Trinidad

Here is the full deal. (Apologies that I didn't remember the South hand entirely correct.) [hv=d=w&v=n&n=skhkqt9873d6ca765&w=sq983hdkjt3ckq932&e=sjt7654h5daq984ct&s=sa2haj642d752cj84]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv] I was South and thought (and still think) that the lead of the ♠A was more or less automatic. We got a dead bottom, so the other South players had a different auction or were just much smarter than I. Thus: Phil was right in leading a club. He would have scored 87.5% for getting it down 1. (But this also means that he was wrong in hoping that they would go for 800.) Rik

You are South and pick up: [hv=d=w&v=n&s=saxhajtxxdjxxcxxx]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] The auction: (Pass)-1♥-(4♠)-5♥; (5♠)-Pass-(Pass)-Dbl 1) Agree with your bidding? 2) What do you lead? Rik

Basically play your normal bridge, but... Try to make the weak player make the opening lead. Bid more aggressive to games when the weak player makes the opening lead. Opening leads is the area where weak players make the big mistakes. Don't compete aggressively when the weak player will declare. Do not take the save against their game or slam when the weak player will find a way to go down anyway. Do the opposite when the pro needs to lead or play. In general: Be slightly more aggressive, so that your side declares more than they do. It is easier to have a good defense when both players are about equally strong. But don't do anything extreme. Just use these tactics to break a tie in when you have a difficult decision. Rik

Hi, My name is Rik. Feel free to use my real name or my nickname. One reason why I use my nickname and sign with my real first name is that I don't want everybody to find out that I am posting here. Particularly I want to keep my bridge life separated from my professional life. Rik / Trinidad

It's good that you have professional credentials (see the last line of this post). But... in your first post in this thread you gave clear evidence that you didn't have a clue what the bridge laws say on the matter of asking questions. You hadn't even read the law yet when you came with your 'ruling'. The only effect that your post had was to misinform the bridge community. When it was pointed out to you that you were wrong, you objected to the wording used and proceeded to pick an unusual interpretation of another issue of this law that wasn't asked for and was not relevant for this thread. (Or did you really not notice that the original poster asked whether an opponent could ask about a bid that he had actually made?) Now, I admit that someone with experience in reading laws could certainly take your position and that, from that perspective, you have a valid point. But someone with experience in reading bridge laws would never take your position and that is the perspective that counts. Tournament directors are working very hard to spread the real rules in to the bridge community. And 'professionals' without experience on bridge laws can do more damage than genuine directors can fix. Rather than getting upset about the wording used by people disagreeing with you, and answering questions that weren't asked, you could: - Realize why your misinformation gives rise to the wording used - Apologize for the misinformation - Start spreading the interpretation of the bridge laws as mentioned by Josh and others. Since you seem to be a person with authority doing just that could actually help the bridge community forward. Rik

I disagree. I think the term trap pass refers to any pass with a holding that is strong enough to bid (in an auction that is likely not passed out). One example of the trap pass is the "I have a penalty double but a double is conventional and now I pass, hoping partner can double" -pass. If you read the books by S.J. Simon it is clear that, in the old days, the style of overcalling with weak hands and passing with strong hands (to come in later) was quite popular. Hence, the phrase "I need protection, partner.", meaning: "Partner, you have to balance in fourth seat since I may have a good hand." People used to do that on hands that nowadays would be nice overcalls or even "double and overcall hands". As to the actual hand: It is obvious that 1♥ or 4♥ are the book bids. There can't be any discussion about that. However, pass is not as silly as it looks here. I guess the passer had a plan: pass first, then compete in hearts, rebid them (walk the dog), then get doubled and make an overtrick or two. This tactic usually doesn't work against experienced players, but against two typical "BBO experts" :) it can win a lot. In this case the pass backfired since LHO -quite surprisingly- started to bid hearts. After that, this hand was 'stuck'. Rik

Sorry for the broken record, but your analogy makes no sense because THEY DON'T WANT US THERE! Frankly that doesn't even matter since we are supposedly acting in our own best interests, in which case your entire argument represents irrational thought. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost The question about the physical presence of Americans is an entirely different question. Of course, I am all in favor of pulling the US troops out of Iraq, providing that the USA (since they are responsible for the mess) can basically that is done what should be done. Who will do that is not important. (I would even agree with you that it would be more efficient if it weren't Americans.) But it should be clear that it is the US' responsibility to return security and stability to Iraq and see to it that the country is rebuilt. If another country wants to (and is able to) do that physically in Iraq (while being paid by the USA), by all means, go ahead. Who did you have in mind? Rik

