Elianna

Funny how you seem to protest about generalizations such as that, and yet you said 2NT shows 20-22 in most standard systems? Is that not a generalization? Mine at least is likely to be accurate. While I have not taken a survey of modern bridge teachers, I have seen teaching material put out by the ACBL, which states that opening 2NT has a range of 20-21. Granted, the ACBL is not the be all and end all of modern bridge, nor of what's "standard" and I probably made a mistake when I said most modern teachers, I should have said american teachers. If you wish to investigate, go to the acbl webpage, download their manual for teachers, and look at page 15 (section 1, deal 6) Where do you get the info for YOUR claims? Or are YOUR generalizations exempt from needing to be backed up.

Eh! Last time I looked a 2NT opening shows 20-22 in most standard systems. Funny how a point makes a difference. Most modern bridge teachers teach 2NT shows 20-21. Anyway, what would help is playing some bid that right away shows a double negative. My partner and I play that this sequence is passable: 2♣-2♥; 2NT But not if the 2♥ bid were anything else (ie 2♦, while still "waiting" sets up a gameforce, allowing the 2♣ bidder to rebid 2NT with a really strong hand, too)

I don't think that it NEEDS multiple sections to display strats, it's just when you go past the first page. I don't know where a url is that displays this, just wait for the current pairs to finish (prolly about five-ten minutes from now, and take a look at more than the first few pages of the score listing).

You can click on your own name, and then on "edit profile". In the left hand column, there is a link that says "board settings". You can use that to set your local time.

Look, in the new way of listing scores by section, the ACBL games online list of winners by section, they now list people's stratification IN ADDITION to sections. Please take a look at this before you reply again.

It would never occur to me to pass 2♣ in Standard or 2/1, or anywhere else that this is a strong forcing opening showing nothing about partner's shape. I must admit that I have passed partner's forcing bid before. Playing Standard American, the bidding went: 1♣-(1♠)-pass-(pass); 2♠-all pass And I held 9xxxxxx/xxx/xxx/--. Of course, partner WAS limited, I didn't have a four card major, nor a real spade stopper. On the opening lead, partner said "you better have seven or eight small spades and nothing else", and I just grinned at him and arranged dummy (this was in a live game).

Well, I bet that someone sent you an email from the forums, and if you don't recognize the person, they probably mistyped in your name. If you do recognize the person, and were expecting a bridge discussion and don't understand what they're trying to discuss with you, ask that person! :)

I know what flights and strats are, thank you. I was in a discussion about NAPs and flights were on my mind. Also, Justin may be a GLM now, but at the beginning of the year, he was an SLM, and I didn't feel like claiming honors for him that he may or may not have. But this still doesn't answer the question of what he was doing in the C strat.

Edited because offensive portion of above post was deleted, and also because this forum is not about gender relations.

I've noticed with the recent change in score printouts, the ACBL games are now stratified, but I was wondering how the strats were decided. For example, I find it very puzzling that Justin's (Jlall) pair was in Flight C (in the 8pm pairs game today), considering that he has at least 1,000 points (probably more like 2500).

I basically agree with Peter, that there seems to be no misinformation. I would add that to be complete, 4♦ could be alerted as "preemptive with diamonds" instead of just preemptive, but I don't see how that would change any circumstances, unless N was under the impression that West was the one with long spades, which still seems to make it N's problem, not W's.

I'll keep doing this, I just know that I would get sad if the questions got to be more and more about if one understands the system, and if a lot of intermediate/advanced decided that they were too hard or boring to participate, and if beginners just found the explanations incomprehensible. I'm not saying we're there now, I don't even really think that we're close to that stage, but some people seemed to prefer that stage, and I just know that it would make me sad. But so far, I'm pretty happy, we get new people to participate so it's nice to see new names (especially those who don't post with the frequency of others), but it's kind of sad that there are a not so small group of people who haven't sent in their answers yet, and haven't said that they're not going to (I find this sad because I feel it's likely that I'll yet again get several late replies, and I always find it sad telling people that their ballot was untimely. :D ) PS. My name is spelled E - L - I - A - N - N - A (of course, you don't need to capitalize the later letters). I realize that "Ben" is easier to spell, that's why I'm helping many of you out now by spelling my name. :unsure: If it's easier, you can call me "Eli" (but only if you pronounce it so it rhymes with "Kelly")

I think that I've figured it out: red dot there means that you can't reply to any thread in that forum (nor can you start a new one). OK, you can delete this thread since I've answered my own question.

I realize that while BBO moderates the forums, you may not actually code the forums, but I was curious if anyone knows why one of the forums (BPO polls) appears with a red dot (to the left of the forum name)? I know that when forums appear with a light blue dot that you can't click on, it means that there's not a new post in any of the threads. A bright blue dot means that there is a new post in at least one thread, and you can click on the dot to change it's status to "read". But I'm just curious what a red, unclickable dot means.

