bid_em_up

Double. Why? Because we have all the other suits covered, and can be fairly certain we have one other loser besides a heart. Where are they going to take 11 tricks? Lead trump. If partners pass happened to be forcing, he can pull to 6D now. If partner doesnt have the hand we are expecting, he can still pull to 6D.

Is there any possible way to link user names in my hands results to BBO friends/enemies list, without having to physically enter a name to the list on BBO each time? When reviewing "my hands", I would like to be able to add the person to friends/enemy list directly from there, without having to return to BBO to do so. What about from a traveller? Yes. I admit it. I am lazy. I also frequently review travellers and see results where I can tell just from looking at it that a person is someone that I would not care to play with. For example, the 3N x'd -9 or 4M -10. I have no desire to play with a declarer who is so dissappointed in his chances, he just claims -9. Nor do I desire to play with opponents who accept this sort of claim. (Of course, its entirely possible that a newbie was misusing the claim feature, however I find this is usually not the case). What about add all from table to enemy? I also understand that this may not be programatically possible. But, if you never ask, you will never receive......

Barmar, I am not sure what you are arguing "for" or "against". The case here lies in taking an FD file, copying it (saving to your computer), and then using it as your own FD file. Most Internet cases that I am aware of, expressly prevent this. The work is the authors, and he has a copyright to it automatically. It is not (supposed) to be reproduced or reused without their consent to do so. eBay goes thru this all the time. Someone creates an auction, someone else steals it word for word, pics included and uses it for their own auctions. This is not allowed. (Unfortunately, it is also extremely difficult to prevent or prove). However, the creator of the FD (or auction) file does not have a "patent" on it. It can be replicated by anyone who wishes to spend the time and energy to do so, and then they are free to use it. I can sit down and create my own auction listing, or FD card and then can use it for myself. If I happen to play the exact same system as the original author (or in the case of eBay, sell the same item), of course my FD card (or auction listing) would be the same as his (or at the least, very similar). But I cannot simply swipe, borrow, steal, a copy of his card (without his permission) to use as my own. I must create it myself. Phone books and mailing lists are very similar. I cannot take a phone book and use the phone numbers contained within it to create my own phone book, no matter what the layout of the material may be. However, usually there are other public domain sources of this information, where if I compiled my own list of phone numbers through these sources, I could then use them to create my own book. But I must create (or purchase through information providers) my own database of phone numbers, I cannot simply use the phone companies. The same type of logic applies for mailing lists. Most mailing lists are compiled through either customer lists (in-store, catalog) or via rental lists (magazine subscribers, credit card owners, etc). When you are doing a mailing, you "rent" the name in most cases, for one-time use (or in some cases, multiple time usage). Once you have used a name for a mailing, it is "crossed" off your list, and cannot be mailed to again, unless you re-rent it for usage. But....if that person responds to your mailing, they are now considered to be your "customer", and their name can go on your own internal mailing list and you can then mail to that person as frequently as you wish, without paying for it again. However, although I know you can save an "old" format CC, how would a person be able to (mis)appropriate an FD card? They cant actually bring it up (to my knowledge), can they? To the best of my knowledge, it is only active from the PC that has applied it, but not physically available for others to "grab" a copy of it.

I'm not so sure the form of scoring matters much in either case (hand one or two). If it makes, you're screwed, no matter what. There is not a lot of reason to be concerned about conceding an overtrick but certainly, you must attempt to beat 6N. LHO has overcalled 3N on what? Qxx K?? QJ??? AKQ? While we dont know his exact distribution at this point, I would guess it to be 3-2-5-3 or 3-3-4-3/3-3-3-4. While he certainly may hold 4 hearts, my feeling is that he doesnt. (Most players will X holding the other major and good hand). On hand one, I would play the spade 8, conceding 1 spade trick to declarer and hope that the bad suit breaks do him in. Hand two is a little trickier because now partner very may well be able to prevent the run of the hearts, but if we duck the spade, he will not have a 2nd one to return to us. I think on this one, I win the spade A, and return the 8 (or possibly the 7/8 of clubs, there is no way declarer is ducking this to the 9/10 in dummy at this point in the play). Of course, I have been wrong before! :D Edit: A little more thought says that it may be best to play the 8 on either hand(and definetely on the first). If NT were to be played by RHO, you cannot lead a spade at trick one without presenting him the ability to develop 2 spade tricks (if needed). Since the 3♠ opening was a non-standard opening, you may have already gained in your auction. It is entirely possible that you have gained a trick by having LHO bid NT first, ensuring that you can hold the opponents to only one spade trick. However, I am not sure that this factor would come to mind at the table, at trick 1, and would probably play as first suggested.

