bid_em_up

JB, you have the right idea....but in the wrong fashion. If you win the spade Ace and cash the diamond Ace and diamonds break 4-0 (onside) you still will not be able to bring the diamond suit in before the opponents set you. You can set the suit up, but you have no entry back to dummy before the opponents cash the rest of the spades the heart ace and the diamond they have already won. If the diamonds are 3-1, you can afford to lose 1 diamond trick. Win the first spade in hand, and then duck a diamond in both hands. Now if LHO started with four, you can still bring the suit in by finessing on the 2nd round. It's the only way to assure making the contract as long as diamonds are not 4-0 offside. You will score 6 diamonds, two spades and the club Ace for your nine tricks. Simple solution, but hard to see. EDIT: You could win the spade ace in dummy, but then you must play a small diamond from dummy (not the ace) at trick two and still make.

What world are you living in?

Actually, I was looking to turn this around. :) I see I am not the only one who thought that. LOL!

Sometimes I wonder if you are serious, or just messing with us. :)

Thank you Jan for providing this information when you were certainly under no obligation to do so. I hope you got advice from USBF counsel prior to doing so, though. :) If I am reading the USBF procedures correctly, the original complaint had to be made directly to you. You then presented the complaint to the BoD to vote on. The BoD then votes and either the the complaint is voted in favor of or it is voted down. Now that it has been voted in favor of, it is returned to you. Assuming I understand it correctly, do you still have the option of refusing to take any action or are you bound to follow the BoD's recommendation? If you still have the option of not taking any action, it is completely understandable why you should not vote in the BoD's vote. It would become clear ahead of time what your position on any matter is. So far, you have not given any indication of where you stand on this matter, and rightfully so, if this is the case. However, at some point in time, you must, and I would not want to be in your position at the moment. :rolleyes: Assuming now that the BoD has formally returned the complaint to you, and assuming you choose to proceed with the matter, it is my understanding that a grievance/disciplinary panel needs to be formed and that this panel will consist of bewteen 3-15 USBF members, at least 3 of which are on the BoD. Did I read that correctly? If that is the case, in all fairness to the Venice Cup team, while I do not agree with their actions, I would hope that the BoD sees fit to form a full 15 member panel, if possible. I think it needs to be clear to everyone that any action resulting from this was not the "decision" of a select few people who were offended by their actions. jmoo.

Sorry jocdelevat, 1) Their behavior was inappropriate in the eyes of many. 2) The actions being taken are to follow the procedures involved to determine what type of disciplinary action, if any, needs to occur. 3) It's fairly clear (at least from my reading of it) that they did indeed violate the "Code of Conduct" outlined in the USBF rules. 4) The problem with doing laundry in the house is that you end up with a wet house or it can be just swept under the rug. By doing the laundry in public, everyone can see the actions being taken and be somewhat assured that proper procedures were followed and that the bylaws of the USBF are being followed. 5) I don't think anybody expects the ladies to get much more than a warning and perhaps a probationary period. The USBF appears to have 4 levels of disciplinary actions that can be taken, depending on the severity of the offense. The disciplinary actions that can be taken are listed in the USBF's "GRIEVANCE, APPEALS AND DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES". Appeals and Grievances are handled by USBF Appeals & Grievance Committee in accordance with USBF Appeals, Grievance & Disciplinary Procedures which can be found here: http://usbf.org/docs/corpDocs/Grievanceprocs.pdf In this case, it is my understanding that the BoD first must hear the charges/accusation of misconduct to decide whether or not it warrants further action. So far, this is all the BoD has done. Now that it has been determined that it did indeed rise to level of possibly requiring sanctions/disciplinary action, a grievance committee must be established to hear the complaint. This committee will be a panel of 3-15 USBF members, at least three of which must be on the BoD (if I read it correctly). This panel may decide to take no action versus the ladies at all or they may impose some level of sanctions on them. The USBF is simply following its own published laws in this matter.

deleted, somebody beat me to it.

