jchiu

What Adam described as the American method is prevalent in the interior states. This probably is a result of the old ACBL scoresheets that have columns for contract, declarer, made, down, N-S score, E-W score, and E-W pair number. I usually score as Roland recommends, and never really encountered confused directors until I scored that way in Laramie Wyoming (yes they have bridge clubs there!).

I am quite loose when it comes to overalling over a preempt, and yet your partner's hand doesn't quite look like an overcall to me.

There is no such thing as "too old". David Treadwell, who recently had his 94th birthday, won the Flight A knockout at the recent Wilmington [Delaware] Regional, playing on a team that also included 17-year old high school student Ethan Kotkin. As for live club games versus online, I find that while it is easier to concentrate at a brick-and-mortar club, the quality of partners and competition I can find online is much better. It also helps those difficult sessions at tournaments. I have played two regionals and the American spring nationals this year, and have outdone my previous results in similar tournaments by a large margin. I attribute this to playing many tough games online.

The description isn't really that accurate, unless you mean to reverse dummy and hand. While I agree that the play was horrible, and I'm surprised the robot didn't act directly over 2♥, these indiscrestions are a result of an unlucky random simulation. I certainly would just dismiss this because the $16.00 that it cost here(I doubt you have right to complain if it were less) is less than the edge that a good player has on an average player playing here. Edited: Took OP's eleven tops for granted, only nine tricks.

Sorry for the misinterpretation. I now believe that it's a tossup between playing a club to the jack, and ruffing a heart to cater to 3-3 hearts; and playing a spade to the king, and taking the diamond finesse. Since hardly anyone drops honours from most holdings unless forced to, I think it is a tossup between playing for a 2-0 split with 11 spaces, and a 1-1 split with 11 spaces. In particular, what are the odds between KQxx/xx vs Kxx/Qxx? The executive summary says that the latter occurs 52.38% of the time and should be slightly favoured over the straight-up diamond finesse. The maths behind it: The odds of a 1-1 break now is (2 choose 1) (2 choose 1)(20 choose 10) / (22 choose 12) = 52.38%. Therefore the odds of a 2-0 break are 47.62%. Alternately, of the specific 4-2 breaks, only 6 of the 15 contain KQxx and are possible now. This is 40% of the 48.45% for a 4-2 break, or 19.38%. Similarly, of the 3-3 breaks, only 8 of the 20 are contain KQx and are now impossible. This leaves 60% of the 35.53% for a 3-2 break, or 21.32%. Note that these probabilities are in the exact 11:10 ratio as above.

Edited: see my post below, we should test to ensure hearts are 4-2, and fall back on the diamond finesse they are not. Neither. Playing as such would require 2-2 trumps to be able to enjoy the long hearts. I would just take a straight up diamond finesse after winning the first trump in hand and crossing to the ♥A. This line works slightly less than half the time. The alternate line seems to be: preserve the ♠K entry to dummy to enable a squeeze position. This line would be, win ♣A in hand, ♥A, ruff a heart, ♣J, run off all trumps, ♠A, ♠K. It works whenever hearts break, and whenever the opponents mispitch. However, even given that hearts are no worse than 4-2, I would estimate this line at slightly less than 45%.

While playing the opener for the ♥A is percentage, anyone who claims that it is "obvious" has no sense of card visualisation. Many would certainly open 2♣ with ♠ Kx ♥ Qxx ♦ J ♣ KQxxxxx

All of these auctions are generally takeout. However, the main difference that I perceive between the first pair of auctions, and similarly for the second pair, is that the latter auction tends to show more values. Not surprising because they are one-level higher. Auction one: 1♣ (Pass) 1♥ (1♠) :: Dbl Nearly pure takeout, tends to show at most two spades, a sound opener (debatable whether this shows extras, and I prefer that it does not), and generally secondary heart support. Can be quite a good hand, though limit bidding principles apply to responder. Auction two: 1♦ (Pass) 1♠ (2♥) :: Dbl More competitive, but almost as takeout as the last one. It shows some extra values and secondary spade support, unless it is a very good hand. Once again, limit bidding principles apply to responder. Auction three: 1♣ (Pass) 1♥ (1♠) :: Pass (Pass) 2♦ (Dbl) I would expect roughly 6=3=1=3 distribution and a hand that is near the top of the 1♠ overcall range. It tends to have some defensive values, and not just a good spade suit with extra values (those hands bid 2♠). Auction four: 1♦ (Pass) 1♠ (2♥) :: Pass (Pass) 3♣ (Dbl) Same as above, except the doubler has both a more self-sufficient suit and more defense. Her partner is often endplayed into converting to penalty or retreating to 3♥ on mediocre hands.