ummm, no. The last thing you want to hear is (1♣)-4♥-p-p-X and you are -200/500 against nothing their way. The 4♥ bidders are making some very strange assumptions in my opinion. They are assuming that partner has ANY values at all, which is not a good premise. They are also assuming that partners presumed values are also WORKING. The king of diamonds or any club honors (other than the ace) will be totally worthless to you on offense, but may pull some weight on defense as LHO will have limited values as well. This is not good matchpoint strategy. Bid 1♥, followed by 2♥, partner should realize that you have a good hand to continuing to bid at adverse vul. and raise with a heart fit and a possible trick or two. As always, jmoo.

There is absolutely no good reason to make an immediate limit raise with this hand that I can see. If instead you simply bid 1♠, think about the following sequences and how you will like/dislike them: 1♥-1♠-1N? Ok, partner is limited, probably 2-5-3-3, but now I would make the limit raise of 3♥. A good partner will bid 3 spades if they happened to be 3-5-3-2 (and your partnership does not raise on 3 card support). 1♥-1♠-2♣ ? This hand improves tremendously with the good fitting honors in your hand. Now I do not stop at less than 4♥. 1♥-1♠-2♠ ? Fantastic. Even if your partnership is prone to raising on 3 card support in this sequence, you should be in game. 1♥-1♠-2N (or higher)? Great. Game is assured, somewhere. Ok, so whats the one sequence that can present a "real" problem? 1♥-1♠-2♦ . This is the only call that gives you cause for concern, imo. In this sequence, your black suit cards are probably not pulling their full weight. At the table, I would be inclined to bid 2N to show the club stops , and let partner make his next call. If partner raises to 3N, I will pass, the heart suit will still take tricks in NT. If partner bids anything else (3C, 3D, 3H, 3S), I will bid 4H. If he passes 2N?!!, he opened a dog and we are probably high enough. (Oh, and as a notation to whereagles comments above.....this hand should always compete to 3♥.)

Sweets? You don't call her Precious? LOL!

I play in a partnership that does not open balanced 11-12 counts in 1st or 2nd seat. However, this also requires both partners to be on the same wavelength and strive to open weaker hands (9-10 counts) in 3rd/4th seats to protect any partscore your side may have. The drawback to this are mainly due to agressive openings/preempts by opponents in 2nd or 3rd seats. It does require a LOT of partnership trust (not to mention patience) to balance on Axx KJx KJxx xxx after: pass (3♣) p p ? or worse, pass (3♦) p p ? Do you balance? or do you sell out quietly? Sometimes, either partner will get these situations wrong. Oh well. Preempts do work on occasion. Another drawback is that you will miss an occasional marginal game that just happens to make, although this is fairly infrequent. However, the major advantages (to me) outweigh these drawbacks. For the most part, this partnership is very strong on defense so after a full opening bid in 1st/2nd, we are usually much better placed on judging when to double opponents at low levels for heavy penalties when they stick their necks out. It makes game/slam bidding much easier (for us, at least). I advocate this practice in most of my partnerships. However, I also realize it is not the "norm". As always, jmoo.

Simple logic dictates that if you are playing 4SF (GF), and you have a game forcing hand....then you use it and conserve bidding space at the same time. By using 4SF, you will also find out whether or not partner has either 3 card support for your 1st suit, OR a stopper in your (undisclosed) 2nd suit. This can be crucial knowledge when deciding to play 3N or not (or even 5/6 of your 2nd suit for that matter). However, this requires a thorough understanding of hidden inferences (or non-inferences) that are contained in what bids partner makes, or doesnt make, after a 4SF bid, and then using this information to your best advantage. This skill is usually only achieved by higher level players. Which is why I believe that the higher skilled players will play this as 5-5 invitational. This leaves all other non-conventional jump bids with a meaning of either 1) INVITATIONAL 5-5, or 2) preemptive (4-6). Since it is more crucial to bid games, I believe you will find most top players using the first method (unless they have some other way of making the differentiation between various hand types). Personally, I think trying to use this sequence as a mini-splinter for openers 2nd suit will leave you poorly placed on too many other hands to offset any benefit it may gain, and would never even consider this to be a possibility. As always.... jmoo.