JB, Read what Bill just said again. In the first case, the 3N bid is practically a demand to play there (the opponents have bid a suit). Ok, maybe not so much a demand, but it certainly says "I think 3N will be better than 4H." Partner has heard you raise hearts and heard the opponents bid clubs, so he has much more information to make a decision in this case. You are still allowed to correct to 4H though, and many would. In the 2nd case, it is more, "I don't know which is better, you pick". Your hand should influence you to choose 4H. I would pass 3N on the first and bid 4H on the second.

It probably was stated, it just hasn't been made public. :rolleyes:

Some of you appear to fail to recognize that some of the members on the BoD are (most likely) paid playing professionals (and at least one of the abstaining members is a sponsor). Now, if you or a member of your family (or any other personal relation) happens to be paid by/with or are a frequent partner of one of the members on the Venice Cup team, don't you think you are ethically prohibited from voting on such an issue? Otherwise, you risk your livelihood and/or it will lead to accusations of not being impartial in the vote. If the sponsor wishes to hire any of the team members in the future, shouldnt she also abstain? Do you think these ladies would play with her in the future if she voted against them? She has a personal interest in her vote, and must therefore abstain. Maybe one of them is the counsel that has been retained by the Team, should he still vote? (EDIT: These are hypothetical reasons.) Sorry, these people are almost required to abstain. Unless you know the reasons for abstention, you really cannot sit here in judgement of whether or not they should have voted.

Interpretation one: If responder wanted to suggest a club game at that point, he would have bid 4C (not 3). 3C at this point is non-forcing. Opener has limited his hand and supposedly is 4-6 in clubs and hearts. If responder cant bid NT or 4C himself, then there is no game. Interpretation two: Can work if you have agreed to this. Since you havent, the default (imo) should be interpretation one. Personally, I don't like it, but then I dont like to exercise either. :)

Ok, so I don't know if it was done locally or by Websense, but now when I try to access BBOTV from work, it is filtered by Websense as Internet Radio or TV. Actually, I can no longer get to this page: http://www.bbotv.com/v2/ or the one for the vugraph version. It is my understandnig that Websense periodically releases updates on sites that are filtered by it, and I am wondering if it is the TV initials in BBOTV that is causing this or if thats just the category the local Web Admin placed it in. Any thoughts?

This to me is still unacceptable, what happens if they were the only 3 on the comitee, I have often been put in positions where I have had to decide things against people I respect and friends, I just personally hate the idea people can abstain because it puts them in a difficult position, life is full of difficult situations, I just don't accept, people can do the nice bits of a job and as soon as it interferes with thier personal relationships or make it awkward for them they can abstain OMG it is almost like they are politicians, sorry Roland, I still think they are not doing their job properly Oh please, Wayne. "By a 4-0 vote with Bill Pollack, Jan Martel and Rose Meltzer abstaining" Of the three abstaining BoD members, 1) Bill Pollack had abstained from the vote on 10/15 due to conflict of interest. If he had a conflict of interest then, he still had it on the subsequent vote. 2) It is fairly normal for the President of a BoD to abstain from the original vote, as they would be the tiebreaking vote, if necessary. Notice, she did not abstain from the original vote taken on 10/15. Hopefully, Jan will be kind enough to weigh in on why she chose to abstain, but she is certainly under no obligation to do so. 3) I do not know Ms. Meltzers reasons for abstaining. Nor do I really care.

Why don't we just duck the 1st spade altogether and take 7 clubs, 3 diamonds and the two major suit aces? Or is that just too easy? Even if RHO has Jxxx clubs we still have squeeze chances. Edit: Typing before thinking, if RHO has Jxxx of clubs, we still have 7 club tricks. This, I think loses only if the spade lead is stiff (and LHO has at least 1 club). If LHO has 4 clubs, we would need to finesse somewhere, but I think it is a lesser play to cater to this possibility.

