glen

hamsterville just like moi?

What happens if you play out the board? This is the traveller: ACBL Speedball 20080609 6pm Board 7 Traveller As you can see, for these "masterpoint treadmills" it pays to be a hamster, even if you don't like the stuff going on sometimes.

I think JL has 2 problems: 1) lack of a 2 am curfew 2) leaving laptop unattended (please check hand history to find all-ins on 72s) For myself, I play most bridge events on tilt

From the picture in the USBF bulletins, it appears the USBF had a Electronics Jan

It seems to me that if E actually had ♣s and therefore short ♥s (E must have ♠s on the bidding), and W had Kxx of ♥s then the 4♥ contract would be even worse. Thus I believe NS got themselves in their very own mess, and are lucky that 3♣ turned out not to be a real suit.

Is the 8 player Russia team still a go?

So the opening lead was ♦ ace. Certainly it could go ♦ ace, ♦, win ♠ ace, get misleading discard from north, play ♥, now down 1, not 3.

Let me speculate. It went ♦ ace, ♦. When South won ♠ ace, he played ♣ to ace, got a ♦ ruff, and later got a ♥ for down 3. However North had revoked at some point so it was adjusted to down 1. Sadly this was all lost on the vugraph records when the software foolishly prevented the operator from duplicating the revoke.

Sadly, as you will see here Tudors, the team was scheduled for a season finale on Sunday at 9pm, so what could they do? This may have not been a team decision - on a 4 person team, all you need is one person to leave, and your team is out. A person could become quite sick, there could be very bad partnership conflict, and there could be a season finale you can't miss: stuff happens. Does this help Welland, another 4 person team, and does hurt the chances of others? Certainly. Would it have been better not to occur? Yes. Do the rules prevent this? No. Does it have a much higher chance of occuring on 4 person teams? Yes. Edit: In today's bulletin: Bulletin 5 there is a picture on the bottom right of page 6 of Jacob Morgan, Tom Carmichael and Jel Wooldridge playing a game that is not bridge or poker. Anybody know what that game is? The map does not look like HTT (Hijack This Thread), nor is it the new Bridge is War, so haven't seen it before.

Short Shubi story showing bridge is war - playing f2f, my wife opens 1NT 14-17. Shubi asks if I have a written defense for that. I wrote down: double=all hands less than 10 points, suit bid=10+ with suit just below the one bid. It's a battlefield.

From today's bulletin (at: Bulletin 4 - bulletin calls itself Volume 2, Issue 5 The bulletin also contains a complete schedule - I found in doing a bulletin you can drop the days already done. It contains all the teams entered - the teams already eliminated likely want witness protection at this time so perhaps just list the teams still in it. Also the Round Robin Info is no longer useful ("The Round Robin format this year will be the same as it was last year.") For bridge hands there's a hand from Cayne vs. Denmark on BBO - cool to have breakfast danish in the USBF bulletin. Then, tres cool, we have a hand from the Canadian National Team Championship (btw, L'Ecruyer, who's team plays today, was up watching BBO vugraph this morning). And for local folk it was nice to see the Renfrew Fair mentioned (the greatest fair in the Ottawa Valley since 1853), along with two top awards. Best wishes with the net connectivity today - as today's bulletin says "The number one cause of computer problems is computer solutions"

In 1998 I put forward this proposal to the ACBL: Thanks to District 2 Director Jonathan Steinberg this was brought forward to the Board of Directors, and from his summer meeting report, we have: "The plan to increase the requirements for Life Master was defeated; however, a sub-committee is looking into creating a new category for Life Masters who have significant achievements." There was some further refinement of the idea. From the Fall Board of Directors meeting report we have: See Orlando Report (Fall 98) Subsequent to this the ACBL reported back to the Board of Directors that, even though this was approved, it would be too hard to implement, so it was dropped. I was not happy.

