Ant590

For some more clarity --- I'm not claiming these agreements are good, but they are the ones we have! The short suit gametry would be 3♣, showing diamond shortage - then 3♦ accepts the game try with little/no wastage in diamond, asking partner if he has slam interest - 3♥ is a cuebid, accepting the game try with extra values and some diamond wastage - 3♠ is the only non-GF bid - 4m are like 3♥ The long suit game try is 2NT, asking partner to bid the cheapest suit where a game try would be accepted. After 3m, 3H is a game try in hearts: partner is expected to give a cuebid along the way if accepting. A jump to the 4-level is an advanced-cuebid (at least that what I think it's called), so generally balanced with first/second round control in the suit bid.

This hand may look familiar to those that have used the bidding-quest service: AKT75 KQT92 - A63 opponents silent 1♠ - 2♠* ? 2♠ was a constructive raise. In your system you have the ability to (1) Make a short suit game try, and then proceed with a cuebid to show a mild slam try (with the diamond shortage) (2) Make a long suit game try, and then proceed with a cuebid to show a mild slam try (with a second side-suit) (3) Bid 4♠ :) Which do you choose and why?

Hey everyone, I had no idea which forum to post this, so if an Admin wants to more it, please go ahead! Is there somewhere that has a schedule of the Cayne matches? (times & opponents etc) Ant.

It couldn't get Harry Lime, but it was on the list of 50-or so people it might be

3♠ -- pass -- 2NT Responder blames his poor eyesight and says that he thought the opening was 2♠ and the 4th player does not accept 2NT. (1) If the pair play an enquiry after a weak two (say Ogust, or similar), then is responder allowed to replace his bid with 3NT without barring opener? (2) What if responder did not mention that he thought the opening was 2♠?

Sorry, David, I'd wrongly inferred that the quoted passage implied that a gap between strong and weak options was preferable.

According to some theories (for instance see David Collier's essay http://dcrcbridge.blogspot.com/2007/01/dav...roduction.html), it is better to have your strong opening containing a much weaker option than an intermediate one: <12-14 bal>| GAP |<Strong hands> GAP |<15-17 bal>|<Strong hands> This is because in competition responder will take actions opposite the weaker option, and if partner makes a move (showing the stronger option) there is a *real* difference. However if there is less of a gap between the strong and less strong options responder has a real problem when he is invitational opposite the less strong option.

Right, I've been mulling with this for a while now, and I can't work it out... I guess I'm missing something simple. There was a thread about people's preferences for what a 2♥ bid is over 1m. Rev' Flannery was rarely people first choice, but was by far the "it's ok, but..." second choice. Why is it better to play 5♠4♥ compared to 4♠5♥? The latter seems superficially more difficult to show in standard methods.

Fancy picking some lottery numbers for me Maggieb?

I think the problem is that the Union balloted all members, including those who have been given voluntary redundancy as well. This may make the strike action illegal --- BA are going to court on this very issue today.

On a related note, this sequence caused some disagreement at our club... 2♦ - pass - 3♣ - pass 3♦ - pass - 4NT - pass Keycard in ♣, keycard in ♦, 6-ace keycard & balanced slam try all seemed possibilities :)

The problem with getting to other player's tables is annoying. It is possible, but you must first click on their name, wait a few seconds whilst the server communicates, then right click and the web client will have loaded the fact they're playing at a table. In the win version the server continually tells each user where every other user is, which means far more bandwith is needed for the BBO servers, and it resulted on the 10k user cap they used to have. The flash version only loads stuff when it's needed, but the mechanism seems really slow (2-5 seconds for me), which is why you don't see the join table on the right-click menu. P.s. I'm not connected with BBO; the above is what I *think* is the case...