Quite frankly, I would never believe this tale because of certain facts 1. The top bracket is populated by usual suspects, e.g. Meckwell, Melanie Tucker and her juniors, Justin Lall, etc. I doubt that any team from Zimbabwe would be sponsored to go to Gatlinburg to compete. Even more so, I doubt that anyone sounding like a drunk (bad-lawyer)-wannabe would be in the top bracket (and if they were, they would neither drink in the afternoon nor survive to the evening round). 2. Midchart defenses must be approved by the regulatory body of the ACBL. It would be easier to publish a nonsense paper in Nature than to get anything this ludicrous approved by the stodgy ACBL. This is certainly not because they have higher acceptance standards. I have heard (from a fairly believable source) that they just throw many of these applications for mid-chart approval out without reading them. 3. Bridge players seem incredibly complacent when they appear to be listening to the local blabbermouth. I have heard personally from players that they were just keeping their long-winded acquaintences company while completely filtering out the details. I also rarely hear people have a strong negative opinion against the party that come up to them waiting for the appeal to be decided.

You beat the 3♠X= pair, just another average minus.

Three questions: What's the missing -100 result? Where was this board "played"? Who invented this zero tricks for hearts treatment?

First, I'll start off with the friends and mentors: * Valio Kovachev (valani) A Bulgarian internationalist who is relatively young and has interest in supervising young, talented player. His strengths are deceptive cardplay and bidding based on frequency. I play with his team in several American tournaments, and with him on Bridgebase occasionally. * Ira Chorush (chorush) An American statistician who really knows his math when applied to bridge. However, the highlights of his bridge game are his structured and disciplined bidding and his excellent partnership demeanor. I played with him in an exhibition match, where I cost us no fewer than 25 IMPs over the span of a dozen boards by misusing Blackwood. He said not a word of criticism, and I had to almost beg him to tell me that I did something wrong. * Justin Lall (jlall, jiaii, etc. :)) Never before have I seen a player create so many positive swings by being so disciplined. Then the internationalists (who are friends of friends): * Sabine Auken and Daniela von Arnim (Germany) I enjoy watching the adventures of their free-spirited four-card majors canape strong club system. They hardly ever have a misunderstanding about the intricate continuations that is outlined in their 140-page system notes booklet. * Bauke Muller and Simon de Wijs (Netherlands) They play a variant of symmetric relay precision called Tarzan Club. Having played a similar system, as passed on to Rob Helle and Steve Green, then to Matt Haag, I at least get the impression that I have some clue what they are doing. They can be very deliberate in the cardplay at times. And I really don't need to explain why any of the internationalists mentioned by previous posters are interesting to watch.

The proper names on the 12th seeded team are Valio Kovachev - Vladi Isporski They are a top Bulgarian pair who has done quite well recently. If I recall correctly, they won in 2005 and were second in 2006, both times with Geoffrey Wolfarth as their captain. I am surprised that they are not seeded higher (e.g. the American Vanderbilt and Spingold seeding would have given them a large number of seeding points for this).

I learned duplicate bridge from a friend at 15. I was finishing high school and needed a hobby to replace competitive debate, one that would have me staying at home and getting my competitive thrill without being distracted from academics by the rigours of travelling. I started playing at the MIT Draper Labs Bridge Club, a club with the image of the Tuesday Zoo. Soon thereafter, players asked me to go to tournaments and I have been addicted ever since. I have played a regionally rated or higher tournament in 17 states and one foreign country.

1♣ - 1♦ 1♥ - 1NT 2♣ - 2♥ 2♠ - 2NT 3♣ - 3NT 4♣ - 4♦ 4♥ - 4♠ 4NT - 5♥ 6♣ - Pass 1♣ Strong Club, 16+ HCP 1♦ Negative Response 0-7 HCP (sometimes a bad 8 HCP) 1♥ Relay, usually 19+ HCP 1NT 4+♥, may be canape 2♣ Relay, as are all of opener's bids except the last 2♥ 4+♣, unbalanced, relative length still not known 2NT Reverser, exactly 4♥, 5+♣ 3NT 3=4=0=6 shape 4♦ One control in response to the 4♣ strong relay 4♠ Denies a top club honor 5♥ Shows a top heart honor, a top spade honor, denies ♣J 6♣ Places the contract, since ♠ xxx ♥ KQxx ♦ -- ♣ 10xxxxx is now impossible, and responder cannot have both major suit kings from 4♦. However, it is not known which major suit king responder holds (and which major suit queen). Note that the spiral scan used the queen rule, which regarded high honor as queen or higher, beginning with the first suit scanned, clubs.