I thought Cohen should have noted, for his review of Challenge the Champs, that Kokish & Kraft provide, for each deal, the BWS Auction - this offsets Cohen's "the innards of many of the published auctions are of interest only to hard-core system fanatics". For New-Methods Articles, we have: Then, in the same issue, BW editor Rubens has placed the Handling Wide Ranges article by Ed Herstein on page 25. Rule of thumb for Rubens article placement - if it is early, he really likes it - and this is early, the second article by an author, after Rosenberg's wonderful coverage of the Shanghai final. Herstein's approach, in a summary form: Over 3♣: 3♦: Game invite in a major --3♥/♠: Pass or correct --3NT: maximum, no good major, ♦ stopper --4♣: strong suit, short majors --4♦: likes both majors, ♥s better --4♥: likes both majors, ♠s better Over 3♣/3♦: 3♥: suit and/or values, forcing --3♠: good opening suit (2 of top 3 or whatever the partnership defines) ---- if responder now bids 4 of opener's minor, opener bids 4♥ with ♥ support --3NT: ♠ stopper, may have 3♥s if not maximum and no shortness ---- if responder now bids 4 of opener's minor, opener bids 4♥ with ♥ support --4 of opener's minor: No 3 card ♥ support, no ♠ stopper, not good suit --4om (other minor): maximum, ♥ support, shortness in om or ♠s --4♥: 3♥s, not maximum with shortness 3♠: suit and/or values, forcing --3NT: ♥ stopper, may have 3♠s if not maximum and no shortness ---- if responder now bids 4 of opener's minor, opener bids 4♠ with ♠ support --4 of opener's minor: No 3 card ♠ support, no ♥ stopper --4om (other minor): shortness in om, maximum, ♠ support --4♥: shortness in ♥s, maximum, ♠ support --4♠: 3♠s, not maximum with shortness That's a method that Cohen should do more than just scan.

This is an interesting and fun thread for me. One could run with a variation: 3♣: asks in ♠s --3♦: not 4♠s ----3♥: transfer, 5+♠s ----3♠: transfer to NT, fewer than 5♠s ----3NT: 4-4 majors, to play if no ♥ fit ----4♣: 5-5+ majors, slam try ----4♦: 5-5+ majors, game going --3♥: 2-2 majors with stopper in ♥s (hands not wanting 5-5 majors at 4 level) ----3♠: transfer to 3NT --3♠: 4♠s --3NT: 5♠s 3♦: 4+♥s, as in starting post, or perhaps a slight mod: --3♥: not 4♥s ----3♠: transfer to 3NT ----3NT+: 5+♥s --3♠: 4♥s --3NT: 5♥s 5-4/4-5 majors are not easily handled here Edit: working on the 3♣ bid for puppet stayman ideas: 3♣: asks in ♠s --3♦: not 4♠s ----3♥: transfer, 5+♠s ----3♠: transfer to NT, fewer than 5♠s ----3NT: 4-4 majors, to play if no ♥ fit ----4♣: 5-5+ majors, slam try ----4♦: 5-5+ majors, game going ----3♠: transfer to 3NT --3♥: 5♥s ----3♠: transfer to 3NT ----3NT+: 5+♠s --3♠: 4♠s --3NT: 2-2 majors with stopper in ♥s (hands not wanting 5-5 majors at 4 level) --4♣+: 5♠s There could be this rule for the 2NT structure: 3♠ by responder at any point is always a transfer to 3NT, and 3NT by responder, at any point, is always a particular hand type

With 5+♠s and weak, wanting to play in just 3♠, how does one do that (2NT-3♥--3♠ with transfers)?

Thanks for all the votes on this. I'm told from informed sources that Landen-Pratrap continue to use their featherweight not vulnerable style in some events, but have decided for the US trials not to use it for undisclosed reasons. In reference to the thread that Flame started today, I guess they decided to be tame and not so free wheeling. btw if Flame can start a thread on Free style, can Free start a Flame war?