This is a classical fallacy. Bygones are bygones. The integrity of the US government is already bankrupt and there's nothing that can be done about that, but fortunately it's irrelevant. The question is: what are the costs and benefits of staying in Iraq, compared to the option of leaving? This is all that matters. How Iraq was before the invasion, and how it might have been in the absence of an invasion, is irrelevant. We are not talking about taking a loss on the stock market. There, bygones are bygones. This is a matter of responsibility and liability. If I crash your car, I can obviously not return to the situation before the crash. But you won't let me get away with: "Oh well, bygones are bygones." or "The cost of paying for your damages is higher than the benefit for me.". You will let me pay for the damage. Rik

"Going all the way" means leave the country better than it was before the invasion. It's easier to break things than to repair. So yes, it's going to take decades. As to: How is that worth it... If you invade a country and claim to do that to improve the lives of its inhabitants you cannot possibly consider leaving the country shred to pieces and with refugees spread all over the world. You would be declaring bankruptcy on your integrity. Is that what the USA wants to show to the countries in the Middle East? Can you put a price on that? Imagine going into someone's house to help them unprompted, with nothing but the best of intentions. In the process you are destroying the house, ruining the garden, killing the son and separating the parents in a bitter conflict. The daughter runs to the neighbors and the baby is left without care. Would you consider picking up the family picture, blowing off the dust, putting it back on what's left of the mantle, walking out of the house, going on with your live as if nothing happened? (If this would be a scene from Monty Python, you would at least hear John Cleese say: 'ahum... err.. sorry... err... chaps'. That should give an idea of how absurd this situation is.) Rik

I know of at least one pair, playing in the highest division in their (internationally pretty strong) country that has this convention on their card (in an otherwise fairly straightforward system). They like it a lot. I don't have it on my card and I am not playing in the highest division in my country. (I don't think there is a causal relation, but maybe I am just stubborn :) ) Rik

I am fully with Arend. I was strongly opposed to the invasion of Iraq. It should have never happened. But once it started, continuing was the least of evils. Now, the USA will have to go all the way. They created the mess, they are responsible for the clean up. For me, pulling out of Iraq now is the equivalent of causing a traffic accident and running away, leaving the victims behind. Rik

That depends on what you think they will do at the other table. o If they will be in 6♣ or 7♣, then a grand slam in clubs needs to be better than about 56% to pay. A grand slam in clubs comes home when clubs are 3-2, hearts are not 6-1 and opponents can't find a void in partner's hand. That is better than 56%. o If they are going to be in game only, the grand in clubs needs to better than 87% to pay off. The grand slam clearly doesn't meet that requirement. o If they will be in a bad slam (6♥, 7♦, 7♥ or 7NT), the grand needs to be very good too. The question is actually more complex. You could opt for 6NT. It is a little less safe than 6♣. (You will need diamonds 3-3 or a dropping doubleton/singleton ♦Q or the long diamonds with the long clubs to make 6NT when there are only 12 tricks in clubs. Possibly your diamond spots may be important too. If you have the ♦8, the nine may be doubleton or singleton.) Given this analysis, I would want to be in 7♣ if I play in a team game against decent opposition or better. (I expect them to be in a club slam.) Against less than decent opponents, I would settle for 6♣. If I play in a cross IMP (or Butler) competition with a mixed field, I would settle for 6♣, if I want to score in the event. In general, I consider cross IMP or Butler games as practice for good team games, so I would play as if I were facing decent opponents and bid 7♣ anyway, expecting it to loose in the long run in this pairs competition but to help me win in good team games. Rik

Just for the record: I am fully agreeing with Ken's post [Apr 11 2008, 09:59 PM]. Rik

I disagree. The point is that most businesses create their own market. The military is certainly no exception. But we would be better off without the products that the military provides us with. Rik We would be better off if there was no need for the military. But you think that there is no need? It seems to me that the history of the world provides more than enough reasons to be cautious. Perhaps I misunderstand you. If you advocate restraint in the use of military force we agree. If you are suggesting that security is based on a strong economy and a way of life that will draw support from others, we agree. If you are suggesting we could wisely disband the military and close down the Pentagon, we do not agree. Obviously, I am sketching the situation very black-white. I think we basically agree. (Closing down the Pentagon right now would not be a wise move.) But my point is that armed forces should strive to make themselves redundant. (I am sure that you and I agree there.) But just like a plumber, a weather man or someone selling encyclopedias, a soldier and a general want to keep their job. As a result, just like any other trade, the military itself is striving for sustainability rather than redundancy for plain simple economic reasons. A door-to-door encyclopedia salesmen striving for sustainability isn't that bad. It results in more encyclopedias than we need. It's not optimal because we could spend the money on something more useful than excess encyclopedias, but it's far from a problem. But the strive of the military for sustainability results in more war than we need. That ìs a problem. Larger organizations have stronger interests and stronger interests will make it easier for the organization to remain sustainable. If we strive to redundancy of the armed forces we will need to keep them small. When someone chooses to serve, he is reinforcing the military sustaining mechanism, rather than working towards redundancy. Therefore, (to get back to your first statement) I am definitely not in debt to him. Rik