Extras? Aye yai yai.

This hand has absolutely no reason to double 4♠. 'Nuff said.

Personally, I consider North's hand to be ideal for a 2♦ bid immediately. Inverted minors really are meant to be used for investigating hands that can envision: 1) a minor suit slam opposite a minimum opening, 2) 3N or 3) 5 of a minor/4 major. This hand certainly qualifies. (Note, I normally open 1D on 4+, 1C on 2+, making it known immediately that there is at least a 9 card diamond fit for those concerned about a 5-3 fit). Taking this approach, I firmly believe that the correct approach is then to cuebid controls up the line for minor suit slam exploration or to determine if there is an unstopped suit that would rule 3N out as an option. 1D-2D- 2H-2S-? At this point, South can bid 2N (which promises a club stop but not necessarily control) or could simply bid 3C (control showing) which is what I would bid. 1D-2D-2H-2S-3C-3H-3S-4C-? At this point, South knows that North holds the spade A, the heart K, and the club A. All he really needs to know is how many of the top diamonds does North hold. 5N (grand slam force)-7D (2 of top 3)-?. At either form of scoring, I would rest in 7D. While you are reasonably sure of 13 tricks in diamonds, (5 diamonds, 3 clubs, AK hearts, AK spades, and either a club ruff in dummy/4 club tricks, or some number of spade ruffs in hand), it is entirely possible that the 13th trick is available only via ruffs. If playing in an MP tournament and pushing for top late in the session, I might risk 7N, but believe you will win the majority of MP's for simply being in the grand to begin with, so there is no real need to risk it.

Why is everyone playing a ♠ to the 9, instead of running the 8 first? Just curious.

I would pass initially. Since the problem doesnt give me this option, I will bid 2♠ now.

No, I dont think a club splinter is necessarily "wrong", although the hand is a little light for it. The main advantage to 1430 is it allows for a trump Q ask of 5♦ after a 5♣ response, regardless of which major suit is trumps.

Other.

Yes, I agree 100%. I should not have tried to adjust this board or considered the expert, double dummy lines of play. :D Its always a learning process what I reasonably can and cant adjust. No I don’t agree that we should be “teaching” people by penalizing them if they don’t call the TD. If there is an obvious result I think it is completely wrong not to adjust. Who are we to say that the opps werent holding up the last 2 tricks, unclear of a claim or simply stuck for the last minute? The natural consequence of not calling the TD is that the board is unfinished, there is no obvious line and both pairs receive A-. I always tell these players that if they had called me they would have been protected and receive at worst actual result or A+. IMHO penalizing players to teach them to call the td is arrogant and unnecessary, while giving unfair advantage to others. jb You seem to be missing the point. We both agree that when the result is "obvious", the "proper" thing to do is to adjust to the normal result. So take all of those hands out of your consideration....... Then in your own words, you appear to be saying the exact same thing I am: Isnt this what I said? Well, we disagree here. You are not penalizing anyone when a result cannot be reasonably determined. In a case like this, by refusing to adjust a board to any other result than A-/A-, you are simply enforcing the rules (your own, as stated). As a result of doing so, you will encourage players to properly call the director before time runs out.....not after. This is not being arrogant (as a TD), nor is it unnecessary.....after all, what is the point of telling the parties, "well if you would have called me before time ran out....." unless you intend to enforce it? You are not penalizing anybody for not calling the TD. They are being penalized for not following the rules and procedures. It does not give any advantage to those players who properly follow the rules, finish on time as they should, or with regards to making an adjustment in any case where the result is clear. However, trying to adjust the result on this particular board, does give an unfair advantage to a player knowing he can see the hand after the round change and attempt to claim he was going to finesse the heart one way or the other, since he now knows where it is located. (I am not stating this is what occured, but it could happen).

