Vilgan

On headphones... lots of younger people seem to be unable to live without their headphones. However, most of them only have the music in one ear (and fairly quiet) and are able to listen/respond/etc just fine. I don't see the problem there. Eric

Yeah - I can see why that would be of course. But there are a) older people who perhaps were good players but whose skills are not what they were - perhaps they'd be better off if allowed to slip back down the rankings and b] there are folks who just play lots and accumulate more points than their actual skills would really suggest. Without a better ranking system these sorts of things will be something of a problem. That, or just have open competition and qualifying rounds where necessary. Nick I don't think anyone ever argues that the ranking system in the ACBL is absurd. The problem is getting anyone up at the top to actually DO something about it. The current system is good for revenue stream and messing with that in any fashion seems to be taboo. Hell, I just finished 13th in the Fast Pairs in Vegas and picked up 25 platinum that week. However, at many regionals I am still considered a "C" player if I play a pair event. Is that absurd? Yes. Are they ever going to do anything about it? Probably not. The people who drop down in ability as they age but are not dropped into a lower strat I think are the ones who lose out the most. There is one guy in our unit with over 10000 masterpoints who was a hell of a player once, but can barely even play now. Every KO he enters he is automatically put in bracket 1 and gets crushed even though he definitely does not belong there anymore.

We had the same problem with the KO trying to find our level. We tried a couple of NABC events, and didn't do so well. I played 4 bracketed KO and won brackets 9/10, 19/19, 12/12, and 13/20 all fairly comfortably, even though for some of the matches myself or my team mates weren't playing that well. I like team events and IMP scoring but it would be nice if we could say I know our team is only 1,300 MP but really we play more like 13,000 MP could we try say bracket 6 or 7. I agree that the Swiss offers more chances to find your level but unfortunately we didn't play as many this time and by the time the final weekend rolled around our team mates had left. One tactic that worked for us in the past was just to inflate your actual matchpoints. Add an extra 1 in front of your masterpoint total or something and you'll get to play against better players :) Its something that in theory you are not supposed to do but a lot of people do and the directors don't really care. Inflating totals to play up is no big deal whereas deflating totals to play down is a MAJOR no no. As for the KO vs matchpoint thing.. I think its sort of a progression. When I played in my first KO in the Dallas NABC, I was way excited to win 11 gold points for making it to the semis. Even last year I was still playing mostly KO events because it was cool to get all those "points". Once you start worrying about national events though, matchpoints is the next logical step (imo). Its a lot easier to place in a national pairs event than it is to make it to day 3 of the Vanderbilt/Spingold. Soooooo I'll work on my matchpoint game. Another reason I see some people play matchpoints is they acquired more masterpoints than their skill level can accommodate. So rather than playing bracket 1 and losing constantly they switch over to matchpoints where sometimes they win stuff and sometimes they don't. I think it will always be the case that newer players all flock to KOs though. At least until pair rewards are increased to be a bit more comparable to KOs. Eric

Any advice for staying Boston cheap? I typically find a hotel somewhere close to the playing area for ~$50 a night, but have not been having any luck in Boston so far. I don't mind catching public transportation, but would really like to avoid paying the $140 a night that the host hotel seems to want.

Just a quick card combo question/confirmation With ♠J97xx opposite ♠Kxx What is the best way to play the suit for 2 losers? I think the small spade to the 9 is the obvious first step, but not sure if there is a "correct" next play other than just guessing whether Q or A is doubleton and playing for that. Thanks for any insight, or just telling me "its a 50/50 guess, stupid" B) If I have the 8 of spades, I would assume small spade to the 9, then run the J is the correct play with that combination? Eric

Most people I know just turned off the phone for early parts of national events and left it in the room for later parts. I think I would not mind the cell phone ban nearly as much if it felt like they had already addressed some problems that are significantly worse first (people playing different boards at different times).

I like this rule best :)

I guess I am a bit confused as to why this isn't a WTP? There are some inferences that can be made from partner bidding 1♥ instead of 2NT, but they don't matter as the bid is 4♥ regardless.

I think partner is resulting the board. Ya, an X might have worked out better. But 6/5 majors and 10 hcp I am not X'ing.

Standard would have to be a cue bid of some sort. The few times I have had this sort of bid come up at the table, the person who bid on had a void and a good hand.. and wanted to explore slam. So they cue bid their void. Now their partner can evaluate a: do I have wasted values, b: do I have a decent slam worthy weak raise, or utter crap with 1Q and 2 J's? If it seems worthy of bidding on, they do so. I don't think the 4S bid being a void is anything resembling standard. Its just a cue bid. Just most of the time, the cue bid has ended up being a void. Shortness ask seems like something you can experiment with. However, suggesting it is anything resembling standard (or should be standard) is a bit out there I think.

If playing Cap, I am torn between 2♠ and 2♣. P is not an option for me. Since it is MP's, I will probably trot out 2♠ and hope I score a 4/3 fit. Regardless of the auction: after 3♥ weak, if partner passes again I will likely do so as well. I don't see a good choice that does not pose a good risk of turning a + score into a - score. We usually have some sort of hcp to bid over a micro NT (constructive = the win over weak) so if they don't have a double themselves, I am not going to double and put them in an awkward position. If the opps are +140 or -50 and we are supposed to be +130 in clubs or something, I think we chalk it up to a victory (here) for the weak NT.

3♠, please be understanding partner. P is "safe", but not winning bridge imo. Could end up being right on the hand tho. X confuses me. There are too many ways this could go way wrong. P = eek. 3NT = eek. 3H = blah.. what if we belong in spades? 3S would ideally be stronger, but at least we get our spade suit and OFFENSIVE hand out there. The bids discussing leaping to 4m (whatever it shows) confuse me as well. This hand is iffy at 3♠, why are we suddenly eager to leap to the 4 level and -almost- GF?