Actually, I don't believe that Howell movements were meant to save on board duplication (if I recall correctly, they don't) but they allow all of the field to play each other (or for some Howells, most of the field). And as Lukasz pointed out, if you're playing in a small tournament (say 6 or 8 pairs) then it might be more fun to play against ALL the other pairs, instead of a bunch of boards vs. the same half of the field.

Whoa! Wait a minute here! I thought that the original concept was to create a poll that was accessable to the majority of Bridge Base (or at least Forum) users. I don't really care if they're called "Master Solver" or what, but I do think that calling the winner of the first one "unqualified" seems a bit much. I think that Adam has a point in that the questions from the second poll DID seem to be based on how well one knows the system being played, and he had hoped that they would be more on how much judgement one has, regardless of system. I don't really know how I feel about what questions should be asked, I just know that I like questions that make me think of pros and cons of what I'm bidding, rather than make me pull up system notes and see what the system bid is (I'm a mathmetician, not a researcher! :rolleyes:). I also know that I would be very sad if even two people decided not to participate because the questions were too hard, or covered conventions that they had never heard of much less played. And I'm not talking about people that just learned that a bridge hand is 13 cards, I'd rather that the questions be asked at the level of your average, intermediate players, but ones that more advanced people could enjoy, rather than ones that experts find challenging, and intermediates find unsolvable, or worse yet, have an answer, but find that the "real" solution is something that they had never heard of. It's a total turn off. But what I would REALLY be sad to see is if the polls turned into yet ANOTHER place to throw insidious remarks around, that seem solely intended to offend people.

How to send me your answers: Click on the box below my post that says "pm" Tell me what your answers are, indexed by the problem index. Do NOT add any commentary, explanations, etc. It is your responsibility to make sure all bids are sufficient, fit in the system, and that you have answered every question. Example of a correct format (but not correct bids, I hope): BPO-003 A: 8C BPO-003 B: 9♦ You can find the "PM" button immediately underneath the smiley face below ..............:rolleyes:

How did the spade 2 manage to be played twice? And how did the Q wait until the third spade trick?

Justin is correct, a hand cannot be copyrighted, but analysis of the hand can. So Ben is also correct, that you shouldn't post someone's whole hand analysis. However, I'm sure that if enough people answer, there will be a correct answer of what should be done. Also, if there was a particularly humorous quote, you could post that (with attribution), but there is a fine line between quoting a line, and quoting the analysis (if you see what I mean). Anyway, there's a bunch of sites on the web if you want to know more about copyrights, and what's legal to post where.

So would you have not bid 4♥ as North? Or is there just nothing to do about this one?

This was the full deal: [hv=d=n&v=n&n=sqj9xxha9xxxdxckx&w=shkxxdqtxxxcaqtxx&e=sktxxxxhdakjxxxcx&s=saxhqjtxxd9cj9xxx]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv] As most of you suggested, South doubled 6♦. Final score: 6♦x+1. :)

The bidding goes: CHO . RHO . you . LHO 1S ... 2D ... X ... 4D 4H ... 5D ... 5H ...6D pass .pass...??? It's matchpoints, unfavorable. Your hand is Ax QJTxx x J9xxx

Also, you could just sign up, and there will be some protocal asking you to deposit some money. At least, there used to be.

You are playing in open pairs at a regional. You later find out (though your partner knows this at the time) that LHO is an expert playing with a client who is described to you as awful (after the round, of course, and not by his partner). The bidding goes: (you pass throughout) LHO RHO 1NT (BIT)2C 2D (BIT)3S (BIT)4H 5D 5H 6D 6H pass BIT=Break in tempo 3S =Smolen Partner asks if you have any questions, you ask for an explanation of the auction, LHO gives the explanation given above (diamond bids were explained by LHO as cuebids). Partner leads club A. First question: How surprised are you when LHO tables KQxx Tx AKJTxx x? You have the spade A, so you try to signal partner with a high club, but partner seems to have been taken in by LHO's hemming and hawing (that they're playing in a 3-2 fit) and played a heart. (Again, I should stress that partner was not thinking how to set a difficult to beat contract) Second question: After the dust settles, how surprised would you be to discover LHO had Jx AKQJxx xx QJx? (15-17NT, but the point is that he denied a fourcard major) Third question: Did anything wrong happen here (should the director be involved)?

I was confused by something you said: You play four suit transfers, right? Then why do you need 1N-2c; 2M-3m to be a sign off? Can't you just transfer into the minor and sign off? Also, if you modified the original hand to give yourself a singleton heart so you have AQxx x KQxx KQxx, I'm assuming that your original statement would be true, you "could reach any of the following contracts: 4N (ugh), 5C, 5D, 6C, 6D, 6S, 6N" and that your second statement, that you miss 6S for 6m whenever partner has 4/4 in spades and a minor is true is also correct. Is that what you wished comment on? If so, I don't know what to say. Your system sounds somewhat workable, but definitely not for mps. I also would be curious what contract you end up in when partner (the NT opener) has xxxx KQJx AJx Ax (when you have the above hand, of course).