TimG

I think I first came across the term ODR in Partnership Bidding at Bridge by Robson and Segal. It is a book well worth owning.

I'm shocked.

Ace and then low from the board, ducking when RHO does not play the Jack is just as good, isn't it? It loses to Jx-Kxx, but picks up Kx-Jxx.

What's this thing you call a "sinner"?

I think the Fall NABC would traditionally have been an oddity -- I don't imagine there is anywhere in the US that Thanksgiving Weekend is peak convention season (with the possible exception of Plymouth, MA). That is somewhat confirmed by a list of recent and future fall NABC locations: 2004 Orlando 2005 Denver 2006 Hawaii 2007 San Francisco 2008 Boston 2009 San Diego 2010 Orlando 2011 Seattle 2012 San Francisco

I think if I had to place the contract right now, I would bid 4♥. If I knew partner had ♥Q4, I would be even more confident. (Yes, I ran a simple simulation. It supported my intuition. But, it was simple.)

The same reason they hold Summer NABCs in places like Las Vegas and New Orleans -- it's the off-season and as such they can negotiate better prices for the conference space and hotel rooms. I'd much rather visit Detroit in March than Las Vegas in July. At least from a weather standpoint. I do think there is Memphis staff that coordinate/negotiate/plan NABCs.

I'm pretty sure that 2 or 3 of the 5 best attended NABCs have been held in Las Vegas. Places like Toronto, Orlando and SF will attract more players than Kansas City, Detroit or Birmingham. You will not see attendance spikes for the "cheaper" non-destination cities.

I thought the reasoning behind sound openers in 2/1 was the pressure put on the 2/1 response by a light opening. When the opening under consideration is 1C, that factor shouldn't come into play. I'm not suggesting that this hand should be opener 1C, just curious why 2/1 is a factor. There is something to be said for maintaining a consistent lower limit. If a pass in 1st seat denies an unbalanced 10-count, it gives partner more freedom to preempt. True, but again, this has nothing to do with 2/1.

I thought the reasoning behind sound openers in 2/1 was the pressure put on the 2/1 response by a light opening. When the opening under consideration is 1C, that factor shouldn't come into play. I'm not suggesting that this hand should be opener 1C, just curious why 2/1 is a factor.

I know I'm in the minority on this one, but when I was attending NABCs, I factored in things like cost and convenience much more than what other attractions the host city might have to offer. I expect to be playing bridge, not touring the city. Given the choice between SF and Detroit, I would have picked Detroit -- I can only assume Detroit was less expensive, and living on the east coast, Detroit would have been more convenient.

...

The "zero" might not count for you, but the "top" will count for someone else. And, you probably don't want to hand out too many of those, especially to the same pair/team.

Bring on the 2D openings which show 44 in the majors. Who says they are destructive?

Thank you, thank you, thank you!

I still haven't managed to get dealer and GIB to work together. Can anyone point me to a source for mdealer.exe? From what I have read, that version might work, but I can't seem to find the file. Thanks.

Wow, a bridge insult AND a personal insult. You are really on the ball this morning. I don't understand why you're surprised It's sad when personal insults don't come as a surprise...

I believe they may use their own written defense, it doesn't have to be the one provided by the ACBL. "Suggested defense" would probably be better called "provided defense".

Historically the ACBL used this type of clause to ban natural openings I'd be interested to understand 1. When this policy changed 2. How it was communicated to the membership at large There's a difference between regulating the conventional call over a NT range that by agreement may contain fewer that 10 HCP and deeming that a single "upgrade" of a 9 HCP hand constitutes an agreement. The latter used to be the policy of ACBL, written or unwritten. If they have softened this position, I don't think we should be complaining about the wording of the GCC. As Richard says, maybe we should be annoyed that they did not publicize the policy change. But, what they seem to now be telling players is not in contradiction to the GCC wording.

Today is my son's birthday. Despite my encouragement, he missed 1:59 AM by a little over an hour.

Yeah, I can attest to the fact that new life masters will find a way to report this to the Bulletin editor. Also new Bronze Life Masters, Silver Life Masters, etc.

Yes, in the context of the problem in which we have agreed to make this a forcing situation... my point was that this is a horrible agreement. Stuck with it, I double for precisely the reason you stated. But if partner can be 2=5=2=4, for example, maybe we can't beat it... and maybe we can't make 10 or 11 tricks in hearts either. Let's suppose the auction had been 1H-(2S)-3S-(4S). Now many would agree with a pass being forcing. Wouldn't you still double because your hand is more defensive than offensive? I guess my question is: in a situation where a pass would be forcing, isn't double a suggestion rather than a demand? Some of the comments in this thread make it sound like when we double we are definitely going to be defending. But, to me, our description of our hand as more defensive than offensive is to help partner make the right decision when it comes around to her rather than a definitive statement of what the partnership will do.

I bet a director could point you in the right direction. But, your point that it could be made easier is probably a good one.

The vugraph operator was providing some descriptions of the players' demeanor during the broadcast. It seemed to me that JL and KB played through this without incident, which I thinks says a lot about their approach to the game. I suspect many pairs, even those with lots of experience at high levels, would have lost their composure as a result of the misunderstanding. Others might have cried foul and complained about the methods or the way in which written defenses are presented. Instead, Justin has simply said "my fault".

Isn't double simply an expression that your hand is more defensive than offensive? Once we've offered that opinion, partner can still bid 5H with a hand that is unsuitable for sitting for the penalty suggestion, can't he? It's not like this is an auction where anyone is going to have a trump stack. I would think the double is more a difference between 1534 and 2524 or 2533 than a final partnership decision to defend. I agree with double. No, I'm not afraid it will be 300/500 instead of 650. If I was afraid of a bad result, I wouldn't be playing bridge. Am I confident that defending will always be right? No. But, sometimes partner will know it is right to remove the double to 5h and sometimes we will get this wrong.