East is forced to return a club into the AQ, and West is squeezed in the majors (he either must pitch the heart Q or give up the spade suit) when you cash the second club. Or was this a rhetorical question?

6♦ 6♥ dbl 6♠ The double of 6H is pointless, the opponents are never playing there. Assuming you are willing to sacrifice over 6♠, just bid 7C. Since you are taking the sac vs. 6♠, this should be the suit you want led when defending 7♠. There is no need to double 7S now. Alternatively, passing 6H and doubling 7S should send the same message. (Partner should already know that a diamond is not cashing, and rule it out).

Double, I wish to let partner know I probably have the other two suits as soon as I possibly can. Then if he bids one, I can be reasonably certain we have found our best fit. I'm willing to bid clubs later, treating this more like a 4-6 hand due to the poor quality in the heart suit. Evidently, the BIL's aren't the only ones who will have a lot of debate on this one. :(

3N may even go down... Partner could easily hold something like xx AQ10xx AKxx xx and a spade lead will beat 3N. No, you do not belong in 6H on these cards. No, you did not bid your hand right. 3H is much preferable to 3N. I don't think your partner bid his hand right either, 2D as NMF is a better choice, imo (assuming you are playing that). If you bid 3H over 3D and partner continues any further than 4H, he needs his head adjusted. Even if partner were to cuebid 4C, you will not cooperate in the slam try and will bid 4H, he should respect this and pass 4H. If the entire field (or even a majority of the field) is in 6H on these cards, then its a pretty bad field, imo. Either that, or there is more to the story than is being told.

deleted

I'm not going to bother to answer your questions. This is like the umpteenth post of the same nature that you have posted asking the same thing in which you are going to get the same answers you have received in the past. I would ask you to post the hands (along with the auction) so that others could verify your hand/percentage estimates though. It is entirely possible that what you are claiming is only a 35% slam is really 60-70%. Somehow, I just have a hard time believing that your abilities in estimating percentages during the auction are good enough for you to "know" its only a 35% slam and yet, according to you, everyone else is bidding it.

You still didnt answer his question. Should he bid a 35% slam or not? :)

MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING OF THE USBF BOARD OF DIRECTORS Monday, October 15, 2007 - 4:30pm – Pacific Time The USBF Board of Directors met by conference call on Monday, October 15, 2007 at 4:30pm Pacific Time. Jan Martel, president of the USBF called the meeting to order. Present: Jan Martel, president; Steve Beatty, Joan Gerard, Bob Hamman, Rose Meltzer, LouAnn O’Rourke, Bill Pollack Also present: Peter Rank, Gary Blaiss A quorum was established. Peter Rank, legal counsel for the USBF, stated that according to the USBF By-Laws a board meeting can be called without proper notice and be official if all members of the board are present and do not protest the lack of notice. All members were present and no one protested the lack of notice. . The board then went into Executive Session. The board came out of Executive Session at 5:45pm Pacific Time and went back into Open Session. By a 6-0 vote with Bill Pollack abstaining because of his possible conflict of interest it was agreed that a letter of regret will be written to the president of the Chinese Contract Bridge Association and to Mr. Jose Damiani, President of the World Bridge Federation regarding the incident at the Closing Ceremonies on Saturday, October 13, 2007 in Shanghai when the US Women’s team received their gold medals and remained on stage during the playing of the US National Anthem while holding a sign “we did not vote for Bush”. This letter of regret will be written by Jan Martel and approved by an e-mail vote of the full board. The board also agreed that these Minutes could be approved by e-mail vote and they have been so approved. The board further agreed to meet again next week to discuss this incident. This meeting was adjourned at 6:15pm Pacific Time.

Given that LHO must have the spade Ace, let him pitch both of his spades. I will be completely happy. :)

Mr. Everything-Goes thinks something is inappropriate and wants it removed? Wow. Surely you are not serious? Or only if it offends you, then it needs to be removed. If it offends anybody else, you dont care, is that it?

Can I leave my fly open though? :lol: