Echognome

I disagree strongly for several reasons... 1. I like having drury even if I'm opening "sound" but minimum openers in 3rd or 4th. Yes 3rd is wide-ranging, but in 4th we're passing those hands and people *still* play drury. It's just a different situation when partner is a passed hand. 2. We might have no interest game opposite our minimum opener simply because partner is a passed hand. Take, e.g. QJx AQJxx Qxx Jx. We open 1♥ in 3rd and if partner bids 2♣, I'm bidding 2♥. 3. The drury bidder should press on over 2M with a suitable hand. If I hold, e.g. xx Axxxx xx AQxx and partner opens 1♥, then I'm taking us to the 3-level regardless if partner tries to sign-off in 2♥. We also may have a fit jump or some other higher call. Opening light in 3rd is not without risk. Maybe the next hand will make a jump overcall and we make a negative double. 4. I think that pairs that use it strictly as a psychic control, should be dealt with accordingly.

In addition to Fred's point about not having a mild game try of 2♦ available if 1♥ is opened, the loss of the natural 2♦ can make for some awkward auctions. It's not just the chunky 5-card diamond suits, but it's also the wrong hand type six card suits. ♠x ♥AQx ♦xxxxxx ♣Axx Maybe this falls under your weak 2♦ opening? Maybe it's a 1♦ opener for you? Yes we could swap the minors and you'd have the same problem, but at least we can cut the problem in half. (Also, Phil and I use 2NT as the long club hand without a fit and play 3m as a fit jump by a passed hand. We don't have room to replace both minors. It's not that I'm thrilled we have to bid 2NT, but at least it helps.) Also, not knowing the trump-length is a two-way sword. Maybe we can play in our 9-card fit at the 2-level because we may only have a 7-card fit! Edit: I should also note that most pairs do not have a weak 2 in clubs available, so in clubs it's possible we have a good club suit for 2NT. Phil and I happen not to have 2♦ available either because we play a mini-multi with more intermediate 2♥ and 2♠ bids, which is, of course, an aside from the main discussion.

Sorry posters. I misclicked reply.

From "It's Your Call" this month: 1♥ - Pass - Pass - 2♥* Dbl - Pass/ReDbl = ? *Michael's 1. What do you play as pass and what do you play as redouble? 2. Related question. If Advancer passes, what is redouble by overcaller (cuebidder)?

And that your partner didn't have a double of 5♦!

Seems pretty abusive to me.

From Bobby Wolff's column today in the paper. 1♣ - Pass - 1♦ - 1♥ 2♣ - Dbl = ?

But apparently eligibility points do not fall under that 1/3 as it says on MyACBL that I still need 85 masterpoints overall to make LM. Not that it is going to be a concern as I'm sure that by the time I get 15 silver + 35 black I will get another 30 points in the wash.

What is this, meaning approaches penalty as cards approach infinity? Now we have to take calculus to know how Phil plays his doubles :P Or statistics. --> is pretty vague. I'll defer to the mathematicians for what the accepted definition should be, but I can think of: X --> Y as a mapping X --> Y as converging (in probabilty, almost surely, in distribution, etc.) X --> Y as a limit (Josh's interpretation?) Maybe it's a direction? Cards if East or RHO, penalty otherwise.

I could see something like this working. Maybe you could have: Continuous MP Pairs Continuous IMP Pairs Continuous BAM Pairs Continuous Swiss Pairs Continuous Cross IMP Teams Continuous BAM Teams Continuous Swiss Teams Something like that. You wouldn't need to implement all the ideas at once, but try out one of them and see how it goes. So how I imagine it could run is that you have fixed time length rounds. There is no director and no adjustments. In that sense, it's like the main room. However, there are some advantages to having a fixed length round. If someone stalls at least the round rolls over. Note I could see some people use stalling tactics and that would suck, but I really don't have a good way to control for that. Have one board rounds. This just makes a whole lot of sense. That way, if someone leaves, then you are really only stuck one round. If someone in a pair (or team) disconnects, then the whole pair (or team) will be out the next round. The good news is that they can hop back in the next round if they return. So basically, at the start of each round, all those that are on the waiting list who've registered join in along with all the pairs (teams) that are still in the tourney. Maybe as a convenience, you can have a "I want to leave after this round" button that either player can push (and maybe a pop-up window to confirm?). That would encourage people not to leave after the next round has started. The good part about it is that you can have (in theory) as many comparisons as there are people playing each round. The scoring is done round by round so it should just be treated as a separate scoring category entirely.