Although it wouldn't surprise me to find some honors behind me, assuming this is always true against anyone but a very sound overcaller would lead to excessive conservatism. However, I am glad that you double despite this qualm.

That changes my decision. In a normal IMP game, I would bid 3♦ without hesitation or regrets. However, in an EBU sponsored U25 Butler contest, or against anyone named Myers :-P, the fear that swish would lead to a bad result subsides and I would either double or bid 3♦ depending on my table feel.

So the lab rats don't really remember much from their recent outing to a NY fast food restaurant? http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,265025,00.html On Feb. 22, Thomas documented only 87 rat droppings and didn't cite an additional 20, ... taken from the article ...

I have had the dual of this debate with echognome, who is currently starting his new job as a Senior Tax Transfer Pricing Analyst for Price Waterhouse Coopers. We first asked the same question: what should a negative double over 1♣ (1♦) show? We quickly agreed that it should show at least 4-4 in the majors. The primary advantage resulted from being able to promptly being able to determine our degree of fit. Whether opener had a strong hand, and could raise to the appropriate level without having to cuebid and allowing the opponents to suggest rather than unilaterally take a profitable sacrifice. With a competitive hand, opener has the opportunity to bid on the two-level or using good-bad 2NT without worrying that his partnership has no 4-4 fit anywhere. There are disadvantages disallowing 4-3 and 3-4 in the majors, but they are comparatively small. The solution is to bid the four-card major as if the overcaller passed instead. Here, we are only slightly worse off when responder has a one-bid hand with a single five-card major. But opener can choose to raise on three-card support (after advancer passes), or to trot out the competitive double (after advancer raises). Only in the former case does the degree of fit become concealed, and in the latter case is opener's precise strength partially concealed. But this is rarely noticably worse than if the opponents remained silent to begin with. The real heart of the debate that Matt and I had was: should we use the negative double for 5-4, 4-5, and 5-5 hands? My perspective was: it is fine to use the negative double on 5-4 or 4-5 hands worth only one bid, even though the 5-3 fit may occasionally be concealed. However, if opener "raises" in the five-card suit, it is entirely up to responder to compete further on the three-level or stretch and bid game. I did not really approve of making negative doubles on 5-5 hands, even if they are (substantially) less than invitational strength. This is where I disagreed with Matt, since I thought that doubling would have a large chance of silencing partner, even if he is 3-3 in the majors. Alternately, responding 1♠ as in the uncontested auction would at least encourage partner to compete half the time when he has a reasonable major suit fit. Matt concured with me on the 5-4 hands, but felt that it was much more important to get the 5-5 hands off his chest in one bid. He insisted that it mattered to finding thin games when partner has hearts instead, and claimed that the heart suit may be lost alltogether when partner has 2-3 spades and 4 hearts. He even brought this so far as to try it on ♠ Jxxxx ♥ Jxxxx ♦ xx ♣ x.

Ya callin me a chicken? On a more serious note, I think 4♥ is appropriate if it does not deviate too wildly from your preempting style. Paul Gipson, in another thread, just made the keen observation that European preempts tend to be less rigid than American preempts. I would most certainly agree that this is much closer to a 4♥ than 2♥ opening.

I was actually expecting much more than a minority to open 3♠ on this hand, since the American contingent has a much sounder preempting style. However, I don't think any of us require six and a half playing tricks anymore.

3♥. One of my pet theories: with a 6-5 hand that has reasonable suits but does not have sufficient defense to open at the one level, I tend to preempt at the three level in my six-card suit except when I hold both majors. The primary advantage is getting your first suit off your chest quickly and shutting the opponents out of your auction. This does have its downsides, especially when your primary fit is in your five-card side suit and partner has insufficient strength to keep the auction open. This is the primary disadvantage, but the only times where I have achieved atrocioius results opening on the three level come from violating basic principles: opening with both majors, opening (in third seat) with a hand that Alvin Roth would open with a smile (in first seat), and opening on complete garbage vulnerable. By the way, I think 2♥ is a bit wet with this hand except in second seat at unfavorable vulnerability. It would be swinging against most modern players to define your weak twos this soundly.

