can only be applied after se Seeing both hands? I promise it will get excellent results... Perhaps if you were to read the book you would find the proposed idea simple and effective. Do you really think Mike Lawrence would write something thats pure nonsense? Its a well thought out book. Certainly worth reading.

I will try this later, thanks. But its still not quite what I had in mind. It still requires a bit of effort. What I would like to see is a page displayed exactly as I've described, without having to do any extra saving, renaming the saved file, opening with anotehr app, etc. If I want to look at 16-24 hands, its a bit of a hassle to do what you say for each one. The feature in e-spades made extremely valuable to me when reviewing my Spades games. (The lack of this feature makes the MSN Spades site of little use to me.)

I propose a new hand record format in Tabular form It can take a while to see how a hand was played, and how it was played differently at another table. You have to step through all the individual card plays (52 clicks) I would find it very useful when studying a hand if I could see in tabular format (on one page) how a hand was played, rather than having to step carc by card through the replay. Example: (for simplicity assume each player has just 3 cards, rather than 13 - to save me typing) N: A Q 2 Spades E: K J T Spades S: 5 4 3 Spades W: 8 7 6 Spades (the 9 has been discarded earlier) North is on lead- Id like to see something like: W N E S 1> ... 11> 6 2 T* 3 12> 7 Q* J 4 13> 8 A* K 5 Both Yahoo (Spades) and www.e-spades.com have a similar feature. I can quickly look at a hand and see that on trick 5 West won, and started Clubs. This saves a lot of time pressing "Next" and "Prev"

>An easy 3C, which is forcing in real SAYC. However, a lot of people who play "SAYC" play this as non-forcing, so it is dangerous with a pickup partner What are forcing bids under SAYC? (I'm never sure.)

Winston, I'm not sure I understand what you meant by "If I remember correctly, the posted hand is not one that Lawrence advocated bidding 1S - rather he stressed that with length in the opened suit that quick stoppers were the key - something like KQJx, x, xxx, AK10xx. However, it seems that nowadays many look upon the posted hand as an almost automatic 1S." What does length and stoppers in Clubs have to do with this hand? What are the alternatives? 1NT - with the club stoppers and length - but not enough HCP, so I wouldn't make this bid. Pass - could work, pard may be long in Hearts and they have a misfit or get too high in Spades. With a Heart ruff and Spade K on the Right you can take 4 Spades against their Spade contract. Your clubs are over the opening bidder, but they still might not have full value. 1 Spade - I'd rather the KJ be in a suit RHO didnt bid. You do want a Spade lead, and if pard hase Spades maybe you can make something. This also preempts West from bidding hearts or diamonds at the 1 level. The danger is you have no where to run if doubled. Diamonds with a 5-3 fit at the 2 level? I'm no expert, but I don't think you will get burned too many times bidding 1 Spade at the 1 level. Down 3 doubled is worth less than their game, and for that to happen they must have a lot of power. Down 1 doubled = thier part score. Down 2 doubled is bad, giving up an extra 4 IMPS, but thats not a disaster.

-1 for 4-3-3-3 shape = not enough HCP for quantitative slam Also, you have no running suit for extra tricks. Where will your 12 tricks come from? 3NT makes easily, 6NT might possibly make but I think the odds are less than 1/3. 3NT

Card PLay Made Easy Vol 1-4 by Ron Klinger. These 4 books on declarer play are excellent. I rate them an A. I found them clear, concise, and great value for the money. They don't just teach, they give specific quizes targeted towards each section. At the end some have a long test with 40 problems. These books offer far far far greater value for the money than the David Bird "Bridge Technique" series (which retail for $6 for the lesson book and $10 for the quiz book, for 12 topics, thats $192 in total). Not that Bird's books are bad, they are good, but there is little material as the problems are reprinted on the solution page in large space consuming text. The Klinger books give 3 times the number of problems, while teaching clearly. The problems are not simple ones, but they aren't level 5 Bridge Master either. They are "just right" for intermediates and above.

>>I know, it's boring, but no one gets anything for nothing. It's damn hard work, and one has to go through all that boring stuff in order to learn the game. Then, and only then, will it be real fun. What is the "boring" stuff? So far I haven't been bored reading dozens of books on play of the hand/declaer technique. To me thats studying and memorizing bidding systems. But hopefully once your get comfoirtable with your system, you don't have to study much for a while. If students are moderately bright and self motivated, then a teacher can greatly help their development by focusing their efforts. I "wasted" some time reading bad books, or books that I wasn't ready for. The result that I didn't absorb all the material, and I will need to eventually go back and reread thos ebooks. I think its a waste of money to take lessons on declarer play when there are so many excellent and far less expensive books and software available. Dont "teach" the intermediates, tell them to read these X books, let them save their money. Then teach them by playing with them and discuss the bidding and play after each hand. If a motivated intermediate wants to learn something like squeeze play I wouldn't discourage them. (But I'd point out that there are other things that will be of greater value to them, like counting.) Then I'd hand them some great books on Squeeze play and have them save their money.

