GreenMan

When you sit down to play, ask an opp if you can trade places. :D

I don't direct, but I've noticed this behavior with trying to join a player's table from the "who's playing" list, e.g. if I want to kib some expert. Glad to know it's not just a bug on my end.

I'm about to play our district's NAP qualifier in flight B with a relatively new partner (he made it to day 2 of last year's NAP flight C, but his partner graduated college and moved across the country, so he's stuck with me). We've finally gotten comfortable with a new system, with a strong club, 4-card Majors and light openings. We just played 4 sessions at a Sectional and did encouragingly well. So that's my goal for 2014: Qualify for the Nationals and then do well once we get there.

They don't yet; this is supposedly coming soon. Bots in robot tournaments accept claims as of a week or two ago. They do not. I don't know if this is in the works or not. Click the "Who's Online" tab on the right, it should then allow you to click on "Kibitzers" to see who's watching.

1783. :P

I would be surprised if this were strictly true; I would think that a pair ought to have to disclose this sort of thing when asked. Of course, the proper answer may be "Our defense to 2-level openings depends on their meaning; what are yours?" In that case the opener has to go first.

http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/809/kg7f.gif

This. The club in one city where I used to live doesn't have the business to justify the expense, but it got one anyway, and provides sets of boards to nearby clubs for a fee. In effect, several organizers are sharing one machine.

Indeed. The books, by Bill Kelly, were actually Sandwiches Are Not My Business Peanut Butter & Jelly Is Not for Kids Tuna Is Not for Eating

The NAmerican Nationals? Someone on here once said that ACBLScore doesn't play well with the pads they use at NABCs, hence the manual entering of scores (though that's supposed to change with the next version of the software).

Hmm, I had forgotten that was there. In a Swiss I sometimes pull cards out and start shuffling while I'm waiting for the opps to arrive, but I don't start dealing until they do. (I also turn a card in each board as soon as I get to the table.) Now I see I've been doing it wrong.

Is partner more likely to get RKC wrong, or to treat ♠QTx ♥KQJ ♦J ♣QJTxxx as a maximum, or to get the 2NT response wrong? If the first, disregarding the UI from PhilKing :rolleyes:, I agree with Trinidad: Partner most likely has a holding that would respond 5♥ to 4NT RKC.

I believe this is when partner makes some call showing support for your suit, such as a cuebid of the opps' suit, and RHO intervenes. It's sort of a fast-arrival principle: We're going to 3♠, and the quicker I bid it, the less I have. So Pass would show some extras for your previous actions. You probably already play that after, e.g. (1♣) 1♠ (Pass) 2♣ (Pass) ? then 2♠ is minimum and bidding another suit or NT is exploring for a possible game. Wayne's treatment extends this to auctions where RHO doesn't pass the second time.

Good point, my solution was the same as yours except I didn't see this. Thanks.

It's easy to quit bridge. I've done it half a dozen times.

duplicate, sorry

Well if you're not clear about what ambiguity you claim to see, no one can clarify it for you, assuming it exists.

I suspect he means, as I've heard others say before, that the hands where a good result is available only if the pair uses Smolen are sufficiently rare that one has not been observed yet.

Intelligence (the U.S. series) has not aired yet, and it's a techno-spy thriller. You may be thinking of Elementary. (There was a Canadian crime series also called Intelligence that went off the air in 2007.)

Obviously the organizers, who actually have to deal with the situation, disagree. I think we are working with different definitions of "makes sense." Scoring across the field at half a dozen sites for a national qualifying event seems insane to me.

At least one ACBL District used an online qualifier for the North American Pairs finals this year. That district is geographically huge -- it includes Hawaii and Guam as well as a large chunk of the mainland -- and an online Q makes much more sense than expecting pairs to fly six or more hours each way.

And why not? OP specified world-class opps. I would expect players at that level to play transfer responses over interference. And even if they're not, a responder with values and no clear bid over the OC will likely double and let opener take charge. I'd say "could well be on lead" is, if anything, an understatement.

Yesterday my partner and I got about five 4441 hands in seven deals. We were practicing strong-club bidding, and our devices for those hands sure got a workout.

Terence Reese wrote about a hand where he tried to endplay West in clubs but that opponent pitched the King under the Ace, then on the next round East went up Jack to crocodile his partner's now-stiff 10. Eventually East got thrown in to lead into Reese's ♣97 for the game-going trick. After the play dummy commented, "You were really lucky to have the club honors falling together, weren't you?"

Anyway, back to the original subject, kenrexford's analysis looks right to me, but I'd like to hear more. :)