bid_em_up

Q♥.

http://www.acbl.org/assets/documents/Handb..._Chapter-02.pdf

And if the stiff heart is in one hand along with three spades, as is likely the case when hearts 4-1? When one high heart was cashed, the heart J dropped. But now if you draw trump, you cannot score 5 heart tricks (no entry back to dummy) and if you cash a second heart it will be ruffed. Take it from there...

6♣, after all, it is late night and I've probably had a few too many.

♥k.

- 1. How was the internet connectivity from Shanghai? - 2. How was the quality of the operators? - 3. How was the presentation from the venue regarding internet broadcast? - 4. How was the co-ordination away from the venue? - 5. 6 tables per session we had. Was that satisfactory? - 6. How did you like the commentary? - 7. Should we continue with multiple languages? 1. Excellent. 2. Excellent. 4. Average/Disappointing. Unless you knew to look on BBO forums for the schedule of times and team listings, I don't think it was really notated who/what/when were announced that much. I don't recall seeing a log-in announcement when you logged onto BBO (that does not mean there wasn't one, I just do not recall seeing one). I am not sure if the Vugraph schedule was updated each day with its appropriate matches or not since I just looked here instead. 5. Dissappointing. There were many matches that I (and others) would like to have seen in the Round Robin. However, it was adequate for the RR stage. While the Venice Cup and the Seniors were nice, I would have preferred more coverage of the Bermuda Bowl and less of the others, if anything. Having only one semi-final match from each is somewhat less than desirable if the capability exists to have all the semi-finals. Personally, I would much prefer to see both BB semi's than I would either of the Venice or Seniors. 6. Excellent/Average/Disappointing. This is to be somewhat expected, some of the commentators are really good. Others, well.... Overall, I would rate the commentators as excellent. There are also a few commentators that I think would do a much better job commentating in their native language than they do attempting to comment in English. Then there are a few that are just plain awful, imo. I don't know that you can ever change this either. What I don't like about any one particular commentator, someone else may like, it's just personal preference. 7. Only if you can find a way to present both rooms in 1) English and 2) both teams native language (if not English). There were several occasions when the pair I would prefer to watch would be in the non-English speaking room. I'd watch for a while, but because I could not understand what was being said, I would eventually go to the English speaking room. At the same time, I am sure that in a match of Italy vs. Poland, or France vs. Spain, there is likely a lot of users who would like to see both rooms in Italian and both rooms in Polish, etc. so that they could also watch their favorite pair in their native language. jmoo.

Bah. The most reasonable course of action would be to obliterate/dominate the other online sites to the point where BBO becomes the exclusive carrier of vugraph coverage. Failing that, then your course of action is a distant second. :rolleyes:

Personally, I think there might possibly be another perspective that noone has touched on with the possible exception of this: Given the current world views on our current president, I am almost certain that the ladies had taken a lot of "jabbing", "joking", "ribbing", "your president this", "your president that" comments throughout the course of the 10-14 days they were there. A lot of the non-USA posters here on BBO frequently do the same thing by making assumptions that just because one resides in the USA that we somehow condone or agree with the actions of GWB. The ladies had probably spent the whole tournament stating "We didn't vote for Bush" in response to people deriding his actions or attempting to defend themselves from what I will call "sentimental attacks" on the actions of the USA. Possibly even to the point where anytime the subject was mentioned, the canned response became "We didn't vote for Bush". Given this statement by mrdct, I suspect the sign display was done more as a joke amongst the players than it was done as a direct protest against the current president. At least, I hope so. I think it was an inappropriate thing to do but if it was done as a good natured joke amongst friends/competitors, I am somewhat more willing to condone it.

I'd just as soon be able to upload an image/thumbnail into the flag location in the new flash version. Of course, then somebody has to police the images to either approve the images ahead of time or remove the offensive ones later.

