bid_em_up

Sure, this sounds reasonable....would you mind actually assigning some approximate percentages to each breakdown/category that you list?

How about posting an ID that you actually play on? The one you use here has never had any played hands listed (that I have seen). I'm sure you have nothing to hide if you are as good as you seem to think you are. Otherwise, stfu. this is gonna be amusing... Nah not really Richard; its too easy and not enough of a challenge. Firstly B_E_U you need to look at hands 2+ yrs ago as I haven't played on BBO, or ftf for that matter, for that time as I have been and still currently live os. The IT infrastructure in my current country is such that I have only recently had an internet connection and that happens to be a dial-up one, plus I work 3 weeks on site and 3 weeks off. Before that time I regularly played with Richard, Caren, and occasionally with Rado and Misho as well as my Oz pd. Secondly since when does pointing out the inanities of a belligerent and obtuse poster lead to a conclusion about one's own abilities. I must admit that I don't suffer fools gladly. Hand records for BBO do not go back that far, unless you have access to something like BridgeBrowser, obviously one as brilliant as yourself should know this already. Since I do not have BrBr, trying to look more than two years ago is pointless. I'm just wondering, if you dont suffer fools gladly, how can you stand getting out of bed every day and looking in the mirror?

Both would be forcing. Auction 1) 3m was available for game invite. 4m shows slam interest, otherwise it would just bid 5m. Auction 2) The jump shift created a g/f auction. 4m should show again slam interest.

How about posting an ID that you actually play on? The one you use here has never had any played hands listed (that I have seen). I'm sure you have nothing to hide if you are as good as you seem to think you are. Otherwise, stfu.

And I suppose the emperor really did have clothes on?

Really? To where?

Non-forcing and forward-going are mutually exclusive terms, in my book. Either you intend for the 4S bidder to take another call.... Or you don't. You cannot have it both ways. The 4S bidder is always allowed to move on over 5C, with the "right" hand. That in and of itself does not make the 5C bid "forward-going".

It probably is just a matter of terminology/semantics. When you bid 5C, do you expect to hear another call from the 4S bidder?

I think Zia would lead the spade 2. Given that RHO has shown long semi-solid spades, its practically impossible for him to drop the King the next round after the 9 or 10 wins in dummy initially. He will take the spade finesse into our hand. Now we have seen dummy before having to choose which ace to lead. This likely gives us three tricks, and if declarer has a two way heart guess, he is again likely to go wrong. Besides, when in doubt, lead trump. :D

You can't have your cake and eat it too. If its non-forcing, it cannot be "forward-going" and if its "forward-going", it cannot be non-forcing. If you try and play it this way, you will practically always end up either one level too low or one level too high (and usually the latter). It is better served to play it as forcing, imo, to either 5S (or higher) or 6C.

1) Yes. Either the heart 7 or 5, depending on 3rd/4th best agreements. 2) I do not, but I have a partner who thinks that it is appropriate to always lead from an internal sequence such as this. Every time he leads the 9 from this type of holding, all it manages to do is screw up the defense. I can never read this type of holding, its always looks like top of nothing to me and I misdefend accordingly.

Pass and put down our 8 tricks proudly. We have exactly what we said we have, good hearts with 2 keycards (for hearts) + heart Q, do we not? If 6N goes down, it isn't our fault, and we certainly have no reason to override partners decision. If it makes 7, oh well, we still have no business bidding it ourselves.

Helene, I'm sorry but all of this really has nothing to do with the original questions. Which were, You play stayman with at least one four card major and 8+ HCP. - Is need generally speaking alert stayman? The answer is no, generally speaking, it does not require an alert. Stayman does not "generally speaking" require an alert. Period. End of story. (Of course your NBO is dumb enough to require one, then follow the rules of whatever your particular NBO says, but they still do not apply in a BBO tournament, unless specifically specified), and under BBO guidlines, one can infer that the rules that apply are those of the ACBL (or the WBF, I suppose) unless stated otherwise, whether you (or Ron) like it or not. Since the OP did not state what you are claiming to be the actual case, I will stand by my assertion that it does not require an alert. AND - If stayman is a convention not alertable in the contest, do u have to alert it because you would bid 2♣ with a weakish 4441 with the intention of passing whatever p bids? Note that now the OP has now stated that Stayman is NOT alertable in the contest. Problem solved. Since its clear that Stayman IS NOT alertable in the contest, all the other bs about how its alertable "here, there, yada yada, under these conditions" is meaningless. It is just Ron being a jerk with me, as usual. The answer to the second question is that garbage stayman is not alertable.

Ummm, what methods do you play over the 1NT opener, and shouldn't that factor into our decision?

Because nobody, I repeat nobody, plays 1N 2C as natural. If 2C has some meaning other than stayman, then alert it. Otherwise it is silly to attempt to force/require an alert of it.

