glen

Lots of problems with the article, such as " this all-in strategy has been become one of the most successful methods" -> actually, no the Kill Phil strategy (the book that updated the Sklansky idea) is quite the net $ loser. Also there is no single "optimal game strategy", since the best strategy is a specific one that counteracts the strategy that other players are using. A short example, you bet, the other calls, flop comes down. He bets, and you look at your cards and you have nothing. If this is a conservative player he has something so you fold. If this is an aggressive player the flop likely didn't not hit him (he has nothing, but is just betting since you are likely to have nothing too), so you should raise with nothing. So "optimal game strategy" becomes betting and raising a lot with nothing, which is flawed of course. Advanced strategy becomes delayed raising with nothing (you check, they bet, you make big raise, all with nothing). Others consider probability pictures such as in the semi-bluff approach - you bet with nothing but have a 1/3 chance of making a flush. Sponsors also consider risking $$$ for a 5% single hand chance stupid, and those players tend to find the sponsorship dry up. Notes the article mentions "great players, Bobby Baldwin" - some here will remember when Bobby was playing online bridge.

The drug trial is on right now, oh, i mean time trial, my bad

In Saturday's bulletin they provide a few short details on the Ao team ("Ao and Wang are from the Washington DC area. Gu is from New Jersey and Chechelashvili from San Diego CA ... Ao is a software engineer, Wang a scientist who works for NASA"). btw somebody said that Ao was a fine poker player, but I said that AA was better - you might have to be a poker player to get that. Also in the bulletin we find out "Henner-Welland defends Open Swiss title". Well this defending will have to be done without playing in it. Back to the Spingold, we find out: "The Russian-Polish squad led by Gromov(Aleksandr Dubinin, Cezary Balicki, Adam Zmudzinski) turned a tight match into a rout with a big fourth quarter. Leading by only 17 with 16 deals to play, Gromov smoked their opponents (Jim Mahaffey, Mark Lair, Jhao Jie, Fu Zhong, Fredrik Nystrom, Peter Bertheau) 74-37 in the last set to win 192-138. One wonders about the bracket sheet at: Spingold Bracket Sheet Which has Gromov "smoking" by 4. Back to the the Ao team - the bulletin has a hand where Ao claims +920 in 6♥

Although snapdragon is a popular expert agreement here, and makes sense, I believe it is better to play double as “values and no good bid”, which opens the call to a variety of hands that need to find out more about overcaller’s hand at a relatively low level of bidding.

If he wins (just this next match) he gets bragging rights for about 50 years

1NT is 11-13/14-16V 1♣ if balanced is 17+ 1♦, 1♥, and 1♠ all show 4 or longer in suit opened So what does a 5-3-3-2 with 5♣s open if outside the 1NT range and less than 17? This is not covered on page 51, the NT Ladder, nor on page 40 for the 1♦ opener (which starts off as describing the bid as 10-15 HCP & 4+♦), but the overview on page 5 says, for 1♦: "4+♦ CANAPE IF 5+-4 DISTRIBUTION; MAYBE 3♦ (NT), RARELY 2♦ (3325)." So it appears that the 1♦ bid is: a ) 10-15 HCP & 4+♦; OR b ) balanced without a four card major, less than 17, outside the range of 1NT Since b with 2-3♦s is not rare, I suggest not indicating that 1♦ is 4+♦s --- --- Question: say one opens 1♠ NV with 14-16 balanced and 4♠s. Responder bids 1NT with no ♠ fit and less than a GF (which would bid 2♣) and not a hand that would respond 2♦ or 2♥ (five card or longer suit, about 10 points). What does opener do next with 14-16 balanced over the 1NT response? Additional question: if NV 1♦, 1♥, and 1♠ handles 14-16 balanced, should not the notes (especially the overview) describe these bids as 10-16 or 10-15(16)? Bonus question: 1♦-3♦ is LR 5+♦s without a 3M. Does LR with a 3M respond 1NT or was the intent to respond 1M, so 1♦-1M, which "TEND TO BE 5-CARDS" can be 3 sometimes? --- --- As you fix disclosure problems as noted above, it will be easier to spot system gaps. For example in the notes 1♠-2♥ is “about 10 pts and 5+♥” – so is the range here 10-11, 9-11, 8-11, good 8 to poor 12, good 9 to poor 12, good 8 to poor 11 etc.? If opener NV has 14-16 balanced and it goes 1♠-2♥, if just 2♥s do they jump to 3NT, or just jump to 3NT if 15-16, and bid 2NT “to play” if 14? Knowing the range for 2♥ helps work these out.

