Robert

Hi everyone: Try the Kaplan inversion with 'transfers' by opener. 1H-1S*-1NT*=Cs, 2C*=Ds, 2D*=4=5=2=2 non reverse type values. It was in a recent(2006-2008?) Bridge World article. Regards, Robert

Hi everyone Mike Lawrence, "How the Experts Read the Cards" gave me a big step up the bridge learning curve. It is an older book, however, still very good. Regards, Robert

Hi everyone The transfer shows shortage. You will have 3-4 cards in the other major. I prefer to show the shortage and 3-4 in the OM rather than 'not show' the shortage. Regards, Robert

Hi everyone Blue Team Club used to open 4 card majors very often. They raised with 3-4 card support(three card raises tended to have Hxx plus a ruffing value) the range was @ 7+-10. The Orange(Black?) club played for several of the last decades by Bob Hammon also uses much the same bidding. With 11-12 dummy points and 4(+) card support they made a 3M limit raise. The Blue Team won buckets of IMPs by finding their 4-4 major fit and later playing 3NT. Regards, Robert

Hi everyone Ken thinks that his version of the facts in a 'blatant hitch' case was 'proved' by a TD ruling that was "overturned on appeal." If you lose in a higher court, your earlier victory does not count. I misrepensented? Ken is the one confused about the law. If you lose on appeal, your version of the facts was "not accepted." Gripe if you like, you still lose the appeal. The TD ruled in favor of Ken. The 'Powers that Be' overturned same. Ken wants the other pair 'punished' after 'winning' the appeal? They won, so they are not likely to be punished. Ken wants his version of the facts in this 'hitch' case to be excepted by everyone. The other side offered 'No.' and 'didn't notice.' Ken wants the 'didn't notice' to be a vote for 'blatant hitch.' The appeal was lost by Ken so his version of the facts was apparently not accepted. Ken wants his version of the facts accepted even after the powers that be decided again his version of the facts. He still wants the other pair punished after they 'won' the appeal. Ken thinks that the other pair is of a high level to 'know' the end position and still so bad that they discard a winning Club King in the end position. He wins no matter what happens? If they are so bad that they discard winners in an unforced end position, why does he still think that they knew what the end position was? Bad bridge players throw winners away in many end positions that they do not understand. On the facts presented the TD ruling appears wrong IMO and the final ruling of the appeal also agrees with this 'final' version of the facts. Ken might be right about the facts, however, he did lose the appeal. The TD ruling was overturned by a higher court and their ruling strongly suggested that the facts were not what Ken claimed. Regards, Robert

Hi everyone If they deny a hitch occurred, it must have 'occurred' because your pair says so. Why even ask the other players opinion 'if' your version is always right? You say that the hitch was 'blatant' and the other pair says, 'No.' and "I did not notice." If the hitch was blatant, why would both of the other pair not agree? The TD made a ruling and you still wanted more 'punishment.' Why did the TD not follow your instructions? Perhaps he ruled according to the law and what he believed had happened? A 'did not notice' vote is not a vote in your favor, a reasonable TD might consider that 'did not notice' very strongly suggests that no 'hitch' blatant or otherwise had occured. You want the other pair to 'know' about the end position and yet 'still be able to throw away a winning club King' to let you make another trick. Which way is it? Does their bridge level allow them to 'know' about the end position and still be unaware of the danger of discarding a winning club? I have seen many TD calls where the version of the facts was wide apart. The bid was, A. a few seconds B. in tempo C. 30 seconds D. a minute at least Is my version always correct or does the TD consider that my opinion might 'support' my version of the facts? Regards, Robert

Hi everyone I play both inv. and/or game forcing depending on the auction. 4th suit forcing at the three level is game forcing. I also play XYZ convention where 1 any-1 any-1 any-2C* forces 2D to invite and 2D* here is a game forcing 4th suit force type bid. How exactly do the game forcing players bid a hand with say 10-11 points after 1D-1S-2C holding 5=3=2=3 without a heart stopper? Jumping to 2NT with xx in the 4th suit is not really good. Raising clubs with 3 card support or diamonds with 2 is also not accurate. Regards, Robert