But if (2a) is even possible -- all be it illegally ---, then surely it must be possible to transmit UI? For instance, RHO may dither before not accepting the lead out of turn, then there is UI that something in his/her hand would make the choice difficult... or is this AI? (sorry to be argumentative, I'm not saying I'm right, I'm just trying to get my head around this one)

So the following exchange is allowed? LHO [to declarer]: You're in your hand not the dummy RHO [to declaer]: I accept the lead from the dummy Two further questions (1) If between the two comments declarer tables a card from hand, can RHO still accept dummy's lead (2) What if LHO's comment transmits UI to RHO? (2a) Is it legal/ethical to have an agreement where accepting the card from dummy is Lavinthal based on the pip? Edits: messed up RHO and LHO

A quick google scholar search suggests that more research has been done looking at bridge's effect on elderly people than youngsters (Smith & Hartley, 1990), although some work has been done looking at relative bidding processing times for different age ranges (Charness, 1987). I'm a researcher in mathematics education, and in my opinion your best bet is to look into the mathematical education literature on the "theory of formal discipline". This is basically the idea that studying mathematics helps general thinking skills (see for instance Inglis & Simpson, 2008). I think the link between bridge and this kind of thinking could be argued, of course you would need a properly designed study to give evidence to this claim. Charness, N., (1987) Component processes in bridge bidding and novel problem-solving tasks. Canadian Journal of Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie. Vol 41(2), Jun 1987, 223-243. Inglis, M., & Simpson, A. (2008). Conditional inference and advanced mathematical study. Educational Studies in Mathematics , 37, 187-204. Smith and Hartley J Gerontol (1990) The Game of Bridge as an Exercise in Working Memory and Reasoning. The Journal of Gerontology, 45, 233-238

Touché. Can an admin delete this thread please :)

Say you are playing against a pair who play a spade opening as 5+ hearts, opening strength. I guess the easiest defenses to this are those that decide to lose a t/o double (and make double a spade overcall), or a spade overcall (and make double takeout of hearts). Which would you choose? Any other defenses? Would it make any difference if the bid was limited?

Meta-defences are what you need here. For instance, if a bid has a variety of options, and only one of them is weak (and not stupidly unlikely), treat the bid as this weak hand. So use the defence you have to a transfer preempt.

Similar to the above posts I play: Dbl = (12)13-15bal or big hand 2♥ = weak t/o to minors 2♠ = constructive+ t/o to minors 2NT = natural 3M = stopper showing, looking for 3NT (probably not the best use, but fits with meta-rules of system) Edit: after 2♦ - pass - 2♥/♠ we "pretend" they have opened normal 2♥/2♠ and bid accordingly

Presumably this is similar to seeing the invisible players in the win client if you are at the same table as them.

This is roughly what I play: 1. I only play penalty doubles if the NT range includes 14 point hands, or ranges that are less than this. so 10-12, 12-14, 14-16 all attract penalty doubles, but 15-17 or (14)15-17 do not. So I'll assume a 11-14NT. 2. Weak hands run (even with 4333), stronger hands (around (5)6+) pass. If advances passes then bids it is constructive, and we are in a FP situation at the 2-level. This is the case even if responder's pass was the start of a scrambling sequence. 3. This depends on what 2any meant. If natural: Pass is forcing, double suggests penalties, bids are weak (again, a weak hand must always run). If artificial (e.g.) transfer: double shows the suit bid and sets up FP, pass sets up FP, weak hands run, 2NT weak scramble where appropriate. 4. Due to 2. we know we have the balance of the points, and so we play usual FP rules here (dble penalty). We don't usually bid here, but suits and 2NT are hands that doesn't think we can get rich enough defending a doubled two-level contract. On the sequence where overcaller passes and advancer can not double, suit bids are constructive.

I think that's legal according to WBF rules (red system). It can't be BSC because it's below 2♣ (and also because it's not weak), and it's not HUM as well. Oh, I meant as a preempt, assumed-fit style.

I had an interesting discussion the other week with a well-respected local expert about the merits or lack of merit of the following approaches (1) 1M - 2NT = game forcing (2) 1M - 2NT = invite or better (and (2a) 1M - 2NT = raise to 3 or 5) His logic was that playing invit+ meant you were in a very sticky spot when 4th hand preempts, for instance in terms of forcing passes. He cited the following type of issue: 1M - (pass ) - 2NT - 5m where the lack of a forcing pass option for opener cost a game swing. I felt that the gain of extra space to investigate games and freeing up the 3M raise for preemptive- or mixed-raise purposes more than outweighed this loss. What do you think?

In an ideal world I'd like to play it as weak with 5m4M, with responses like Woolsey. Doubt this would be legal anywhere though :rolleyes:

This was the full hand: [hv=d=n&v=n&n=sqxxxhajxxdakqxxc&s=sk82hkq92d873c932]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] (apologies for the xs in the north hand) Presumably North is moving opposite a last train, and passing 4♥? Edit: had north/south wrong way around