bid_em_up

Mike, I play 2 keycard schemes (normally 1430, but 0314 for exclusion) for this very reason (and yes, it has been discussed with partner). I think playing responses to exclusion are better served to be 0314, not 1430. If partner has no outside keycards (entirely possible here), he will take you past 5♦, which might have been your last makeable contract.

Sorry, Random tournament, regular partner. Exclusion has been discussed.

This is a tough decision. The answer is somewhat dependent on how good you judge the field to be. If the field is really good, if the club finesse is on, then 6C or 6N makes, and you still have some other chances in 6C (pitch heart on diamond before taking club finesse) or in 6N if a heart isnt led at trick one, when the club finesse loses. Since many in the field may be in either of these contracts, you will always lose to them, when the club finesse is on, and in many cases, even where it is off, as well. Now, it is best to take the safety play in 3N to ensure that you make 3N, whenever it is makeable. (LHO could have led a heart from xxx and the club finesse is losing, so you cant make 3N, no matter what you do). Win the 3rd heart and take the club finesse, ensuring your plus score whenever one is available to you. If the field is average, it depends on whether you want to play for top, or if you want to play for average plus. Playing for top, win the first heart and run the club 10. Assuming it wins, you have 12 tricks with good chances for 13. If it loses, there is always the chance that hearts are 4-4 and you still make 3 or that RHO held KQ doubleton (or maybe QJ) and the suit is uncashable. Playing for average plus, win the 3rd heart and take the club finesse. Now you will make when hearts are 4-4 or they were originally 5-3 (with the opening leader holding 5). In the latter case, you'll have an overtrick for what is most likely better than average. If the field is extremely weak, play for average plus. Some people wont even reach 3N, or will manage to get to 4C or 5C in an attempt to reach the club slam that disrails. 3N+1 (or more) should be a decent result. At the table, I will play as outlined for a good field if in a good field (I am in a poor contract when in a good field, so am willing to take an anti-percentage play), and play for top in any other field. Sometimes this wins, sometimes it dont.

I think the auction is actually 1N-p-2N-p-3N, Not 1N-(2N)-3N

Adam, having won the first heart, if the club loses to any king offside holding, you are likely down or only making 3.

Why did the suits not come across in the poll?

2/1, assume new suit would be forcing, any immediate diamond raise is preemptive, you hear: (1♣)-2♦-(p)-? 2♦ is preemptive, and you hold: [hv=d=l&v=&s=skq10xhkqjxxdakxxc]133|100|Scoring: IMP Pairs tourny[/hv] What is your plan, and does the fact that it is just a random IMP tourny (with a regular partner) affect your decision?

Fred, I didnt mean to put words in your mouth, sorry. But unfortunately, since it is hard to distinguish the two types of posts sometimes, and you have, ummm, chewed at least two forum users out that I am aware of for a post of this nature (yes, I saw the last thread on this subject before it was pulled), I assumed that it was your position that you would prefer to have TD rulings appealed properly, as opposed to discussed on the forums. My mistake. Since the poster stated "he didnt know if this was the appropriate forum for this question or not", I was trying to give them the alternative of "appealing the ruling" through the proper venue. I also suspect that as the forums get advertised more and more (with the new release), we will see more new members and more posts of this nature. I think it might be best if you or the moderators could make it clear (somehow) that posts regarding ACBL TD's rulings need to be addressed to the proper channels. A forum policy of sometimes its ok, and sometimes its not, will not work, imo. Who makes the decision? (Of course you or the mods do, but thats not what I mean.) Just because a user is frustrated with a decision and says "I got a stupid ruling", does that immediately mean the thread is not allowed? Even if they are correct in their assessment of the situation? Additionally, new posters will usually not know that it is/isnt allowed, and post accordingly. Do "we" (as a group) alienate them by coming down hard on them for unknowingly doing something that isnt acceptable? Rather than allowing these types of questions deginerate into "well, you should have done this" or "your methods were bad" or "insert whatever else occurs", personally, I believe they should be halted immediately (or at least as soon as possible), and the original poster directed to send the complaint via the proper established methods. As always. jmoo.

No. It would apply in this sequence: 1♦ P 1♥ P 1♠ P 2♣ But not in the one you list. Opener is describing a 4-1-4-4 (or 4-0-5-4) hand that is minimum in the auction given.

Just to note in reply - even though the 2♦ should have been alerted, this does not by itself result in "entitled to redress". That would require that there have been damage in some form. I think its fairly clear that some damage was incurred (or at least the poster feels that there was), or we wouldnt be seeing this post here.

