ceblair

I am using the "v3" interface from mozilla/firefox on a linux system. I would like to create a folder to which I could download .lin files. I have tried clicking "export" and "save file as" which shows me a choice of folders currently available. Clicking on the plus sign creates "unnamed folder". I want this new folder to be on my computer, something like /home/ceblair/bridgehands, but I don't see how to do this last step. Thanks in advance!

In the past month or two, I've been seeing, in "competitive" tables and private team matches, what seemed an abnormally large number of 5-0 splits and similar rarities. A friend who competes frequently in robot events just e-mailed me TWO deals in which somebody had a nine-card suit (both spades). Have other people had similar experiences?

The late Phyllis Heller, one of Pittsburgh's outstanding card-players, used to say "I never open the bidding without 13 cards." When I log in with the "v3" web interface, I see two ladies. I think the lady on the right has 14 cards. I confess that, in a moderately serious dormitory game, we once had a complex competitive auction, I think involving only four players, only to find, when the bidding was over, that we were working with a 48-card deck. I forget whether somebody had played a joke on us.

I want to run a teaching tale with some deals I've constructed in advance. I've gotten as far as being able to export the deal to the table. I wouldl like to specify the bidding and perhaps play to the first few tricks, rather than have the players go through that. The file, before uploading, has this information. However, after uploading it starts at the very beginning, and I don't see how to fast-forward to the critical point.

At partner's request, I have agreed to play support doubles. I have been unpleasantly surprised to find that he expects me to use this convention on any hand with three cards in responder's suit. For example, I am expected to double after a one-spade response and a two-heart overcall with S xxx H Jxx D AQx C KQJx. I have been further surprised to learn that this treatment is recommended in mainstream presentations. Am I the only one who thinks this is a bad idea.

I hope "serious antiquated player" is not the same as "seriously antiquated player." 59, learned every convention I could find in the 70's, doing my best to forget most of them now. "The most effective sign-off is `pass'." Favorite defensive carding method: "Let declarer tell me what he has." May be the last person in the world who plays strong jump shifts that do NOT show solid suits ("Wake up, partner! There may be a good slam if you have a sound minimum opening with a queen here.") The "Review Hands" feature seems to give a fine way to gauge potential partners (see "Useful Links")

If you normally play RKC, then this seems to be RKC for hearts. I can imagine a hand where you would want to use regular Blackwood, but it seems much less likely. I do NOT think you can use 4NT now to mean one thing and bid followed by 4NT for the other, because the next player might well be bidding 5♠

I would be more worried than most of the other posters about being doubled if I bid. I have a LOT more defense than partner should expect. I also don't think partner should be doubling just to compete at imps.

I would rule out a trial bid because I don't want to discourage a diamond lead. If partner really will not have 7HCP or less for his bid (not my favorite system) I will bid 4H.

It seems to me that one could use computer simulations to look at a lot of bidding issues. Example: I may be the last person on the planet who thinks 1NT on a 5-card major should be a last resort. I've been too lazy to do it, but I could take a typical such 1NT opening, say S Kx H AQxxx D QJx C Axx, deal out the remaining cards 100 times, and compare likely results of 1NT vs 1H. I realize there would be a lot of subjective cases, e.g., likely competition or lack of it, but it still might be worth doing. Has anyone done something like this? (Not necessarily this specific issue.)

[hv=d=n&v=b&s=sq432h8d753ca9532]133|100|Scoring: IMP 1♥ opening, 4♠ overcall. Is this a clear-cut decison? What if the clubs were KQ432 ?[/hv]

south925 and I have been playing in pickup teams for the last few months, and are wondering whether a regularly scheduled, stronger game might be available. Our standard of play, for better or worse, can be determined by reviewing the hands we've played (usually 15-20 hands every monday or tuesday). Thanks for your interest.

It used to be that matchpoint scoring was the only practical way to run a game in which the same board is played at many tables. This is, of course, no longer the case in online games. I would guess that there are many more imp-scored games than matchpoint ones at BBO. Portable computers and scoring software have made imp scoring possible in many more offline situations than before. The local club has been using a scoring computer for at least ten years, although most of their games are still matchpoint. I confess to a preference for imp scoring, partly because there is a greater chance of being able to work out what I consider to be the clearly right answer. As I make my way through middle age, I also welcome the numerous boards on which my mistakes will not cost very much. However, I realize these are matters of individual taste. I think it used to be accepted wisdom that the field in a matchpoint pair game would be significantly weaker than in a knockout game, or even a swiss team game. I'm not sure whether this is still the case. In particular, I suspect there is not much difference between the strength of the typical matchpoint game and the typical imp PAIR game, although the latter are (I think) still relatively rare offline. I would be curious as to other's opinions.

I think most people open light too often, and that Drury encourages them in doing so.

With S Kxx H xx D Kxx C AKxxx, I would double a one heart opening. There is a risk that LHO will jump in hearts and partner will bid with a weak four- card spade holding. If we happen to play responsive doubles (I confess I usually don't), there is less danger of this. I dislike overcalling two clubs, because of the poor suit (for a 2-level overcall) and the danger of losing spades. I consider passing a reasonable second choice, but (1) a game could be missed (2) competing later might be more dangerous. Suppose, for example, that you pass and subsequent bidding is 1NT on your left, 2D on your right. Partner still could have 5 or 6 spades, but clearly your problems now are at least as bad as before.