I disagree. The point is that most businesses create their own market. The military is certainly no exception. But we would be better off without the products that the military provides us with. Rik i don't think you've thought this out very well... are you saying our freedom wan't won, and later preserved, by our military? Whose freedom and free from whom? Are you talking about this from a US perspective: (the Boston tea party)? Or from a global perspective (the time that Earth was liberated from the Martians by the Earth military)? I fully agree with you that the freedom in the US was won and preserved by the US military. But what good does that do to the other 95% of the Earth's population? If you look at it from a local perspective you could perceive that the local military protected the local freedom. However, if you look from a global perspective, the invention of the military (and military conflicts) was probably the biggest disaster that ever happened to Earth. Imagine where we would be if the money globally spent on the military was spent on drinking water, health care or, heck, Coca Cola (or playing bridge :) )? Wouldn't our freedom (everybody's freedom) be much larger? Rik

I disagree. The point is that most businesses create their own market. The military is certainly no exception. But we would be better off without the products that the military provides us with. Rik

I guess Mike had a hard time believing that you truely didn't know what the 'colourful thingy' was... For the record, I do believe you. Mike happened to grow up in a country where the military is on a pedestal and you didn't. Another question: What is the 'colourful thingy' actually called? Rik

3♣, not close. Partner is about 0-7 in my book, so I will need considerably more to bid something other than 3♣. Rik

Let's look at it from the opponents' point of view: If you would have appealed, they would have been ruled against and they would have gotten a severe procedural penalty. They would have lost the match and they would have deserved that completely. By choosing to refrain from an appeal, you let the wrong team win. The fact that you gave away your own deserved victory doesn't change those facts. Usually, appeals are recorded. That means an appeal is a good way to get the incident recorded. Rik

Totally agree with this. This guy is obviously a liar. If he planned on bidding 7♥ no matter what the response then why didn't he bid 7♥ over 1NT? After a 4♥ response, he could bid 5♣. Then, when partner has denied any kings by bidding 5♦, he could bid 7NT. :) Seriously, I wouldn't call people liars. To disregard UI (or 'bend over backwards') is not as easy as it seems. I have seen world champions with, in general, very high ethical standards make bids that they would have never made without the UI. One day after the fact they still think their action was absolutely obvious. One year after the fact, when they are able to separate the auhorized information from the unauthorized information, they think their action was absolutely ridiculous. Having said that, I fully agree with everything else. The only LA was 6♥. Rik

I underbid 4♦. It takes all the convenient forcing bids away and will essentially force the 1♣ opener to guess the final contract. By underbidding to only 4♦ I give him more opportunity to guess wrong. (Besides that, partner probably only has a six card suit.) Rik

1) I would probably double, but would consider pass an LA. 2) After the hesitation by partner, I would definitely pass. If I double and it wins, the TD will adjust to a 3C contract. If I double and I loose, I have lost. Doubling here is a case of 'Heads: I loose. Tails: I don't win'. Rik

I would start with SAYC. Not because SAYC is a good system (I consider 2/1 to be much better). However, as soon as the auction starts to be competitive, the generally accepted standards in bidding start to look like SAYC. In competition, a 2/1 (two over one, e.g. 1♥-(Pass or 1♠)-2♦) is not game forcing, but forcing for one round. My advice: Play a form of Standard American for at least three years. Don't play any conventions other than Stayman, Blackwood and the take out double (1x-Dbl). You will learn how to bid. When you get genuinely frustrated by the problems that cannot be solved by this simple system, keep playing it for another half year (to get really fed up with it) and then switch to 2/1. Rik

[a] I expect something like KJx(x), AJx(x), I would not expect xxxx or AKQx. I would typically accept the game try with fitting honors, or with a long suit expecting to be able to set up the suit. I expect length with at most one honor, preferably not the king. I would typically accept the game try with shortness or some length with two fitting honors (say KQxx) and a decent hand.

I remember playing in an open event in a regional in the Detroit area about 10 years ago. There I met an opponent who was convinced that his redouble of 6♠ was SOS. Needless to say that his partner didn't agree. Unfortunately for us it was only MPs :) Rik