Part of the problem is classification and rating inflation. The average player on BBO rates themselves about 1 level higher than they are. How many BBO Experts win national titles? Most advanced players I've seen are not better than me. Many intermediates are dreadful. (And I'm not so good at counting so maybe I shouldn't even rate myself intermediate) >However, I wonder whether an intermediate player would recognise a trump coup position as declarer, let alone in defence. Why? After reading the 2 "Bridge Technique" books by David Bird on this subject (and having seen it in other books) I think its not all that complicated. That doesn't mean I'd always pull it off, just that I don't think its so hard to think about. 1) The contract looks cold 2) what could go wrong - bad trump break - what to do? Aha - ruff and see how the trumps are breaking. I can see a smother play or some complex trump ducking play in order to retain control being harder to find or execute. >For those who know Bridgemaster, would the average intermediate player be happy at level (i) 2, (ii) 3, or (iii) 4? If I want to make my contract I'd be most happy at level 1 and least happy at level 5. :) At the table I'd never solve a Level 5 hand, and I'd probably miss a number of level 4 hands. Going through some of Ron Klingers "Card Play Made Easy" books, there are quite a few hands I'd miss.

If declarer has 5♥ to the AK, then the contract is cold if he gets in. So assume that pard has a ♥ honor(s) or that declarer has 4♥ or that declaer has 3♦. The other question is would declarer bid 1♥ over 1♣ with 4♥ and 4♦? What I'm getting at is do we have an inference that decalrer has only 3 Diamonds? If so the Diamonds can run, except that pard must unblock. This works provided pard has 4♦ including one of 9 8 or 7. As for pards signal, its not low, so he doesn't hate spades. Maybe he couldn't spare a higher Spade? Is it a suit preference signal, ? I assume so, but for what? Diamonds? The highest he can have is a 9, and he has no way of knowing that you have the 10, you might have the 8 instead as well as the Q, or maybe not even have the Q at all. Does the signal maen ♦will run as declarer has just 3? If declarer has 4 ♦ the suit wont run unless pard has the 9 and is lead to. Or can get in twice to lead 2 middle ♦ through declarer. I'd play the ♦ from the top.

>More press = more visibility = more new members = good for bridge in USA. Fair enough. But I still wonder how much that really helps bring in new players and retain current ones. I wonder how much the "press coverage" of a USA team winning an international even makes it outside of non-bridge circles.

Just my 2 cents but ... As an American, I want the USA team to win, but I don't really care too much, since bridge at that level is so far above me. It seems a bit "unfair" to have a playing sponsor, but I'd far rather a wealthy (and highly talented) player spend their money on bridge than on something else. It's "unfair" to some of the other strong pairs who don't get to compete because they haven't been hired by the right team. Lets say 10 pairs have missed out of getting a chance. Thats unfortunate for them, but not horrible for bridge in the USA. I don't even see how having the USA win the gold really helps bridge in the USA. Most players below Grand Master level aren't going to use those complex bidding structures. I'd rather see some competitions with fairly simple bidding systems that are almost convention free. Simple enough that intermediates and above couldenjoy watching and guess what to bid. (Not that I think this will happen)

I think East should have bid. I think West should pass since: 1) His HCP are generally not working (stiff Qs and Jx aren't worth much) 2) His heart suit is awful 3) South Passed - mening there is a chance our side sill get the contract, maybe pard has a big hand, don't preempt him. I think bididng 2♥ with that suit vulnerable is not a good idea in the long run, (unless playing against extremely aggressive bidders) 1♦ - 3♦ (Limit raise) I think there is little risk of a 4-3 ♦ fit, and its being too pessimistic to worry about the worst case. Assume a 4-4 fit or better. Opps were silent, so it's probably taht there are balanced hands. You may be able to ruff 2 major suit losers in pards hands (assuming pard has 3-4 cards in each major. My concern with bidding 1NT is you are wrong siding an NT contract, it's better if pard can bid NT. A 1♦ - 1NT sequence is more likely to generate a major suit lead than a club lead.