Thanks for everybody's comments on this. Due to the time pressures of speedballs, I would guess that over 90% of the claims I see during these tournaments are without any further description. If I don't think the claim is worthy, I reject it and play continues. This is best from a speed point of view, and does not require the limited resources of the TD pool. It seems to me if I were to reject a claim and stop play, following the laws of bridge (Law 68 D "After any claim or concession, play ceases. All play subsequent to a claim or concession shall be voided by the Director" - BBO software does not follow this for claims) to await the TD, then this approach is not viable to speedballs. Certainly at the table in this case we had to wait for the TD, and then the TD had no time to invest in any questioning of declarer. Thus I believe it should become policy, for speedballs, that if somebody does not like a claim, they reject it, and play either continues or a re-claim is made providing details on the claim. The rejection of the claim can be done for speed reasons, where the person rejecting it is not certain of the final outcome without considerable thought and wishes for the play to continue to see what is going on. The "letter of the law" was designed for live bridge, and for online bridge, TDs should give allowance to how the game is played on computers, especially given the BBO software is (rightly imo) ignoring Law 68D. Thus claims online should not stop all play.

ACBL Speedball. Declarer has two cards left, trump ace and high card in another suit. Claims last two tricks, no explain. Defenders reject, since one outstanding trump. Declarer continues with trump ace. Defenders refuse to continue to play, and get TD to adjust to only 1 of last 2 tricks to declarer. Agree with TD decision? How about if a defender, when rejecting, states openly "I have a trump" About claims (Law 70 - 1997):

Compared to 2000-2006 average use, please vote if are we seeing more big club or not at top open US levels? My feeling is that we are seeing less 2/1, and more big club, especially 2C=6+, 2D=Short D, 1NT=14-16. For the 08 open trials, please see: US Open Team Profiles In some cases, where an acbl card link is ".pdf", replace with ".jpg", such as for: Wold-Passell cc Compare to their 2006: Wold-Passell 06 system summary These are my poster boys for the return to the big club. Their teammates Landen-Pratrap seem to have abandoned at some point the super light/four card majors approach they used not-vulnerable.

One has to admire Rodwell's Business Continuity Plan - he now has a great partner that can play the RM Club to win the big $ events and still call "Jeff". I've wondered if Hamman will be 100% comfortable playing the weak NT/five card majors favored by Zia and their koach. Perhaps the Nickell formation could have been Rodwell+Hampson, Hamman+Meckstroth? Thanks to World Bridge Productions, BBO, and the commentators for an excellent vugraph.

You can always edit your original post to correct a problem (see a posting of mine on April 1st for example). I take it by presenting the problem at this point, you think declarer should hop up with ♠ ace, playing ♠s to be 4-3/3-4/1-6 or picking up 3♦s with no loser. Edit: As noted below by Peter Gill, the hand is discussed on the last page of: Cav Sat Bulletin (duck ♠, win ♥ shift with ace, cross to ♣, finesse ♦s into safe hand) For problems like this, perhaps the specs could have BridgeCrowd like: CrowdChess vs. GM

I vote for the sonar ping

Its been discussed and used, though is not mainstream. For example my ETM Pairs from the late 90s (notes are party like its 1999) had 1♣ as "♣s or any GF or balanced (12-14, 18-20, 23+)" (see ETM Pairs). A lot of these types of approaches involved taking a Polish ♣ framework and EHAA'ing it. A system that some considered EHAA'ing was Don Varvel's Unassuming Club (see An Unassuming Club), since it started with a weak notrump base so one could slide 1NT to 10-13 and adjust ranges as necessary. The EHAA+ notes are very nice. I've found (via years of playing Polish and Big Club etc.) that really isn't much point to limiting to 18. Thus I would suggest either playing quite limited openings (say max of 15), or having the limit at a near GF (as in standard), or having no limit (Fantoni-Nunes for example), the latter which could use Gazzilli and Cole to allow the super strong hands to unwind properly.

I was not asking you to delete your post, just the not-nice line (and sorry if I'm the only that finds it this way). I was not criticizing the manner you presented the method, but recommending ("If you could please...") you describe it better.

This is not nice. Please delete it and I will edit this out. As to article, perhaps this pre-dates the Bridge World's excellent efforts to improve our terminology.