Hi everyone I have the 1958(1962 reprint) version of How to Play Winning Bridge A KS book by Kaplan and Sheinwold. Page 91 he bids 2D with a 4HCP 3352 hand and says that you need to get out of NT Jumps to 3m show six card suits according to his example hands. I do remember(page 92) that he jumps to 4S with AKQxx x xx Qxxxx opposite a 1NT opening. Regards, Robert

Hi everyone I use a mixture of bids after 1C*-1D-1S=4+ F1 and 1M-1NT=0-4 without 4M -2C*=5-7 with 0-2M -2D*=3M and 5-7 -2M=4 card raise @5-7 1C-1D-1NT=natural 18-20(I open 1NT=15-17) 1C-1D-2C*=diamonds 1C-1D-1H*-semi force to 1S-1N*=clubs, anything else shows hearts and the suit bid 1C-1D-2D*=strong 4441 type with 19+ 1C-1D-2H*=Kokish strong 2H or 25+NT 1C-1D-2S*=5-5(+)minors strong With about 16-19, you canape with 4M and 5m With 20+, you transfer into the minor and rebid the M Regards, Robert

Hi everyone Your partner made a takeout doubles with a singleton in an unbid major and 5 cards in the suit opened holding 12HCP? You held 2461 with KQ10xxx of diamonds and you did not bid after your partner make a takeout double? The other pair bid strangely, however, your methods also need a great deal of work. Regards, Robert

Hi Jillybeans2 You are using non standard bidding methods to make up for some partners lack of bridge knowledge. Beginning players do not know that reverses show strong hands and pass forcing bids. Better partners will not want to play with you when you use these 'jump to game' methods because a causal partner passed a forcing bid. You can use correct bidding and seek out better players or you can 'jump to game' and lose the chance at getting better partners. Regards, Robert

Hi shubi Didn't the world bank President just get replaced because of a non work related problem? The United Nations is not free of problems. When 7 trillion dollars suddenly appears, the problems will get even bigger. Your math does not make any sense. You just do not get anywhere near that amount of money using your 'facts.' You only have 672 billion dollars which is 'only' .672 trillion dollars. You cannot set aside 2.72 trillion dollars if you 'only' have 672 billion to start with. If you wish to change your facts and just decide that people are going to give you seven trillion dollars or so, that is fine. I would suggest that you start with say 999 trillion dollars and you could now not only end world hunger, you could also supply free housing and medical care to all that needed it. Why do something less when you could raise a mere 999 trillion dollars using the same method that you raised seven trillion dollars? Jerry Lewis set a new record for a charity when he raised 63 million this year. If you would contract him and explain how to raise trillions rather than mere millions, he could host one more event and fund the charity forever. Regards, Robert

Hi shubi Trillion=1,000 billion not 100 billion. Decimal points change the value by 10 times. Commas show 1,000 units. 7 times 12 is 84 billion correct. 84 times 8 years is 672 billion not 6.72 trillion(6.72 trillion=6,720 billion) You only have a small fraction of your claimed total in eight years 'if' you have 100% contribution from 6.5 billion people and you also manage to have 500 million babies that are 'yet to be born' contribute to your fund each month. How people that are starving will be able to contribute $1.00 each month to your fund is still something that I do not understand. I think that I was being quite generous in letting say 4 billion people give to your fund out of a 6.5 billion total. Many third world nations have people with little of no income. Babies might also find it difficult to raise a $1.00 each month if they are part of a family that is not getting the minimum food requirement to continue to live. How the unborn will contribute is a concept that I simply do not understand. Regards, Robert

Hi everyone The math is somewhat better now, however, the entire population of the earth is less than 10 billion so the idea of 440 billion people each giving a dollar a month is simply not possible. Change your idea to one dollar a month from say 4 billion people gives 4 billion dollars each month. Your ten trillion dollar figure now needs 2,500 months or something like 200 years to raise the money that you require. Regards, Robert

Hi everyone You can get additional information by reading the 10 pages of their convention card. 1D*-1H=0-9 negative 1D*-1S=7-13 invitational 1D*-1NT=GF Their 1NT opening 12-15HCP covers all other balanced hand types. What they open with 5M332 I did not discover. Regards, Robert