Paul has made the comment about publishing Moscito for the last 10 years... Paul Marston is in Nashville this week, so if anybody reading this sees him there, ask him how the book is going... however if you see another well-known player, do not ask him if you can play bridge on an XBOX

11 - 13: Rebid 1NT 14 - 16: Open 1NT 17 - 18: Rebid 2NT 19 - 20: Open 2♣, rebid 2NT (or pass 2M response) * 21 - 22: Open 2NT 23 - 24: Open 2♣ rebid 2♥ modified Kokish * 25 - 27: Open 2♣ rebid 2♥ modified Kokish * 28 - 30: Open 2♣ rebid 2♥ modified Kokish * For details on * see Brass, adjusting slightly for the ranges above.

Bridge article on Ottawa players in last week's Canadian Championships: Ottawa Citizen: Bridge isn't brain surgery, you say? Btw Isabelle and Jeff have a cat named Meckwell. Jonathan Ferguson, who often plays on BBO with Jeff (they even play 10-12 notrumps vulnerable!), did a wonderful write up of all 128 CNTC final hands (a lot of work!) on his blog at: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly - A Bridge Blog

For discussion purposes I will do a rough translation of Backbone to regular points: 1♣: 18+ any or 15-17 balanced 1♦: 15-17 unbalanced or 10/11-14 with a 6 card minor 1♥/♠: 10/11-14 with 4 or 5 in major 1NT: 11/12-14 with no four card or longer major and no six card or longer minor, does not have to be balanced 2X: some bids here are used to show 6 or longer in a major 10/11-14

sp1iNTers

Hamman and Soloway play a possible canape - see their links under System Information: USBF 2007 NICKELL TEAM Ekeblad-Rubin play a stronger canape style, for their major suit openings, with a new twist for 2007. You can see their links under System Information here: USBF 2007 EKEBLAD TEAM If you compare the 2005 WBF card they provided with their other forms, we see in 2005 that: 2♣: 10-16, 6+♣s OR 4+♣s with 5+♠s 2♦: 10-16, 4+♦s with 5+♥s 2♥: 10-16, 4+♣s with 5+♥s 2♠: 10-16, 4+♦s with 5+♠s For 2007, we have 2♣: 10-16, 5+♥s with a four card or longer minor 2♦: 10-16, 5+♠s with a four card or longer minor 2♥/♠: weak two! 1♦ now can have 6+♣s While their 2005 WBF card mentioned the word canape, their USBF summary does not - just "1M = 4+. Frequently have longer side suit" Lately Hamman-Soloway and Ekeblad-Rubin have been using BBO to get ready for the US team trials, so there is the welcome opportunity to watch canape bidding in action.

Ken has been on the victory tour, since scoring perfect in the May It's Your Call (see bottom right page 35 ACBL bulletin) - key was cuebidding of course.

Maybe I'm clueless this morning, but didn't the ♥ bidder move from a contract that could make to a contract that is down? Or did the defense not use undos, as many as necessary (unusual vs. unusual, undo vs. undo), in order to cash the four tricks? When leaving just offer a suitably lame excuse like "gotta go, my best goldfish was just attacked by a school of piranhas, and an undo will not save it!"

I like to play new suits by opener much like Fred has detailed here (thanks Fred for providing that additional detail, and so early in Vegas time too!). Also my (non-standard) preferences are: 3NT: we may belong in 3NT - you pick 2NT: general try or better, forcing to at least 3M - we could even belong in 3NT - either bid 3M if minimum, or, if non-minimum, bid 4M, or bid 3NT to offer choice, or describe hand - avoid the last option if possible as the opponents are listening in 3M: bid game if both a maximum and a shapely hand So 1M-2M-3M can be bid on shapely minimum hands where it might pay to block the opponents, since responder will pass on the majority of hands, or, when responder bids game, then the game will have a good shot or be a cheap sacrifice.