I would X and lead the 9 of spades. I expect to have it make sometimes, beat it 1 sometimes, and beat it 2 (on a spade lead, not diamond lead!!) sometimes. Ideally, we would get 1 spade, 2 clubs, 1 heart on a spade lead. If LHO has long hearts and the A of spades, we also need to lead a spade to knock out the entry. It is absolutely possible this will make, but I think X is also a good idea to discourage partner from bidding 5♦. They will not be happy about KTx of clubs in dummy.

I expect partner has either 7 clubs to the T, or 6 clubs and 4 hearts (w/ 1 or 2 honors in hearts). Either way, I correct to diamonds. If partner has 4 hearts, they won't be roughing them on dummy whereas I don't have too much trouble w/ my spade losers. If partner has 7 clubs to the T, my suit is better and will have fewer losers. I also think it is not impossible partner has 1-2 diamonds, which will likely make diamonds a better suit regardless.

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sq973h63d97xxxcjx&s=sak642hak974dcaxx]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Partner bid a bit aggresively, but they have great faith in your declarer play. Auction: 1♠ 2♦ 2♠ P 3♦ 4♦ P 4♥ X 5♦ P P 5♠ all pass Auction is a bit strange, but hey it happened online. You get a bit of help on the defense. LHO leads the A of diamonds. Extra info: LHO has Kx of clubs, and will continue with the K of diamonds when they get in. RHO will rough the diamond w/ the T of spades trying for an uppercut.

Ya, a better choice might just be giving up on Michael's, at least over 1♣ and the precision 1♦. It does seem about 50/50, I can think of many hands in the last month or so where bidding Michael's hurt the team that did it. Worth pondering at least.

I am considering making a few tweaks to our current system. Basically, right now I play 1♣ 2♣ and 1♦ 2♦ as Michael's. After looking back over the past few months, I am considering adjusting that slightly to: 1♣ 2♣ is natural and shows clubs 1♣ 2♦ Michael's 1♦ 2♦ is natural if 1♦ is precision, Michael's if it is natural. 1♦ 2♥ is Michael's if the 1♦ is precision, preemptive hearts if not. I have had a LOT of hands where I feel 1♣ 2♣ as a natural overcall would have improved our score. Either we could have competed in clubs, or partner did not get off to an ideal lead against their contract. 1♦ 2♦ (if the 1♦ is precision) I have less experience with, but again I am sort of considering just making it natural over a precision 1♦. Not many people play precision here, but I have seen a lot of people get shut out of their diamond suit when I have opened a precision 1♦. For those who play either of these agreements, how have you liked it? I am considering switching to this with any partners who will, at least for a while. Then again, it is a fairly small sample size and might be inflated by me remembering bad results better, so again... good to consult those with more experience I think. Thank you for any input :)

I agree with the ruling. I probably would have led a spade on the auction given, regardless of whether 4♥ was exclusion or a splinter. A club seems strange regardless of which explanation 4♥ gets, and I don't think that "oh no, it was actually a splinter" is enough of a difference to change a strange lead to a more sensible one.

Imps.. I don't think pass is a great option. Many many hands partner could have that 4♠ will make, especially with the likely club lead incoming. If there is any way I can show a desire to stop short of game in spades, I will do so. If not, I will bid 4♠ immediately as this should show weakness. At matchpoints, I will celebrate the fact we are already in the right strain and will preserve that luck by passing. 170 and 420 both beat 110. -50 in 4 spades gets me a bottom when 140 in 2 spades would have gotten me a top. In all cases, I think both members of the partnership should make the bid that is most likely to result in the best score. I consider the "passing a forcing bid is unethical" to be nonsense.

I call the director, since declarer and dummy both have the A of diamonds! :)

4NT looks 100% quant to me. 4♣ if its gerber. If not, either 4♠ or 6♥. Really would be kind of silly to be off 2 aces which is very plausible after partner shows spade values. However, getting passed (very likely) in 4NT when 6♥ makes is even more silly.

If he has a hand where he thinks game is on, I expect that he'll bid 3♠ and I'll bid 3NT. Otherwise he'll probably pass and we'll probably make it. And partner is supposed to just assume that we have an absolute tip top maximum pass, and a double spade stop? If we need to have the world's fair for 3NT to be right, frequently partner will just stop in 3♣. So when we DO have the world's fair (relatively speaking), then we need to take an action that will result in more than 110/130. There is a huge difference between 3♣: "yes partner I have stuff" and the hand given. Yes there are hands that 3♣ will make that 3NT will go down, which is why I think pass is the best bid.

Recently grabbed a subscription to Bridge World. Are there any back magazines that I should strongly consider picking up? Never actually read one.. but seems like it is time to start. Thx for any suggestions!

Eh? I don't think most of the posters in this thread *actually* suck at bridge. Those who suck tend to be those who don't expend the effort to get better by doing things like perusing the BBO forums. I just figured the title was a play off of the book with the similar (same?) name.

I disagree with the bidding 3♣. It looks likely we have the points to be in game (or close to it). If I pass, there is a good chance we are beating it 2 for 300. 3♣ imo is the worst of the 3 options, what is partner supposed to do from there? We are the ones w/ the spade stopper. RHO will have short spades behind partner (making our spade length/honors suck). We have no shortness that suggests 5♣ is a non suck contract. IMO pass is better at imps, but 3NT is the only other option that I think is even on the table. Just because a bid is part of a system, does not mean one should stop exercising judgment about what will happen next. I think people develop a fear of doubling 2 of a major at imps, because it has gone wrong in the past and been a huge disaster. I don't think the people in this match are likely at a level where that would effect them, but lower level I see a lot of irrational fear of X'ing 2 of a major for penalty.