jonottawa

I was thinking that it would be a nice idea if there was a third category of 'special people' on Bridge Base besides just 'stars' and 'moderators.' They could be called 'ambassadors' perhaps, or perhaps somebody else could come up with a better suggestion, but new players could identify them by either a symbol or the color of their name. These 'ambassadors' would be Bridge Base regulars who epitomize the values and attitude that Bridge Base seeks to encourage in all its members. I think there should be a bridge-ability component to the title as well, but maybe it should be open to anybody with the 'right stuff' regardless of playing ability. It could even be objectively awarded using a function computing how many hours are spent playing times the ratio of people with you on their friends list to people with you on their enemies list (or simply requiring minimum amounts in both categories.) I'm thinking of people like Michael Lucy (just to name one, there are surely many others) who are on Bridge Base all the time, top-notch expert bridge players, incredibly cordial and friendly at the table (no matter how often disaster strikes or how badly partner messes up), and who epitomize everything that is great about our game and this site, but who, for whatever reason, haven't happened to either represent their country in international competition or win an NABC event. I can hear the objections to my idea already in that it might foster competition or resentment between those who have the title and those who don't but think they deserve it (and, in case you were wondering, I am well aware that I am far too 'testy' to ever deserve such a title, this is not a self-serving endeavor on my part.) Others might add that new players can find the 'unidentified ambassadors' easily enough simply by going to the table where all the kibitzers are. Maybe those concerns outweigh the value of my suggestion. I'd be interested to hear what others think. Jonathan Ferguson "jonottawa"

Thanks to everyone who replied. I'll now weigh in with my (admittedly biased) two cents. On the first hand, I don't see how North can pass 3N. He knows that South has a stiff club (even if you rule out a void) and with no entry to those clubs, how can pass be right? I was South (if you haven't guessed that already) and pictured a hand like XXX KX QJX AQXXX and thought that my fat 14 and great spots would make 3N laydown opposite almost any hand resembling a 2/1 response (barring a club lead if partner has bad spots, which is exceedingly unlikely on this auction) whereas a 4H contract might have problems if hearts don't break (I certainly have no reason to suspect that hearts will take 2 more tricks than NT if partner has that hand). Simply put, 2H doesn't guarantee 3 card support and after showing a hand with 5 hearts, 4 diamonds, double spade stop and shortness in clubs, I expected partner to take it from there. On the second hand, I was again South. I don't dispute that I didn't have a textbook DONT bid at unfavorable, but we were playing an inexperienced partnership and I doubted that they had the tools to nail us even if it was right. Yeah, I would have preferred to be 5-4-3-1 and usually the principle of 'first mistake gets all the blame' is valid, but when the 'first mistake' produces a great result and the second mistake is so hugely antipercentage, I think you have to make an exception. For starters, my RHO might have taken the 4H bid as Texas and bid 4S if my partner had passed. Regardless, they wrongsided the contract and got too high because of my bid. The 4H bidder was a passed hand, after all. Partner's 5C bid is criminal. He has no fit for either of my suits and chose to bid 5/4 with a presumed 8 card fit into a nebulous auction where the opps might end up in the wrong suit or at worst, where he knows exactly what to lead. DONT is designed to interfere with the opponents' constructive NT auction. It performed beautifully on this hand. Then partner took a hugely antipercentage action and we went for 1400 (down 5, the diamonds were 4-2 offside (who would play the heart bidder for diamond length?) instead of taking our easy plus against 4H. Doubt I changed any minds with my analysis, but what the hey ... ;D

Had a couple of disasters yesterday and would be interested in hearing some ideas on where the blame primarily lies. Assume casual expert partnership. Hand 1: N held XX XXX Q AQJXXXX S held AJTX AJTXX ATXX --- Playing 2/1 with no in depth agreements, the following auction occurred (beginning with South.) 1H - P - 2C - P - 2D - P - 2H - P - 2S - P - 3C - P - 3N - P - P - P 3N was not a successful contract. Hand 2: N held KX QT ATX J98XXX S held AJXXX XX KJ9X XX With N/S vul, playing DONT, the following auction occurred: (beginning with West) P - P - 1N (15-17) - 2D - 4H - 5C - Dbl - P - P - 5D - Dbl - P - P - P 5D doubled was not a successful contract