While I agree with the majority that 2♦ should be alerted, and on the surface, you should be entitled to redress (without knowing result, its hard to say what that would be). I believe Fred has asked that questions regarding ACBL directors rulings be emailed to acbl@bridgebase.com (I think thats the address, someone correct it if wrong please), instead of being posted on this forum. They will want the ruling, the board number (better yet, a link to the board from myhands), and an explanation of the situation. That said, I also think you have an obligation to your side to inquire as to the meaning of the bid. Cuebids, in and of themselves, are self-alerting. The bid may or may not contain a special meaning. It may be natural or it may show something else (however, using 2D to show majors in the sequence is silly, imo, but thats another thread). If you want to know what 2♦ is, the time to ask is when the 2♦ bid is made, not after the 2♥ bid is made. You claim that you didnt want to "alert the opps", but if you click on the bid and an explanation is entered, the other opponent will not see the explanation, so they will still be "unalerted". So your claim, on its surface, does not appear to be valid. And it also appears, at least to me, a method of attempting two bites at the apple, so to speak. jmoo.

Besides.....isnt 1♥-5♣ exclusion keycard for ♥ (for those of us who play it)? Which takes this out of the equation anyway.

In the context of this auction, it is practically impossible for the 3H cuebid by North to be asking for a heart stop for 3N from south. South is a passed hand, and at least 5-4, but could be 5-5, 6-5 or even 6-6 in the minors. How much sense can it make for North (who is already likely looking at one or two heart stops himself) to now be asking for a heart stop from south who rates to hold no more than a doubleton heart?!? 3H must create a game forcing auction. There is absolutely no other reason for the bid, imo. Partner has a big hand and a fit for at least one of the minors. If he wants to hear anything, he wants to hear a spade cuebid (either first or second round control) from south if south can make one.

I suppose that's one way to rid yourself of whatever demon is troubling you....

Well, I'm going to bid 5♦. North is NOT a passed hand as some have suggested, imo. It would appear that he has a good hand that was about to convert to penalty a reopening X of 1H, and has a good fit in diamonds. How else is he supposed to show this and, at the same time, be able to make any attempt to investigate 6♦? A 3D bid is non-forcing, I think most would agree that a 4D bid is invitational, and 5D is to play. Now, how else is North supposed to show a really good hand with a fit for at least one minor other than by cuebidding 3H? If 4D is invitational, why didnt partner bid it if he wanted our input as to whether or not we should bid game? He didnt want our input regarding bidding game. I think that by cuebidding 3H and then showing diamond support, partner has already created a game forcing sequence, at the very least, and I would consider it to be a general slam try as well.

[hv=s=sk10xhaxdj10xcakj10x]133|100|East open 1♦. Your bid?[/hv] Playing 2/1, RHO opens 1D, and its your call. What call do you make and why?

At my age, I no longer do birthdays, I dont care who's birthday it is. :) But in your case, I'll make an exception, and offer you this piece of advice: Always remember. You can have Edith. You can have cake. But you cant have your cake and Edith too.

Ben, I must be blind. When I looked at the BrBr website and order form, I do not see where newer hands are available for purchase on CD/DVD. All the CD/DVD data appears to be from 2004 or before. Is the more recent data available via the CD/DVD option? Or is it only available with the online subscription?

Personally, I like 5♥ immediately showing a hand with nothing but really long hearts, leaving 1♥ 4♥ to describe a hand with long hearts and slightly better values. It also has the added bonus of leaving the guesswork up to the opponents immediately. If I am going to bid 5H over 4S or 5 minor, I may as well bid it now.

Was 2000 hands a typo? If it was wasn't, I think that if you raise the limit on the number of hands played, it would probably run faster. 2000 hands isnt that many (that would be about 55 hands a month over the last 36 months on average). So you will get a LOT of players that meet this criteria (which is why you had to quit at 200,000 players). Try running it for players with more than 25,000 hands played, and lets see how many you get. :-)

While it may not be totally easy (I kind of implied this, when I said it would make everyone happy except for the programmers), I certainly dont think it is a difficult task either. As a programmer myself, I would expect that a flag could be generated when the hand is created that would identify what table type that hand is being used for play. This may or may not require two seperate hand type databases or hand generation routines, I dont know. But I am reasonably certain that programmers such as Fred/Uday who have managed to write this software with all of its other intricacies can come up with a method of doing this. Giving the table host the option of allowing dummy to see all four hands or not should be relatively easy to accomplish. I think something like this really just becomes a function of whether they feel it is worth their time/effort to do so, and I will respect their decision either way.

