Limey_p

I do not think there is a technically correct answer to this one. So I think the subjective issues are the ones that lead to success or failure. And in truth I am no extrovert either but I believe that Mikeh has said the right things about this deal. As to the people taking sides at Luis's club, I still assert it is a "style over substance" issue. with a :D AP

Poll preferences: 1. Invitational with 5 spades and 4 hearts 2. Invitational with 4 spades and less than 4 hearts

In general I agree with Frances. It is worth considering how you would play on "normal" defense, two rounds of diamonds. You'd ruff the diamond and then? would you lead a low spade? I think that's the superior line. This gives you the timing to use the board's trump if necessary while you knock out the ace of hearts. The opponents given you options beyond what you would have had. Does this have any implication to how you should play the hand? I cannot see any on this deal. AP

I view this as an issue of personal style, not which play is "right". The introvert will lead a diamond, saying to himself "I can guess the spade situation later when I have more information" The extrovert will say "I play spades now, before RHO knows my problem. And if he doesn't cover, he doesn't have the queen" All this with a :)

Minor suit squeeze, presumably against east? AS KS heart use spade and club entries to hand to ruff hearts ruff a diamond back to hand play trumps if QJ diamonds fall or same opp holds diamond and clubs you make ...

I disagree. You will miss some games if your invitation is conservative. As is common at the table, it is better to have any agreement rather than none at all. That said, Mike & Mike, IMO you are in the minority on this one. AP

You've bid a vulnerable game at imps that needs a finnesse plus a little more. No shame in that. I wouldn't want the contract to be anything else. If it makes, great, and if not you will not lose imps to the good players.

I was just re-reading the January 2005 ACBL Bridge Bulletin (the member's magazine) - Marty Bergen on page 49: "By the way: We all know players who incorrectly treat responder's double as negative after a 1nt overcall. This is definitely not standard and is Alertable. I don't recommend it, because a negative double should be played only after a natural overcall in a suit"

Yes. A lead out of turn (by defender) is always a major penalty card. When you pull two cards out of your hand, the one not played can be a minor penalty card ...

weak field => make normal bid, 4H imo. If it's a strong field then you might shake up the dice and try something else.

I am not big on conventions ... I prefer to have agreements. And the nicest ones to have are the ones that are so darned expensive when you are lacking them. I think these are all mentioned above: low-level doubles - takeout, negative, support & snapdragon & similar. 4th suit forcing, new minor forcing cue bid of opps suit slam bidding - key card, control bidding

I enjoy the viewgraphs very much, and last weekend was a great show! In reading the discussion afterwards, including the planned "swat the mosquito" match, this comes to mind: Do away with much of the distinction between the viewgraph and other on-line matches. From a kibitzer's view, the distiction seems arbitrary. I could be gagged (or not) in either, surely? And it may not matter to me if the match originates on line or is produced by the hard work of a viewgraph operator. Perhaps the "Viewgraph Theater" listing could include categories - traditional and also "featured on line matches" - and an on-line match could be commentated or not. In a way this service is already partly provided in the "find a game" dialog when I click kibitz. (This might, for example, make more of a showcase for the ACBL's college games which were also played last Saturday) AP

Sceptic, I support your start to the auction: 1♦ - 1♥ - 2♣. It's my opinion *nobody* knows the value of a stiff king, early in the auction anyway. After that start responder needs to establish a forcing auction and rebid the hearts. Depending on your agreement, it is either an immediate 3♥ or 2♠ followed by 3♥. (I go via the 4th suit - there's been recent discussion elsewhere on the "standard" agreement here, or lack of standard agreement) AP

Richard Pavlicek has about 20 instant matchpoint sessions (hands and analyses I believe) on his web site - http://www.rpbridge.net/rpbr.htm#06

Responder should have more for his negative double, but opener's 4♣ is worst by far ... imo. AP

The "web movement" is way to move boards so that a single large mitchell section will be played, and everyone plays the same boards. The *only* link to it I have seen is http://www.bridgeguys.com/WGlossary/GlossW.html, scroll down to "web movment". I understand you need two or three sets of boards for 20-25 tables. The ACBL's Delaware unit (www.unit190.org) frequently use this movment for their monday evening game - it is fun and seems fairer than playing within smaller sections. So my suggestion for a two session tourny would be: First session: One section, web movment, 2 bds/round. Second session: two (partial) howells, one the original NS field & one the original EW. Another option could be to run a "swiss pairs" - I've never seen one in the USA but I believe they are common enough in other parts of the world. Anyone care to describe this option for Luis?

