G_R__E_G

Fred's opinion might be biased but I can guarantee that Bill Gates would agree with him. Bill might be biased too but he's biased on both sides so they cancel out. :P

I have my full name in my profile. Some might say that they'd be concerned about stalkers but I'm of the opinion that I could use a good stalking.

It's a great post but I don't think the entire thread is anything special. But we all do get to make our votes in this democracy. :( Yes, I'd pretty much agree with you on that Josh. I guess for me that particular post was so good that it made the entire thread. I've shared that advice with many,many beginners since reading it.

This thread was one of my favourites, this post in particular. http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...=0entry173393

Despite the FACT that I continually use CAPITAL LETTERS in a sad ATTEMPT to DRAW ATTENTION to my ramblings, because I CHANGE MY NAME none of you will be able to FIGURE OUT who I am. PS I may come back and EDIT THIS POST later.

Stick around for awhile - you'll have plenty of opportunities to be disappointed too. :-)

The owner of that site is obviously just jealous.

Some observations: - When I was new to duplicate bridge I found it great fun to invent crazy conventions. - I was well aware that the crazy conventions gave me bad results. I didn't care much until I reached a level were I would actually be able to win a few small tournaments if I didn't play the crazy conventions. - At that point I tried to convince partners to scrap the crazy conventions, but that could be difficult. New partners would insist on playing multi, bizarre notrump structures etc. - Opponents were impressed by our crazy convention card. Many said explictly that we must be very good players since we played all those sophisticated conventions, and I am sure they weren't sarcastic. - It is much easier to learn step responses such as Gerber by heart than learning to use logic to assess whether 4♣ is to play or a slam try in clubs. - Authors of popular textbooks, as well as good teachers, admit that beginners shouldn't learn crazy conventions but they teach them anyway because the market demands it. You're not alone. When I first started I had delusions of inventing a new system and conventions. I actually came up with one convention that I called Coles Unusual No Trump (Coles is my last name), but I dropped it due to the unfortunate acronym.

I've never seen better advice on learning/improving than what Fred had to say in this post from some time ago: http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...=0entry173393 (Actually the whole thread is interesting, but this post in particular)

It's not often that Fred asks for help, and considering all he does for bridge I'd just like to suggest that we give him our support on this. (I've already sent him my e-mail)

Has anyone seen the pictorial inside? I'm just curious if the carpet matches the drapes.

This came up at our club last night (ACBL). South was the dealer but before South had a chance to call, North reached for their bidding box and was clearly about to bid something (all were in agreement with this), but before North had lifted the cards enough for anyone to have any idea of what they were about to bid South said "It's not your turn". My opinion: South is definitely in possession of UI, however there has not actually been a bid made out of rotation. The auction should therefore proceed normally with South to call first. If E/W feel that South makes use of the UI then they should call the Director back and ask for an adjustment. Agree? Disagree?

Got 100% on the second try. It's probably a rather healthy excercise, forcing your brain to think with the side you want it to.

I don't think so JoAnne. This was in Ontario, Canada and if I recall correctly I think you're a long way from here.

It actually got worse after that. When the round was over I told the director that I wanted to appeal the ruling. He pointed me to the DIC. The DIC (that acronym was particularly suited this time) told me that I clearly should have bid 5♥ and the fact that I didn't said alot about my bridge skills. Anyway, after discussing it for several minutes he finally said "Well you don't deserve it but I'm going to give you something just to make you happy. I'll give you an average plus".

Sorry, I forgot to give the jurisdiction. It's ACBL land - a regional tournament to be specific. I was South and I was quite certain that the director was incorrect not to let me change my call but I tried to be respectful of the others in the game and not hold things up too much (it was pairs). So, after they made 5 spades I called him back and told him that I felt we'd been damaged. He wrote out the auction and said he'd be back. This was in the second round that this happened, he came back a few times to ask some follow up questions and then finally came back just before the last round and told me that they had decided there would be no adjustment because I should have bid 5♥ over the 4♠ bid even without the knowledge that West had support and therefore I had failed to "play bridge".

[hv=d=s&v=e&s=skhajxxxd9xxxxxcx]133|100|Scoring: MP Auction: P-1♦-1♥-1♠ 2♦-X-3♥-P 4♥-P-P-4♠ P-P-X-All pass[/hv] Dealer's hand and the auction are shown above. Before the opening lead is faced, East informs N/S that West's double of 2♦ was in fact a support double and promised 3 spades (strange but true - they both agreed on this). Director was called and asked to speak with North away from the table. The director asked North if knowing it was a support double would have changed his decision to double. North said that it would so the director came to the table and stated that the double would be cancelled and that the contract would be played 4♠ undoubled. South then asked to speak to the director away from the table. South told the director that if he'd know that West had 3 spades that he would have bid 5♥ directly over the 4♠ bid rather than leaving the final decision to partner. The director told South that the contract would have to be played out in 4♠ and to call him back after the play if South felt they'd been damaged. As it turns out, due to the crazy distribution of the hands E/W made 5♠ (it's cold) and N/S were actually cold to make 6♥. Ruling?

One thing I know for certain is that any hypothetical situation involving something embarassing, like a bad rash for example, are never actually hypothetical. Not that I'm speaking from first hand experience of course.

Any idea what GIB claimed the 3♠ bid meant?

The hand is makeable double dummy and if the declarer had the correct explanation it's possible that they would make it. That said, considering there were only 7HCP's outstanding it should have been obvious to declarer that there was some sort of error in the explanation. That coupled with the fact that the convention card was correct and not consulted and that it seems declarer didn't bother to ask for further details when a one word ("Strong") explanation was given for the bid I would say that declarer fixed himself. No adjustment.

You're not stupid.

I'd suggest starting off with a simpler trick taking game like euchre or hearts. Then you can work your way up to Mini Bridge and then finally bridge. PS In between the bridge lessons I would definitely force her to get up to eat regardless of how vocal she is. Just leave the bowl across the room, I'm sure she'll get up eventually.

The Bridge World recognizes both: Bridge World Glossary I think "treble" is more of a British thing. Whenever you see darts from the UK on TV they always say "treble twenty" but here in North America it's always "triple twenty".

Hi Liukk. I just looked over your hand records from the 26th. Hand number 2 from the tournament that you're speaking of was declared by your partner the robot (ie you were the dummy so the hands do "autoplay"). Sometimes when it is just the robots playing the last several tricks happen so quickly that you might something has gone awry - but that is not the case. If you go back and review the hand you'll see that all 52 cards were played one at a time from each hand.

Here's a better explanation than my convoluted response: Stratifying Your Club Game