Fred, I read your response in another thread stating: Personally, I agree that making this option mandantory would take away from many players enjoyment of the game to not be able to view the others players cards when dummy and understand why you would not wish to do this. We also both agree that some measures of this sort could only make incidents of cheating fewer and further between. I also understand the other user's expressed frustrations. He would like to have results that are as fair as they can possibly be made via the software. I, myself, get annoyed when a dummy starts hollering "CLLLAAAAIIIMMM" or "????" because he can see that a finesse is working, when declarer doesnt know it yet. Not to mention other unethical situations that occur. I do not wish for this thread to deginerate into another one on the same subject. One is enough. This is just a suggestion that might make everyone happy (except the programmers, of course). :lol: Consider allowing the table host have the option of setting his table for "view opponents hands when dummy" or not. His table could have some notation or coloring regarding the fact that the table has been created in this manner so others would know prior to joining that this is the case when they view the table in the lobby. If the table host selects this option, then dummy will not see opponents hands, regardless of what option they have selected in their own personal profile. Have that table play only boards with the "no-view" option selected. In other words, when a new table is created with this option turned on, it will generate a new board that has a "no-view" option as part of a routine that isolates this board for what table type it is allowed to be played at or it will select a board from the "pool" of boards available for "no-view" tables. Boards from this table would be scored vs. 15 other tables where dummy was not allowed to see the opponents cards, so that the final result should be "normalized" across the field. It wouldnt do much good to have 1 table with the no-view option selected and 15 tables where dummy could see opponents cards, since, as the other user says, if there is monkey business going on at one of the other tables, it affects everyones scores across the board. Yes, it may take a while for these boards to play themselves out. Thats part of the trade-off of having this function available. Maybe this functionality is only available in the Masters Bridge Club so that users who are really bothered by this sort of thing can play in there and leave those who either arent bothered by the possibility or dont care about it to play in Social or Relaxed rooms. Possibly its the default option for play in the Masters Club. I also understand that anything of this sort would not be real high on the "to do" list but thought I would toss it out there for you to consider anyway. ;) Thanks.

Where will it end? I agreed with you and still pissed you off? I realize that some of you must know how scores are derived but the comments made really don't seem to reflect that knowledge. Wayne, really.....please read and understand. I did not say I was pissed off, I said that talking to people like they are dummies tends to piss people off. But you, evidently unknowingly, have a way with written words that you dont even notice. The only alternative to that is you are deliberately being inflammatory. I would suspect that MOST (if not all) of us know how scores are derived. Not many of us learned this game yesterday and telling us over and over and over that "you dummies dont even understand how scores are calculated" (my generalization of your words and how they come across when read). Implying this, tends to instantly make people combative (or pissed off) towards you. Take it for what its worth.

Dummy not being able to see partners hand, which I believe you have been advocating all along Wayne......equal this: ?? If you're advocating dummy not being able to see opponents hands, well, currently each person has that option available to them. Maybe the table host should be able to set it for his table as well. I, for one, dont see a reason for that option not to be available to the table host, and would support a suggestion such as this. If you are actually advocating that dummy not being able to see partners hand.....I think most of us are going to feel that will not accomplish much to alleviate cheating, and it would be a major deterrent to others enjoyment of the game. I never, in any of my posts, have suggested not letting dummy see partner's hand. I have, however, said several times that not allowing dummy to see the OPPONENT'S hands would IMHO stop most of the CASUAL cheating. This is sooo frustrating. You are quoting a misquote to make a point. Yes, it is frustrating. I dont know if it was a misquote or not..... And I wasnt attempting to "make a point", but instead only trying to find out what you were actually wanting to accomplish. And Wayne, really, please stop acting like the rest of us are so dumb that we do not understand how scores are calculated and that results at other tables affect scores as well. It tends to piss people off.

I must be missing something. How does this: Dummy not being able to see partners hand, which I believe you have been advocating all along Wayne......equal this: ?? If you're advocating dummy not being able to see opponents hands, well, currently each person has that option available to them. Maybe the table host should be able to set it for his table as well. I, for one, dont see a reason for that option not to be available to the table host, and would support a suggestion such as this. If you are actually advocating that dummy not being able to see partners hand.....I think most of us are going to feel that will not accomplish much to alleviate cheating, and it would be a major deterrent to others enjoyment of the game.