That's interesting. I have: gold (134) > silver (35) > red (20) > black (15) > platinum (7.5) I also have 2000 colorless eligibility points. It seems I can get 15 silver by attending 2-3 sectionals and 35 blacks seems like about 40 club games. That seems like a lot of club bridge to me. I'd get them happily if I could get them through the BBO ACBL games, but my understanding is that I can't. (Or is it that I can only earn 50/3 of them through ACBL?)

That's exactly what I tried to do, go thru the exercise of a triple after the indicated start and concluded that it wouldn't work. If it was stated as a single-dummy problem, I have a feeling that most people would struggle with squeeze possibilities rather than playing for Kx of clubs which also needs West not to have more than two trumps, so you can cash all the club winners. May be someone can actually figure out that the squeeze won't work and try an alternative line. It'd be nice if we can present this a s a single dummy problem and get the opinion of an expert declarer like Fantoni, Rosenberg or Helgemo. What about getting the opinion of an expert declarer like David Burn? Ah. But you might not find him believable...

The only painful one to get, in my view, are the black points. That's a lot of club bridge to play.

Playing 2/1 (I won't bore people with a relay auction) 1♠ - 2♥ 2♠/NT(1) - 3♠ ... (1) Depending on which you use to show the 6th spade. I think it's very clear to bid 3♠ once you know of the 6th spade given your holding of Hx in spades and good controls outside of spades. The rest of the auction depends on whether 3NT is an offer to play or if it's serious or frivolous. Let's say 3NT is serious. 3NT - 4♣ 4♦ - 4♥ 4NT - 5♠ 5NT - 6♥ 6♠ - Pass Let's say 3NT is frivolous. 4♣ - 4♥ 4♠* - 5♣ 5♦ - 5♥ 6♠ *Note South does not have extras given the serious try, but North should go on. Finally, if 3NT is a choice of games it's a lot harder. 4♣ - 4♥ ? Here I can't say whether I'd bid 4♠ or 5♦ as South. I do know that I'd pass the North hand over 4♠, so I think South should bid 5♦ over which North can bid 5♥ and then 6♠ over 5♠ (South is only worth the one try).

This was a double of 1♥? Seems pretty awful to me.

I think a more interesting question is what we are going to lead.

4♥.

I guess it'd have to be an awful lot to be an issue and then I'd phone the police. I wouldn't immediately assume it was a guest without more evidence than timing.

I pass. 3N second choice. Tough one to pass, but seems prudent here.

I vote pass as well.

Absolutely. And I do think double is definitely the "book bid" and with anything more in ♥ I would make the call. I am advocating the minority position and just trying to come up with reasons why I think it's sensible. I can certainly see 3♠ going terribly wrong (like when partner has 4♥!).

Until advancer bids 4♠.

2♠ (unless 2♦ is artificial and system). Partner doesn't have 4♥. I guess partner might be 5=4=4=0, but even then I think he'd bid 2♥. Edited: I wrote 2♥ when I meant 2♠.

I think you are being somewhat sensitive JB. I don't read sarcasm into Frances' comments. Note the first part of her quote: "Rather than just slagging off South's bidding..." So she's trying to be constructive and give a reason why the miscommunication between you and your partner occurred.

I am game-forcing. I will start with 1♥. Then after 1NT I will bid 2♦ followed by 3♣ (playing standardish) or 2NT followed by 3♦ (playing mikeh's 2-way nmf).