GreenMan

There are two questions here being argued as if they were just one: Does the phrase "unless declarer's intention is incontrovertible" appear in L46B, and if so, does it apply to the rest of that Law? (I believe it does.) In the example given, is declarer's intention indeed incontrovertible? I tend toward "no" but appreciate the discussion of cases where it might be.

Honestly, I have no idea what you're talking about.

46B states that none of the following restrictions apply if "declarer's different intention is incontrovertible". That sure looks like an overriding condition to me.

A good player had the rest in top tricks, and the director essentially said "You are a bad enough player that it would be normal for you to duck a trick instead of cashing out." I'd consider that an insult.

There'd be an opening for a Bulletin columnist! B-)

Are you sure mycroft was talking about individual governmental entities?

At least three of those metropolises are double or more the size of Calgary.

Bergen calls it "crawling Stayman" and so that's what I've always called it.

And as someone pointed out, for the rest of his life he can say, "I opened for Beyoncé."

Thanks! I'll see if he's up for it.

Do you require advanced players, or is this open to all? My longest-lived partnership has had success at the flight B level but we're no experts. If we'd be eligible I can check with pard for next time around.

... Fishbein?

Four weeks of Basic Bridge Bidding, four more weeks of Bridge Bidding II, and not everyone in the first class goes ahead and joins the second.

I believe that what is happening is that people will turn up for the first part of the course, then decide to go it alone after that and skip the next set of lessons. They are doing as they were taught, possibly not knowing that their education was incomplete.

Thanks. I was hoping the specific article was available Web-wise but I guess not.

Hi folks. Is there a way to access the Bridge Library through the Web, or do we have to use the downloaded client? I'd like to share a couple of those articles with a partner who's not real computer-adept, so the less explanation of how to find them, the better. Thanks! Brian Baresch Austin TX USA

In Human Bridge Errors Part 1 the authors recommend playing the table to some extent -- specifically, if lesser players take a long time to decide on an action, it's likely to be the wrong action, so if they pass with apparent uncertainty then let them sit where they are. This won't help in all cases but it may in some.

Sectional Swiss some years ago, our C team with about 500 MPs between us had an incredible run and was one match away from winning the whole event. On a key board my partner and I bid 4♥, which would have made in comfort, but an opp gambled that his partner had spades with him and sacrificed in 4♠x. Which he brought home on a 4-2 fit. :blink: We ended up fourth overall, which was much better than we had expected going in. But still.

Indeed. In my most recent semi-serious partnership we agreed (at my insistence) that RKC is OFF unless we have explicitly agreed a suit. This was optimal for us, as it was clear and easy to remember, and in practice it simplified a lot more auctions than it complicated. (With a more serious and long-term partnership I would be amenable to a different setup, so long as there IS an agreement.) With a pickup partner I'd just go out of my way to avoid ambiguous 4NT. On the OP's hand, 5♥ may be the least of evils. I hesitate to criticize it, anyway, because other calls are just as dangerous if 5NT pick-a-slam isn't available.

I'll go you one better: I once missed a 13-card fit. Partner bid Michaels showing OM and a minor. I looked at my three ♦ and seven ♣ and bid what was surely my partner's undisclosed suit. Nope.

I've observed that some players tend to let their partner's most recent bid override all previous calls in their head, possibly out of panic if they don't understand what's going on. I think I did it myself a few times when I was first learning the game.

This. Sorry I've been away and haven't replied. Not much of a joke, but ...

I knew his game theory contributions would get wide recognition some day.

We were playing in the district's NAP qualifier in flight C, which was combined with flight B because the numbers were small. First session we had an amazing 63% or some such and led both strata. Second session we struggled but stayed in contention in the overalls. It came down to the last board, which as it turned out was against the other pair with a shot at finishing first. My partner was declaring, and at some point he could have just drawn the last trump, conceded one trick and claimed the rest to just make the contract, but after two hard sessions he was tired and forgot about the outstanding trump, and he just put his hand down saying he'd play his side-suit winners and concede the last trick. His RHO said "I have a trump still, so I can ruff a winner and we get one more trick so you're down one." Partner looked crestfallen, but now that play had ended I could point out, "Once you ruff you're endplayed. Anything you lead back gives us the rest." Making that contract put us just barely in first place; a regional-level flight B win was our best ever at the time. Another story: A couple of years later I was playing in the GNT flight C regional final against a team that had beaten us in the qualifying Swiss. The opponents at our table were probably the best pair in the field, though their teammates were less formidable. After the first set as we waited for the other table to finish, I estimated that we were anywhere from 20 IMPs up to 10 IMPs down. But once we compared we were ahead by 51. The other team decided they'd rather get an early start on the trip home, so they conceded. But here's the best part: As team captain I went to report the result to the director, and he said, "That's interesting. I bet someone that you'd win by 100. I wonder if this counts."

I'm seeing a combination of commentary on the current action and commentary on boards from a completely different set, referring to Multon and Zimmerman as if they were at the table when in fact they sat out that set.