TimG

Way too long; didn't read past the 2nd sentence.

So, how long would you survive if you when you don't move the square you survive 0.261 seconds?

Another question: could someone besides BBO get a tournament on BBO sanctioned by ACBL? That is: does BBO have exclusive rights to ACBL games run on BBO?

I think what people find annoying is when the non-experts chime in with their "I agree" posts AFTER the jdonns and JLOLs of the forum have posted. It might be nice to know that you agree with a well known poster, but you don't need to announce it.

Playing Obvious Shift, I once led an Ace against 6♣ and partner dropped an honor. In Obvious Shift methods this asks for the unusual shift. I duly shifted; my partner was a bit annoyed that he did not get his ruff. No matter what carding method you are using, it is important to use common sense and not get caught up in the method -- any method will run into situations where cards are not readable or the "wrong" card must be played in order to take all your tricks.

One type of question where the "agree with" posts seem appropriate is the "just checking" or "sanity check" posts. If someone posts a questions like "Someone told me X, but I think they're wrong, I've always thought Y" all they are looking for is confirmation of their views and they'd be happy to see a bunch of WTP type posts.

I have a question: is the draw of ACBL tournaments really the masterpoints? Why hasn't someone else set up the kinds of tournaments people are suggesting here? Actually, I'm sure there have been tournaments such as these run, but why hasn't anything caught on and taken off?

I think we'll set it two more often than they will make. What would you estimate is the necessary percentage of the time beating it and beating two required to double?

Whether it's Concord, MA or Concord, NH, I'm pretty sure there's no 'e' at the end.

I think many experts do play something like obvious shift, just not so rigorously laid out and applied as in the Granovetters' book.

Suppose you've heard the auction and you have a hand that might make game opposite a maximum limited opening (say a 10 count) and you have equal length (33 or 22) in the minors. What do you do?

It might matter to me which was the case. Suppose, for instance, that declarer is experienced and knows the rules. He waits for East to play and then calls the director thinking he might get the lead he wants AND a second penalty card. If East is experienced and knows the rules, he might take advantage of an inexperienced declarer who does not know the rules and think he can get by without declarer exercising his rights. The opening post makes it sound like declarer knew what was going on, after all he called the director stating that he wanted to require a diamond lead -- he knew something about the rules but waited too long. I can certainly understand a director seeing this situation and not letting declarer get away with any part of it. If East was the experienced player hoping to get around lead restrictions by not calling the director, I would think it appropriate that the matter be referred to C&E or a recorder form filed.

Would it make any difference to you if the director was called before East led the ♥10? Suppose that, when East wins a trick, declarer says "please don't lead, I think I have some options" and calls the director. Are you still going to rule that there is no penalty card?

It all depends upon what you think of as World Class. Or, expert, for that matter.

ACBL tournements are a Fixed Miitchell movement. I'm not sure if ACBL would allow tournements with a Swiss Pairs movement, but I don't think so. 1 Board tournements are really hard for directors to run, especially speedballs... I rather think ACBL would allow Swiss pairs as long as they fit within the prescribed masterpoint award parameters. ACBL is generally pretty flexible when it comes to club games.

Careful, you could get your A/E license revoked.

So, it's a fit non-jump?

While it doesn' take time to change opponents and tables, you do have to wait for everyone to be done. One three-board round will have less variance time wise than three one-board rounds. A tournament with 12 one-board rounds will take longer than a tournament with 4 three-board rounds. The boards in a 3-board 14 minute round might take 7, 4, and 3 minutes and everything finishes on time. If you make it 3 one-board rounds, this pair is going to be a couple minutes late one round. As to the question about Swiss, yes, I believe BBO supports Swiss Pair movements. Both clocked and unclocked.

I'm a bit confused. On defense, isn't putting the Q on the 7 when dummy is J543 sometimes correct bridge play, and sometimes incorrect bridge play? Or are you saying that it all comes down to what LHO reads as the card layout on the hand? Seems to me that hopping Queen would be a bad play if the suit were laid out like this:[hv=n=sj543&w=sq98&e=skt&s=sa762]399|300|[/hv]There will be clues from the bidding and play up to the point the suit is broken, but I don't think anyone would claim that LHO will always get this right in both cases.

Nope. In this case, I didn't have an entry to cash the 4th spade if they split 3/3. I *think* AK is clearly the line if I do have an entry, because I essentially get a second chance. Sorry, I was focused on this part: My point being that after AK and no Queen, you are not dependent upon a 3/3 split; you still can take a 3rd trick when Qxxx is onside, for instance. I don't have any great feel for how often LHO will duck if you lead up immediately i the no entry situation.

You also make three tricks when the suit is 3-3, or when the Qxxx, Qxxxx or Qxxxxx is onside (because after the AK don't fetch the queen, you'll still be leading towards the Jack).

I'm with the pullers. I don't think partner's pass of 5SX shows extra spade length -- partner could easily have 5 spades and 4 diamonds and be perfectly willing to play 5SX opposite 3 spades in our hand (or 4 spades if ghestem 3♦ couldn't be bid with 4♠ and longer ♦). I think partner's most likely reason for passing originally with spade length is that they have four hearts. The auction here suggests that is very unlikely. Which, I think, argues that partner is less likely to have 6 spades. And, if he does have six spades, they will be not to good. More points in favor of pulling.

Maybe this is a little bit of a rant, but I just wanted to say that I think there is a pretty dangerous trend on these forums to just make a negative double when we don't have 4 of a basically-promised major. Nowadays people on these forums will just make a negative double because it seems in the abstract like a clever way to get around a bidding problem. I think that was pretty close to the original intent of negative doubles: double showed something to say but no good way to say it. Back in the beginning, a negative double didn't promise length in any specific suit (rather it showed not enough length to bid that suit). I do not mean to suggest that you are wrong about the current trend, I just think it is interesting that the current trend is more of a back to the basics thing than a modern twist. On the hand in question, I think 3C is much more to the point than a double. Opener is not going to stretch to bid 3N over this with some uninteresting 14 count, but he might bid 3N when he now thinks his clubs represent a source of tricks. If you double, what do you do over partner's 2N? Over 3H?

I think the obvious culprit is the reduced number of boards played. This has something of a snowballing effect: players think they need a very big game to win such a short event, so they take more gambles in an effort to win. Playing a solid 58%-63% game will never win, so some people don't try to play solidly, they play to make action in hopes of scoring 65%-70% (or higher).

I do not doubt your quote is accurate. But, I thought there was something about the 1C opening having to be forcing. Does anyone know if a recent change has removed the forcing requirement? (And, can anyone confirm the recollection?)