Here are the agreements that I play with most of my regular partners. This is paraphrased from the system notes I have with Matt Haag. These agreements are very close to what I tend to assume with a pickup expert partner. I have left out specific situations where each signal applies. Against suit contracts: 1. Ace from ace-king (*1) 2. Highest of touching honors (*2) 3. Highest from an interior sequence (*2) 4. 3rd best from even, lowest from odd 1. While this has been standard in Europe for years, it seems that it is only recently become standard in the American east coast. I see more advantages for leading the ace from AKx+ because dry-ace leads are quite rare and tend to cost a trick when used inappropriately. (*1) The exception is that we play ace asks for count, king asks for queen-attitude or suit-preference against volunatrily bid contracts at the five level or higher. We do not do this if there is doubt in either defender's mind that the opponents' contract was a sacrifice. Also, it is not important to play ace for count. It is quite sensible to play ace for attitude and s/p and king for count, if this is easier to remember. 2. Rusinow never really caught on that much in New England where I started playing. For nothing other than familiarity, I play standard honor leads. (*2) The exception to standard honor leads is from weak honor combinations. From QJx+ or J10x+, I prefer to lead the proper spot card that indicates length against most contracts. Here x really denotes a low card, from QJ9+ or J108+, I almost always lead the high honor. 3. See coded 9s and 10s discussion below. I think they are even more useless against suit contracts. 4. I think differentiating from three- and four-card length is paramount against suit contracts. This certainly beats trying to lead fourth best throughout, and being forced to lead the smallest card from Hxx or xxx. Against notrump contracts: 5. Ace asks for count or unblock of a queen or jack 6. King asks for attitude 7. Queen asks for unblock of jack 8. Highest from an interior sequence 9. 2nd and 4th best leads from length with regards to attitude 5-6. One lead should be the power lead that requests unblock or count failing that. The other should be the asking for help lead that requests attitude. It matters little whether it is played this way, or ace for attitude king for count. I just learned it this way from Eddie Kantar's big red book on defense, and have played it as such ever since. 7. Standard treatment to avoid the Bath coup. Although the queen is much more frequent from QJ10+ or QJ9+, it seems that this comes up once in a blue moon. It may be advisable to never have any unblocking power leads (I was recently presented the case for this from a Bulgarian internationalist, and I'm not certain either way on this issue). 8. Coded 9s and 10s (coupled with jack denies a higher honor) definitely helps declarer more than it helps the defense. There are certainly conventions that are useful for distinguishing 109x+ from H109x+, like (reverse) Smith echo. 9. However, when there is a choice of spot cards to lead from, giving attitude is useful to help partner know what to return when he first attains the lead. However, I don't prefer straight attitude leads against notrump, since the count of the opening suit has relevance to cashout or develop further tricks situations. Quite frequently the opening lead suit serves as communications to access tricks that the defense may develop in another suit. Defensive carding: 10. Upside down count and attitude 11. Standard suit preference 12. Original up side down count returns in suit contracts 13. Reverse attitude returns in notrump contracts 14. Reverse Smith echo against notrump contracts 10. Upside down attitude is convenient since you don't have to waste an important spot to inform partner to continue or switch to the suit. I frequently have hands where cards down to the seven matter to preserve the tricks the defense was due in the suit combination (and I don't mean for purposes of scoring the beer card either!). Upside down count just came as an afterthought to upside down attitude around here. Seems to be a trendy thing more than a practical thing. 11. I'm not quite sure why upside down suit preference never really became universal, but it is far more important to agree on situations where suit preference applies over count or attitude signals. 12. This is more instinctive from someone who always learned to lead high from a remaining doubleton. However, there are cases where as third hand, you win the honor from Hxx and have to lead the larger spot to hold the position in the suit. This is the reason why I choose to return original upside down or present standard count here. 13. Fairly standard, although there is a case for returning your fourth best in switching to a suit that the third hand likes. This does help with the count, but I tend to just use this when it is convenient for third hand to switch to precisely the fourth-best card. 14. This is one of the most controversial defensive conventions since it is very difficult to play ethically. For the situations where it applies are defined by negative inference, and often defenders cannot really know for certain whether they like the opening lead. There is also no standard on which is the ambivalent message here, although I prefer to use encouragement by the opening leader and discouragement by the third hand here. It comes in handy to solve unknown attitude problems, but if not played in tempo, this convention can land you in front of a committee.

I actually held the companion hand at the other table, where they let me play 4♥. Personally, I don't think it's close between double and pass on one end, and 5♥ on the other. However, I'm surprised with all the posters who choose double, nobody explicitly indicates that this double was responsive in nature. This certainly covers the case where partner strained to overcall, but double also gives him an easier decision about bidding again when he has a sound overcall.

Just curious, were you the declarer, Justine? ;) And, how DID you set up a team match where all 4 players on your team were jlall? In Chile, declarer's name is Justina ... JLALL JIAII JIAIL and 5 more