In theory (at least), one operator should be able to send their vugraph "table" to multiple "rooms". i.e., Table 1, sent to 4 or 5 different rooms, each with a different purpose, say an English speaking room, a Polish speaking room, a Chinese speaking room, a French speaking room, and so on. You would not need an operator for each of these rooms, the operator would start the vugraph and designate the # of rooms to initialize and assign the purpose of each room when they started the vugraph. This is probably not the way the software currently works, but it should certainly be accomplishable programmatically (or at least, I think so). You could then do the same thing for Table 2. This way, each "language" could have its own designated table, which would further enhance the enjoyment of everyone. This would probably require some software changes along with the need for more commentators, but not actual vugraph operators. I know there were a couple of matches where I would have preferred to watch the pair playing in the non-English room, but without the commentary it just wasn't as fun so I ended up choosing the English speaking room instead. However, I think the idea of allowing kibitzer chat during a major event is a bad idea though.

Yea, 'cause the Canadians really don't want to discuss it!! :) :)

Art, Part of the reason for this "logic" (or "illogic" from your point of view) is that bidding 2H takes away 4 available bids that MIGHT have been the correct place to play. 1S x'd, 1N, 2C, 2D all might be the right place to play. You do not know if any of these are the right place or not, and by bidding 2H, you just made a unilateral statement of 2H implying that you think its the right place to play (as opposed to any of the other four). Surely, you can see that it cannot be correct to make this assumption. It is my opinion that this holds true at any form of scoring and even more so at IMP's than at matchpoints, but it is simply my opinion. You can bid 2H at MP and suffer the consequences of it being just 1 board and still be ok. Bidding 2H at IMP's could end up being disastrous and losing the entire match. If partner cannot jump to 3x over the double, it is unlikely you have any game possible. If he jumps to 3 of a minor, you are still free to bid 3H as 4m is likely safe (or even 5m). If he jumps to 3H, you bid 4. So if you double, and partner bids 2H, you will pass, you do not have any extras. If he bids 2m, you will pass. He has less than 8/9 hcp (from the lack of the jump) so your objective is now to go plus. Any plus. Not necessarily the highest scoring one. Yes, it is possible to miss a game this way, however, in those rare cases, it will be a very thin game that will be going down more often than it makes. You will lose more by bidding 2H directly (and either going down in it or getting too high later) than you will by making your most flexible call and finding your best fit, while at the same time working with partner to evaluate your sides total assets. When it is right to get to 4H, partner will have responded 3H over the double (or at least 3m) and you will get there anyway. But when hearts is the wrong strain, and you bid 2H, you make it practically impossible to find the right strain and level.

As a very infrequent player of weak NT's, I see no reason to run until you get doubled and it gets left in. And it seems to me that by running immediately (bidding 2D) clues the opponents in that your hand is weak with long diamonds making it easier for them to enter the auction, not harder. I also think that bidding 2D now, somewhat defeats the purpose of the weak NT. If you pass, they may well pass. LHO's already a passed hand and his partner could take no action in the direct seat. Passing puts a lot more pressure on LHO than bidding 2D does. I would not object to bidding 2D at unfavorable though. jmoo.

You can have multiple matches open by relaunching the BBOTV link several times. Watching them at the same time is a different story. Unfortunately, you cannot compress each browser window to have multiple windows open at the same time (or at least I couldn't). They simply would not fit on my screen. When I tried to resize the windows, it compressed everything from Left to Right or right to left, so that at least one hand became impossible to see in the resized window. You could minimize one window and open another one though, which isn't quite the same as watching more than 1 at the same time. You are only "watching" one at a time, you just have more than one window running.

A spade lead is horrible if partner's pass denied the spade Queen, of course. If that occurred, the spade King has more chance of success. At least I might smother dummy's stiff Queen (if it is there) and avoid a late pitch. Does anyone else read anything into partner's final pass? I sure don't. I was watching the hand at the time, and thought that it would make a lot of sense for doublers partner to be able to say "go ahead with the spade lead" by doubling 6H or for it to say "I have nothing in spades, don't lead one if you need help from my hand".

