Echognome

I think it is akin to the discussions we had on having BBF supporting pro bridge. It only makes sense if the organization is a market maker. It would be in the interest of the pros if the organization could assist in finding new clients, assisting with the administration of the clients (scheduling, securing fees, etc.), and marketing. It would be in the interest of the clients if the organization could assist them in finding quality instructors or players or both to suit their needs both in terms of the pro's qualifications, but also geographic needs. I can think of a client who might want a local pro to assist with their development and play in the club and perhaps to arrange for a different pro for some tournaments that may have a stronger ability when it comes to playing ability. It would be even better if the organization could assist with the communication between these two professionals. I think these would be the strongest reasons to have an organization and perhaps an organization like the ACBL could create a subdivision if it desired, but I don't know if they have any interest in it. I think it would be very important to make the organization a voluntary one and be careful not to have a conflict of interest (such as requiring pros to register or adding on any additional fees for pros to play). I doubt it will ever happen, but I certainly could see a use for such an organization.

As to the original question and to a point made earlier, if there are 3 tricks left and neither defender has played the suit then it is a certainty that they split 3:3. If there are 4 tricks left then the odds are 4:3 in favor of a 3:3 split. The odds start out at against a 3:3 split. I leave it as an exercise to show this relationship is monotonic and to calculate the number of remaining tricks left when the odds become greater than "evens".

My question to you, is how does a "significant card" versus any other card going to affect the split of all the remaining cards? Edit: Let me put it another way. The only reason the jack is "significant" is that it affects the number of tricks we can take. It's not significant when it comes to the split of the cards. Edit2: Thanks Adam. I see your point (and thus Kevin's). It's the underlying assumption of how the opponents will play the cards and how they won't play the J from Jxx randomly. It's a fair enough assumption, although not a certainty.

I don't think this is quite right. What if were "looking for" the 7 and it hadn't appeared. Then all of the 7x combinations have also been eliminated. The same can be said for any particular card you are missing. Although it might change our chance of taking 4 tricks, I can't see how it would make a 3-3 split any more likely.

All white I'm opening 4♥ with the good shape.

We would have bid 3♠ without the interference, so I'm afraid I'm going to also have to risk the 3 letter acronym.

Because that's the way I play it. I play it as 5 cards + 2-card support minimum, but the confusion is because I subsequently read that some play it as 6-card support + tolerance. Of course I could have been clearer. I hope it's clearer for you now.

Yes I said support, when tolerance would have been better. Whether it shows 7 or 8 cards is by agreement! So 2+5 = 7 and 2+6 = 8 (to use your illustrious example). That's what I was referring to when I mentioned 8 cards. Whether it's better to show 3-card support with 2♠ or only show 2-3 card support and 5 clubs, that would obviously depend upon the hand. Here I prefer showing the clubs and spades (even though it's more likely I will have 2 than 3 card support). I can certainly understand other people feeling differently. Instead of 3 clubs then bidding spades later, why not snapdragon and then bid spades later? Wouldn't this show the value of the hand better? That's what I have in mind. Of course when 4♥ comes back to us, we have a decision.

There's a big difference between showing and allowing. For me you have a problem if you have a 3-6 hand and not enough values for bidding the 6-card suit naturally. To me, I'd rather show 8 of my cards than 3. If we had a 4-5 hand we might choose to fit jump with it (not on this particular set of values and honor locations, but on other hands). So the question is, does a snapdragon double deny 3-card support for you?

I thought they covered different auctions. According to here: http://www.bridgehands.com/R/Rosencrantz_Double.htm Rosencrantz would be for (1♦) - 1♠ - (2♦) - Dbl According to Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenkranz_double It's more general "if a player overcalls an opening bid and the next player makes a bid, a double by the partner of the overcaller (advancer) shows a raise in partner's suit that includes the ace, king or queen of that suit." Snapdragon is specific to when 3 suits have been bid naturally: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snapdragon_double So I guess what I'm saying is that, in theory, you could play both, although I wouldn't want to assume it without discussion.

Part 1 - I presume if we stayman, partner bids 2♦ (rather than 4♦) which will likely be edited). I would bid stayman then delayed Texas (or whatever variety you play) if that is available. I.e. 1N - 2♣; 2♦ - 4♦ (4♣). Then would follow up with keycard. Part 2 - From the sounds of your gadget, delayed Texas is not available. In this case, I would use your gadget and keycard for hearts.

Wasn't my 4♠ call intended to make them guess? It's not a call I would have made, but it seems to have worked out as I wanted it to. So I don't understand what I am thinking about now. I made them guess, they guessed. Time to see if they guessed correctly. No reason to double now. Edit: To answer what I would have done, I would have made a snapdragon double over 2♥. Not ideal (2 extra cards in clubs), but it would get 5 of my clubs and my spade support across in one call.

I made a suggestion. I purposely didn't elaborate. I don't expect responses suggeting I'm being rude or trying to take it off-topic. I certainly didn't expect grief. I don't remember any implementation issues with them. It's a pretty rare sequence anyway.

Well it's a hijack of the thread then. Would you have felt better with: "I'm terribly sorry, but I do not care much for Wolff. It's a reasonable system, but I think transfers are just as good, and probably better, but incredibly easy to learn. However, rather than make you read all about transfers after 2NT (which can be found on a myriad of threads) I will just suggest that you consider them and ask if you would like to find out more information about them."

I think this is rather rude, off-topic, and unhelpful. Sorry you feel that way. I certainly didn't intend it as rude. Whether it is off-topic (a system to play after a 2NT rebid!) or unhelpful, that is for people to have their own opinion. You have expressed yours.

Make life easy. Play transfers.

Even though this may be true, I would never consider not making a bid because partner may hesitate over it and cross my intentions later. That being said, I've never played Bergen raises, so can't state whether this is a common problem. I would find it hard to believe it was.

I'm not sure I would negative double in the first place. Don't get me wrong, it's a normal bid. I'm just wondering if 1NT isn't a better description. Either way, now I have a clear 5♣ call. I have nothing but soft values, so I'm certaintly not worried about bidding more strongly than that. If my red suits were reversed I'd bid the same way. You'd have to give me something sharper to consider more. Say I had Axxx xxx xxx KQx, then I would cue 4♠ for partner. Or if I had JTxx xxx Axx KQx, I would bid 4NT as a slam try.

Queen shows the Jack or is a singleton (either way you can win the next trick if partner underleads). From Qx play your x. When partner next plays the K, your Q will fall and he will know you started with Qx. With Jx (or xx) you have to make a decision on whether you want a ruff or if partner may interpret and try to underlead. It's a good area to discuss with your partner as it's an area where you don't want to hesitate.

I don't know if you are asking everyone in general or just Han, but I would even pass vul at IMPs. I was asking Han in particular, but am, of course, welcoming comments from anyone.

This is what my understanding of the method is about. I don't have a hard-set evaluation, but rather a more fluid one. Of course my judgment is my own and yours may differ. I was more grinding an ax about using an evaluation, such as LTC, which is ambivalent to honor location. I can absolutely respect someone disagrees to invite and the judgment will depend a lot on style and what hands they expect from partner for the auction thus far (and what hands they rule out because they would expect partner would make a different call). For example, I would expect if partner had a 4=3=5=1 hand, he would bid 2♥ with a minimum and 1♠ with extras (planning on bidding 2♥ over a 1NT or 2♦ call by me). I wouldn't expect partner to have a 3=4=3=3 hand. He could obviously have a 3=4=4=2 hand. Things like that. Does your answer change if you are playing IMPs?

I'm sure it's semantics, but which "doctor" do you mean? Do you mean the physician's assistant who negligently administered the medicine, the physician for the patient who prescribed the medicine, or the clinic who employed both?

I think I'll go with the double then correct 4♥ to 4♠ route. Partner is very likely to be void in clubs, so there should be some playable spot and double is the easiest way to find it. I wish I could correct 4♥ to a natural 4NT, but that isn't in my arsenal (not that I'm saying it should be).

I agree and I don't even know what in-and-out evaluation means. Do you still agree if I tell you that "in-and-out evaluation" means "are your points in partner's suits or out of them?" I mean this isn't exactly rocket science, but apparently it's a difficult concept for some to grasp... By saying that I'm referring to the original quote that In=out would tell us this is a poor hand. That got a big "huh?" from me. Flat shape might tell us to devalue the hand. Not arguing there. But in-out? Wow. Bizarro world.

I wouldn't really consider a "physician's assistant" the same thing as a doctor. It also seems that she settled with the clinic separately for their negligence.