I don't think he's heard of Keri Mike, nor relays over 1NT, nor modified Gladiator etc etc. Wow. So all of those are "stayman"? Plain old, vanilla, whats your major Stayman? Of course not. You implied that 2C plain old vanilla stayman required an alert (in australia). That may be true. In all the rest of the bs you're insinuating, the 2C bid has some other meaning than stayman (the normal expected meaning of 2C) so of course they would require an alert. But that still didnt address the question of Do people actually play 1N 2C as natural in australia? If Australia requires an alert of all 2C bids, so be it. Its just dumb to require one unless 2C has some meaning other than normal stayman.

Double of 1D would show what? While others may play it as takeout, I find it better served to play it as showing diamonds when playing vs. precision. So....immediate X for me, bidding 2C if I get the chance, now both my suits are known. jmoo.

To the best of my knowledge Bridge is not played just in the US. The original poster did not say where or in what event he was playing. In Australia Stayman requires an alert. Wow. So are there people in Australia that actually play 1N 2C as natural? Wow. (And since this is posted in the BBO Tournament forum, I will assume this question concerned a BBO tournament. To the best of my knowledge, australian alerting rules do not apply in them.) :)

And I don't. It is practically impossible for North to hold a hand that can leave the double in when we are holding a grand total of three red suit cards and 2 clubs. And especially so, given that partner is sitting in front of the preempting hand, instead of behind it.

It wasnt so much an analysis as an explanation of why each dwarf couldnt just say what the one in front of him has on, as Helene appeared to be suggesting. See the hidden text in jtfanclubs post for the solution to saving 9/10. (And be prepared to be "outsmarted" when you do.) :( Actually, I'm not sure his solution works either. What if there is an uneven number of black hats vs. red hats? ie. 7 blacks vs. 3 reds originally. Does it still work?

Jon, I will not say that I disagree with your sentiment that Mr. Beye's response was poorly worded. It comes across as if the person making the director call was at fault, when it is the BIT that caused the problem. The director should be called when the BIT occurs (imo). If you don't do it then, you may lose your right to appeal it later on. It shouldn't matter whether the guy is a beginner, intermediate or expert, he evidently acknowledges his BIT. And it quite possibly was longer than 6-8 seconds. However, rather than continue on about how its right, wrong or indifferent, you must realize that Mr. Beye simply cannot say "you imbecile, the guy was only following proper procedure by calling the director", especially not for publication in the ACBL bulletin. That would make the "slight" to the guy even worse. "Hey Joe, I saw your letter in the bulletin last month. That Rick Beye really set you straight, didn't he? HAR HAR HAR!!" There is a certain amount of butt-kissing "polite phrasing" that has to go into his response. Surely, you can recognize this. He wants to make the guy "feel" good, while at the same time pointing out that it is desirable to maintain a steady tempo. There also may be facts unknown (i.e., the player calling the director might be "known" for attempting to intimidate lesser players with their director calls) that Mr. Beye is privy to that we are not. Or he may have just gotten the impression that this is the type of player this particular "offender" is. He was simply pointing out (as an aside) that the club director does have the ability to warn the lightning fast director caller that he might want to cut some slack to lesser players in the future. Now the guy can take his response and show it to the club director and feel proud of himself. And, if you have ever had any communication directly with Mr. Beye (I do not know if you have or have not), but it has been my experience that most of his responses aren't always worded in the best fashion. He simply does not seem to be a clear communicator, imo. I have read similar sentiments from others regarding their dealings with him as well. In many cases, he never directly answers the question he was actually asked, but skirts all around it instead. With all of this said, I still don't think his response rises to the level of "offense" or "indignation" that you seem to be portraying in your sentiments regarding his response. jmoo.

No, because the next to the last dwarf has to say "red or black". The last dwarf says, "Black" for the guy in front of him. He lives or dies depending on how lucky he is. Now the next to the last dwarf knows what color he has, so he will live by saying the same thing the last dwarf did. But he can't also tell the one in front of him what color he has. Now the third from the last dwarf is back to naming the color of the guy in front of him. The most you could save with certainty under this scenario is 5. 10 lives or dies (names color of guy in front of him, hopes he has same color), 9 lives (names his color), 8 lives or dies (names color of guy in front of him, hopes he has same color), 7 lives (names his color), 6 lives or dies (names color of guy in front of him, hopes he has same color) and so on.

With my luck, Dopey is the one standing at the back of the line.....

Why don't you try following your own advice?

This is a dumb position to take. While 75% may not "wholeheartedly" agree with Rick Beyes expression, some 90+% either agree with it, agree with what he said even if it was worded poorly or really don't think it amounts to anything. Most of us at least have enough sense not to make a mountain out of a molehill, as you are doing. Only 1 3 other people have actually agreed with your side, so far. That should tell you something. Edit: I changed the number after re-reading through the thread to correctly reflect that jonottowa did not vote in the poll. One additional vote occured after this post was initially made.