First, Bravo! to all the participants. second, thanks to all the operators and commentators. I get to the archive via the link: http://bridgebase04.bridgebase.com:81/vug/?C=M;O=D *however* there's a sofware bug: the commentaries are frequently mixed up with the other tournaments taking place on the same day. Somewhat annoying but previously reported in these forums. The hand records themselves are almost always accurate, at least to the limits of the possible - the operators are not superhuman. and last, thanks to Fred and Roland who make it all possible. AP

First, thank you all for your responses. There's no particular message with this hand. I conclude that 4♠ is best, and there's no reason to wait to bid it. Double dummy, NS can make 3♠, while EW can make 3♣ or even 3NT. Eyeing the results (on line at www.bridge-studio.org, afternoon of 29-Dec) I conclude: 4♠ can win in two ways - they can let you make it or they may overbid to 5C. And half the people today will overbid, and if they let you play it, half will let you make it. Results: -50 => bottom (they set you in 4♠) +100 => 33% (you set 4♣ or give a trick to their 5♣) +140 => 50% (you get to play a part score) +200 => 70% (5♣ down two) +420 => top (you bid it and they don't manage to get their ruff) [hv=d=n&v=e&n=sjhaj43dkj54ct952&w=sa62h6da9ckqj7643&e=st9ht9872dqt632ca&s=skq87543hkq5d87c8]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv] (Oh, and Kelvan, do you play in Delaware, USA?) Andy

[hv=d=n&v=e&s=skq87543hkq5d87c8]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] You are south, two passes to you. What is your opening bid? If it matters, you play "meckwell envy" - 1C=16+, 5 card majors (but maybe 4 in 3rd seat), weak twos. It is the local club, so you may assume the opponents are average club players. or perhaps bbo experts :P

Winston is right just considering the spade suit on its own. But the lack of e-w bidding is curious, making it less likely that either player is void in spades. This implies that a spade to the king may be the better play. Anyone for playing spades from hand, then play out all the spades, hoping for an elimination position with east holding both club honors? AP

I've just seen the web site www.poorbridge.com - well worth a visit IMO. Where else can you find out these "facts"? 1. Bridge players are mammals. 2. Bridge players play bridge ALL the time. 3. The purpose of the Bridge player is to be sarcastic and have arguments. AP

My "at the table" line is similar to Kalvan's, except I would cash the hearts before finishing trump. I don't know at this moment which line is better, but I'm getting out my pencil and paper to figure it out ... AP

Hmm ... roll back the calendar. before Hamman-Wolff. before Goren. Back some more. before Culbertson .. before even Vanderbilt. It's not exactly Whist though because one of the hands is face up on the table. Is it bridge whist? Sounds like a bad idea ... AP (with humor)

I figure Spade is the worst, any of the others could be OK. My choice was between diamond and club, I picked club. A

I am frequent player in ACBL f2f games. The convention card establishes a de facto standard for agreements that are alertable, and also for the type of information that people expect when they ask questions. The area for jump raises in competition has boxes to indicate your agreements - Force, Inv, or Weak. So I would guess that this was the first piece of information Officeglen expected, and he never really received it. And there's no indication on the conv. card about which agreement is "standard", and my experience agrees with that. I play Weak, like most pairs I meet these days. Some people play invitational, while forcing is very rare. I, for one, do tend to carry my expectations with me as I move from f2f to online bridge. Is that right or wrong? Here's a link to the (blank) ACBL card ... ACBL card (pdf format) Disclaimer: This is an opinion piece. "Worth the paper it is printed on"