Not to dispute your reasoning Mike, but really? I would like to hear more elaboration from you on this, if possible. From my viewpoint, this hand contains a worthless doubleton, Aces and spaces, absolutely zero spot cards in the 2 four card suits and no 5 card suit. Where can I possibly expect 12 tricks to come from opposite an invitational hand? (Partner is not likely to have a long suit of his own). I see absolutely nothing positive about this hand that makes it worth even considering 6N. But I certainly see enough negatives to make me downgrade the value of this hand and pass. Now if partner was inviting slam in a suit contract.....sure. Then the aces are pulling their extra weight, and if the suit is one other than spades, I also have a ruffing value (however slight) to add. Then I would definetely accept any slam try. But as it is? No. (And this is coming from someone who never met an invite he didnt like) :D

Calling the TD when there is a delay is the best thing for players to do and no adjustment may be correct in this case but not as a general rule. I think we should strive to adjust all unfinished boards to an actual result, TD call or not. We don’t want to punish people for not calling the TD, our job is to restore equity when there has been an irregularity. Allowing a board to end with an artificial score (A-) when there was an obvious result (1-2-3-4? tricks remaining) is not equitable. Its not ideal, its not in strict compliance with the laws but I think it is the best approach in an online situation. jb Jilly, I am speaking only with regards to the board in question. In this case, the result is not obvious, now is it? Its one thing if one side is playing a trump contract, with all high trumps, and time runs out. Or if the other side has 2 inescapable winners defeating the contract. In these cases, the "normal" result wasnt in question. Sure, its fine to adjust these boards to a "normal" result, however.... In this case, 6N may or may not make. Although, I happen to believe that "may" is more probable after the heart discard, it certainly isnt guaranteed. An expert declarer may well finesse West for the heart Q after the heart pitch. An expert East may well have pitched a heart from Qxx(x) hoping to induce a finesse into the wrong hand, knowing that any "normal" play in hearts will win for declarer. Mind you, after the round has changed, North has seen the hands and can easily claim "I was finessing West for the heart Q". Well, sure you are, now that you've seen the layout. The only way to "encourage" people to call the TD first, is if they suffer the consequences of not doing so a few times. Otherwise, you will continually find yourself in this position along with the position of trying to explain why an adjustment was made for one board for person A, but no adjustment is being made for person B. Since neither side called a director until after the fact, what adjustment is there to be made? Both sides are the "offending" sides. One for taking too much time, the other for not calling the director to protect their rights. And although it hasnt been said, if I had to make a bet, I will put my money that is North (or South) who is both the party that took too much time, and the party that is claiming they would make. On this board, since a proper result cannot be reasonably determined, both sides should get AVE-, imo.

To me, hand #1 is a clear pass. The hand is not max, does not contain a 5 card suit, and its low spots are horrendous. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that this hand should bid 6N. Hand #2, can either bid 6♦ (assuming partner will understand this bid) or 6N. My preference is 6D. Partner can pass with a diamond fit and a ruffing value on the side or correct to 6N if no fit. But it belongs in 6 something after the quantitative raise. It contains a GOOD 5 card suit (source of tricks). It contains a stop in each suit. And the spot cards are excellent. I tend to add one hcp in evaluation whenever the hand contains fewer than six cards below a seven (more than half the hand is cards that are a seven or higher). This hand contains only 2 such cards (the two 4's), and is much better than 16 hcp it contains.

Ummm, with this hand, you will be lucky to take even one trick on defense. :)

As a good ole southern boy, I demand to know just exactly what it is you are implying?? :) :lol:

On what basis? :) On the basis that since neither side call to protect themselves because the other side was using too much time, both sides are equally at fault. Obviously, one side must have been taking too much time (even if on the prior board). If you want protection, call the director before, not after. No adjustment needs to be made.

If I am understanding what you said correctly, the sequence 1♠-2♣ shows a GF with 3+♣ or a 3-card limit raise. Partner bids 2♠ if rejecting the LR and anything else (natural) if accepting. (2NT would show an accept with 6+♠). Isn't this what you have? Not sure why you want to go thru 1N forcing instead. (You cant be making a g/f raise on 12 opposite a possible 10, so must consider this hand as a limit raise initially.) If partner bids anything other than 2S, you're happy, right? If he rebids 2♠, the question becomes whether you pass, or bid 3♠ (has to be max limit raise, I think). Under your given system restraints, I would detract from my 3-4-3-3 shape and probably pass. The other consideration is whether or not 3♠ would promise the GF hand, in which case I definetely pass 2♠. There are several reasons I dont like the suggested rebids after 1N forcing. To name one, does 1♠-1N-2♥ promise anything extra? Partner can still be a 10 count, right? And yet you still bid 4♥? Yes, there is a double fit. Unfortunately, half your values are in a minor suit, which also detracts from the value of the hand. (I dont like 2N over a 2C response to 1N either, but thats another story).

I will say this much. Had the cards had the bluish background initially, I would have just gone "Hey, new cards". (I also like this much better than the "greyish" version I looked at the other nite). Thanks 4 your efforts. :)