And if you consider 2003's How The West Was Won as the last great rock album, then you can pretty well zep this up :huh:

trapped in Did you miss Radiohead as they drove by? Ok, how about Wilco? Green Day? Or as noted in a post before, Smashing Pumpkins?

As to offline bridge, at the f2f clubs, if a partnership is just a scramble (got made a few minutes before game time) we will tell them to be "free to discuss" during the auction. It makes for a better game.

Yes it would be nice to pass the 1♦ response if 5-4/4-5/5-5 in the minors and not a big hand. However if an event is not super flight, one can't pass 1♦, as the ACBL GCC defines it as:

Penalty without any agreement. I prefer the agreement of "shows values without a good bid to make - passable if takeout doubler has 4 decent ♥s".

The WJ2005 book describes this as Gawrys's Gadget, not Transfer, and the book says it was developed by Gawrys but invented somewhere in North America (no reference was given). It seems very close to my older (2001) gadget: ETM Gadget - click here for document This was inspired by some conventional approaches used in England in the 90s. I think "Gawrys's Gadget" is quite a good idea.

In NESW format: Round 1 - Boards 1-3) Barry Goren's table (with uday2): Madala-Greco-Sementa-Hampson David Stern's table (with uday): Gitelman-Paulissen-B.Moss-Bruggeman Round 2 - Boards 4-6) Barry Goren's table (with uday2): Levin-Schwartz-S.Weinstein-Fallenius David Stern's table (with uday): Grue-Rogoff-Cheek-Vourhees (Sabs no goal - so sad, not) Round 3 - Boards 7-9) Barry Goren's table (with uday2): Ekeblad-Martel-Rodwell-Fleisher David Stern's table (with uday): Wladow-Bakkeren-Elinescu-Bertens (Sabs 2, Sens 1, Goal Post 1 - somewhat sad) Round 4 - Boards 10-12 nt) Barry Goren's table (with uday2): Versace-Bertheau-Giubilo-Nystrom David Stern's table (with uday): Ron Smith-Levit-Jason Feldman-Kaminsky (2-2!!! Sens-Sabs) Round 5 - Boards 13-15) Barry Goren's table (with uday2): Pratap (as given on vugraph - last name is Rajadhyaksha)-Rosenberg-Landen-H. Welland (as given on vugraph - last name is Henner-Welland) David Stern's table (with uday): Drewsky-Larsen-Passell-Compton (3-2 Sens-Sabs) Round 6 - Boards 16-18) Barry Goren's table (with uday2): Greco-Hanlon-Hampson-McGann David Stern's table (with uday): Kranyak-M.Moss-Wolpert-Fredin no change in hockey Round 7 - Boards 19-21) Barry Goren's table (with uday2): Sorensen-Bramley-Auken-J Lall David Stern's table (with uday): Lev-Wladow-Blanchard-Elinescu In hockey it is overtime as the Buffalo wings get hot with 5 seconds left Round 8 - Boards 22-24) Barry Goren's table (with uday2): Hamman-Fu-Zia-Zhao David Stern's table (with uday): Helness-Sementa-Helgemo-Madala 1st overtime over - going to another Round 9 - Boards 25-27) Barry Goren's table (with uday2): Krekorian-Wolpert-Diamond-Kranyak David Stern's table (with uday): Helness-Greco-Helgemo-Hampson Note: David Stern: vugraphe3, Barry Goren: vugraphe4 I don't know if this counts towards the "I'll offer a free month of ACBL tourneys" prize. If it does, instead of giving it to me please use it to hold another contest for players 18 years old and younger. Sens win!!!

Since he was posting on bbo forums at 7 hours before game time (in another thread) we have to hope that the event sponsors did not enforce the curfew.

One of the pairs I picked were Bjorn Fallenius and Roy Welland, who were in the drop-down selection list, and also were pair 18 in the list of participants. After the first session, we have: 3 1389.00 01-22 Bjorn Fallenius - Richard Schwartz 52 -1017.00 01-14 Roy Welland - Chris Willenken

Mary? -> now there's a big system change -> the Switch idea was more than I knew btw all my ex-partners who had to put up with a zillion system changes (let alone new systems) now get to look at the web site and say "thank goodness I don't have to play that silly bunch of stuff!" (goodness, silly, and stuff are subs for real words)