If we are making 3S, don't we have to double 3C at this vulnerability to be able to win any IMP's (Unless it goes -3 or more)? Even if we are only making 2S, we're still losing a couple of IMP's if 3C is only -1, but X would push (or win, if -2) the board. Or are you just treating this as a risk vs. reward scenario? Where the gain from doubling may not offset the risk of it making? I think we beat 3C by two tricks, so I double and lead a trump. What the heck, they've made doubled contracts before. B)

Double. No second choice. At matchpoints, where hearts outscore the minors it makes more sense to bid 2H. But I would still double. At IMP's where the objective is to find your likely plus score and best fit (whether it is game or not), double gives you the maximum available options to be able to do so.

Must be too early in the morning for me, how do we get 4 clubs if East exits a small club? Small, small, Q, A. The 9 in LHO's hand will prevent the quick taking of 4 club tricks. What am I missing?

Phil:

I suspect the whole premise is completely invalid. Too many outside factors involved for any linear model to have any real merit, imo.

Anyone who wants to back South Africa to beat Italy with me, despite the current score (48/96 boards played) please form an orderly queue. nickf sydney So, how much did you lose?

It's certainly easier to spot when you are presented it as a problem, because you remember to stop and think 'what can go wrong' But it's definitely the right line. One you decide that the right conceptual line is to take the heart finesse and hope clubs play for 1 loser i.e. use the CA as an entry to take the finesse, it is zero cost to make this play. There is no layout on which it costs, compared to ruffing and playing a club at once, and this is layout on which it gains. Therefore it must be right. [You can argue that an alternative line is to lay down the HA at trick two playing for singleton HK or a favourable club lie, but I'm pretty certain that is a worse line] What is interesting is not just how many people went off - and as is mentioned, about half got the two of spades lead which should raise alarm bells - but that the people who went off included Rodwell, who is i) arguably one of the world's best declarer players ii) at the end of a vital RR match in which so far they'd had a very good card I won't argue anything other than I think its unlikely that LHO is going for a club ruff holding Kx of hearts (I suppose he could be expecting partner to win the spade, club ruff, win a diamond, club ruff, I just think its unlikely). He is not going for a club ruff when also holding a stiff heart. If that was the case, then he started with 1 heart and no clubs and wd be 6-6 or 7-5 in spades and diamonds, then he is likely to hold at least 1 diamond honor so the squeeze would fail (I know he did not, but he certainly is likely to have one). So my thinking is, once LHO has screamed for a club ruff by leading the spade two, he must hold either Kxx of hearts or xx of hearts. In the 1st case, it doesn't matter what you do (you will always be down), and in the second case, laying down the Ace is the sure winning play. Also in the first case, RHO holding a heart void would have likely have bid 5S over 5H. So to me (at least) all the clues are there to point to laying down the heart A. Even if it is not considered to be the "right" technical line. Had LHO at Rodwell's table led the Ace of spades, then I would agree with your line, but not after the club void has been so blatantly advertised.

Note that at least 4 times, declarer received the opening lead of the 2 of spades, and still got it wrong. N/S were vul, E/W were not. Going off 1 in 5H x'd shouldn't be that bad, since E/W make 5/6 spades, but only 6 pairs bid over 5H. I think its a lot tougher to spot the winning play if you are sitting at the table than it is looking at all 4 hands on vugraph. I don't agree that it is the correct one though, at least not on the spade A lead. It certainly should be apparent after the lead of the 2 though.

Some random thoughts: If you open it 1C, you are going to either reverse into 2D and then have no idea what her next call means (and she probably doesn't either) or you are going to rebid 2N and she may still get lost. Worse still, she may keep rebidding her 5 card major. If she moves over 1N, you have very little to worry about. If you open 1N, you will play any delicate 5/6-2 major fit (assuming she transfers into it). You will still be ill-placed after 1C-1S. None of these make 1N correct, but all could be considerations in choosing 1N instead of 1C. My choices: 1N 4S 6D, heck give her a chance to shine.

Ok, dumb question. Wouldn't Texas followed by 5♣ show this hand? Now partner should know not to worry about his trump holding and will be concentrating more on controls for his slam evaluations. No matter what, the 5 level is reasonably safe, and the hand warrants at least one more try for slam.