pilowsky

Finally some really good news from the USA. Newsom, twice-elected Governor of California, has taken a leaf from the Texas legislature. Now what we need is the right to seek injunctive relief against anyone who manufactures, distributes, or sells false information for the purpose of seeking monies or for election to public office. Gov. Abbott may be onto something.

Maybe they decided to be anonymous. Perhaps Gordon can assist?

Thanks for your concern. I did play Acolised Benji with one partner - having read the book "Benjamin two's" - and a few other UK documents on the topic, but in the end decided to stick to a vanilla 2/1. I only bid 2♣ when I have a hand that A) I want to force to a game contract and is too strong for a 2NT opening and too weak for 3NT - I don't play Gambling. AND B) it has <= 4 losers. This hand had a cloven hoof but it did chew its cud. If you provide a form of words that you think would best describe the kind of hand outline above, I'll be happy to use it next time I play in an EBU game (I am a member). I actually don't like the 2♣ opening and rarely use it. What concerned me about 4♥ is that it doesn't describe the trick taking potential of my hand. Opening 1♥ seemed to risk getting trampled on. The response (on my CC) is a forced relay 2♦. If asked for further information I'm always happy to clarify 4 or fewer losers or 22+.

FWIW - it was a 16 table Club game. 3 people started with 2♣. The rest divided roughly 50/50 with 1 or 4 ♥. Nobody bid Namyats.

It might be good to expand SCOTUS so we can get more quotes like this: Before the words rush out from behind their teeth, I wonder if they pause to chew them over and taste what they sound like?

From this thread on the other site - https://bridgewinner...ots-ngs-rating/ https://www.ebu.co.uk/ngs/DIU/M/I 25.Basic BBO Bot A55.98J 26.Advanced BBO Bot B55.92J Looks like the Basic Bot is slightly ahead ATM.

I thought GIB had a decent albeit not fantastic position on the EBU NGS.

Here's a link to the ACBL SAYC booklet. I can't find any mention of it there: This is pretty much all it says about responses to minor openings: Few self-styled SAYC players (that I've met) follow it to the letter. I won't quibble about the lexical difference between 'less than enough' and 'a hand not suitable for' - tomato - tomato. Less than enough simply means 'inadequate' to my way of thinking. Not a specific HCP count or shape specification.

Just to be clear - this is from an actual Australian club game - matchpoints, 2/1 etc. In the previous post where 2C was opened with a huge club suit I was defending not bidding. The opponent learned Bridge in the UK - like most people he's a much better player than me. In retrospect I think 4H is the right bid. In Australia opening 2♣ as a game forcing bid is completely legal. But this is clearly a jurisdictional matter. According to the sky blue regs eating is not permitted (penalty not described) in online games where opponents can see you (one chew per Ace?) but not on BBO where they can't. As I understand it eating is not illegal in Australia - but I haven't checked.

If I showed up to a game in Australia and didn't have an agreement then 1minor- pass - 2 major would usually mean a very weak hand with 6+ major. Here, partner is a passed hand so I assume they have even less than enough for a preempt.

In stark contrast to just about every other computer based online game with the possible exceptions of Pong, Snake and Tetris. Mind you Snake is still pretty tough - you can play it in your browser here: https://playsnake.org/ All the same, they still bid and play better than most. Robot+robot regularly score well in tournaments.

[hv=pc=n&s=shakq986532d3cqt7&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=p]133|200| This hand came up in todays club game. Matchpoints. 2/1 with 3 weak 2's etc. I've toned my bidding down to over-exuberant from psychotically optimistic because my Thursday partner has a hair-trigger for 3NT, but with 3 losers I felt 2♣ was fair. The median opening was 4♥. What would you suggest? [/hv] What happened at our table.

Well, that's the nature of Bridge: sometimes it works and sometimes you blame your partner. From the perspective of a non-expert I also like the pass except in third seat white vs red when I would bid 3C - but I would like to know if my hunch is based on reality. It would be nice to know what the real-world probability is - assuming optimal play and a tournament matchpoints situation. Is it a 50/50, 40/60 or 10/90 proposition? With 9 HCP in 3rd seat, it is possible that 4th seat has a monster but it seems more likely they will have 14-17 and their partner has 7-9 (with no 6 S,H or D suit). With a pretty large variance. Although if 1st and 2nd seat are constrained to having less than opening points and no 6 card other and with 7-9 HCP this should be fairly straightforward to simulate. A quick check suggests that fourth seat having 14-16 is about right.

You seem to have discovered ACBL (Classic). I don't know why they call them "Classic" except that in Australia, the word can have a slang meaning when something absolutely ridiculous happens that leaves you shaking your head and wondering why anyone would come up with such a crazy idea you might shake your head and remark: "Good grief, absolutely classic". Come to think of it, that's probably the reason.

OP frames the question in the context of "short club", but doesn't the problem described exist using better minor as well? I think we had a discussion about the significance of better minor vs short club a while back but I would like to know what specific theoretical problem using short club solves.

Meanwhile, in the other game: Carlsen is playing Nepomniachtchi (put the emphasis on the second syllable) for the world championship. Game six was a stunner - .A couple of days before I switched onto youtube to find Magnus live-streaming while taking on all comers at Blitz on Chess.com There were two viewers and no comments. I don't know who the other person was.

I just looked at pescetom's link to BW and found the quote above. Does this mean that in relation to any call where I suspect that my partner might consider that my failure to ask about the meaning of a call could be construed to mean that I should lead a card that I might not otherwise have led may result in my partner believing something that he may (or may not depending on vulnerability) have thought? How much time do I have to make this decision without providing unauthorised information to my partner? What is the penalty for failing to ask? How would a Director establish that I failed to ask to convey UI when opponents complain? Or does this type of problem only arise in certain jurisdictions and at certain tournaments? When people gather to decide the next tranche of bridge rules will they be reading Kafka while consuming LSD?

South writes an explanation in the bidding box. After bidding the call made will have a grey background. If South also clicks the alert button the call has a red line around it and a grey background. East and West can click on the bid to read the explanation. If East or West do not click on the bid they do not see the explanation. North does not see the South explanations until play is completed.

I've seen people do it on the forum - is it possible with the handviewer app?

In order to understand delaying gratification Trump and his pals would first need to understand object permanence.

Any takers? Only $10,000 AND includes a photo with the one on the left.

Doesn't double of an artificial bid commonly mean lead that suit? As in double of a Bergen raise or double of a transfer bid etc. What am I missing?

Or you can just go to the WHO website and find out. https://www.who.int/en/activities/tracking-SARS-CoV-2-variants/

Wait until we get to Omega.