bid_em_up

I have not read the book at this point in time, but I will say this much: Having been a frequent opponent against Mike on another online site, where my partner had hired him as an instructor for a 2 week bridge class in her country (he then would play against us as a result of this), I can state that these sentiments are way off base. Mike and I had some discussion of LOTT principles during our playing sessions while he was in the middle of writing the book. The impression I got at the time was that it was not his intent to try and "disprove" the law, nor did I ever get the feeling that the writing of the book was due to any conflict with Larry Cohen or Marty Bergen. Instead, he wanted to try and improve on the application of law principles. That is he wanted to show when it is best used or not and to point out what he found to be weaknesses or technical flaws in its theory (and it does have some). Whether or not this is something the book actually does, I dont know yet, since I havent read it yet. Nor do I really intend to. :ph34r: I also believe the book is coauthored by Anders Wirgren. There is no telling how much of the writing is actually his but I do recall that a lot of theory supposedly within the book was already available on the net at the time we were discussing it. This information can be found at http://www.newbridgelaw.com/ And of course, Larry Cohen's published statement on the book may be found here: http://www.larryco.com/FightLAW.htm

In its truest form, NMF only applies over a 1N rebid by opener. Many partnerships will extend this to a 2N bid as well and call it NMF, when technically, it is a form of checkback stayman. Many partnerships will use the other minor after a 2N rebid as an artificial forcing bid that simulates a NMF auction. Regardless of the name given to it, applied properly, either NMF or checkback stayman work fine after a 2N rebid. Personally, I prefer checkback stayman (3♣ always stayman) here, as it allows opener to show his entire hand pattern allowing responder to better judge subsequent actions.

Then you didnt hear my 9 year old daughter play her harmonica the other night at the Sports pub where I sing karaoke!! :(

Although I dont think its likely that partner will hold a stiff heart as well (as Mike suggested), double caters to finding the best possible contract by your side. 3N, 3♥ x'd, 3-4♠, or 4-5 of either minor are all possible contracts at this point, and the way to start is with an X. You can tolerate whatever partner bids. Any other call (with the possible exception of pass) is masterminding. Pass is certainly an option, but over the long run, I believe it will put too much pressure on partner to do the right thing in the passout seat, especially since he knows absolutely nothing about your hand. Go ahead and describe your hand as best you can in one bid.

3N. 13-15, specifically 4-3-3-3 without 4 trumps. Yes, its alerted. If asked, I explain the same way.

The hands are correct. You are on opening lead; the dummy is on your left and declarer is on your right. Funny, on my screen, in the original post, dummy is North, and I am East (making dummy on my right and east is leading the 6 of hearts into Norths A83.

5D as exclusion RKC. I want to know how many keycards partner holds outside of diamonds (and is really all I care about at this point).

Phil, Please rotate the hands!!

I do not believe the 3H bid requires extras. When partner makes a forcing bid asking you to further describe your hand, then your doing so does not show anything extra. However, I would have shown my good 6 card diamond suit instead of the 'weakish" four card heart suit instead and bid 3D. I will not fault the 3H bid however. Having been forced to bid 3H, who knows what 5C is intended as, but assuming partner is competent, I will bid 5S now to show the rest of my hand. (And I bet when we are done, nobody will agree with 3C or 5C). :)

This hand comes a lot closer to qualifying for the jump shift than the last one did. :) Because the hand is 6-5, it has no side suit losers and the spade suit is AQJ98x, at the table, I would bid 3C, as I intend to play either 4S or 5C. I would prefer that the heart K to be in the club suit, but oh well, I cant always hold the perfect hand. Although in some partnerships, I also play that 2C can be made on only two clubs, I would hate for partner to pass 2C holding: x Qxxx Jxxx K10xx or similar and I really dont think he can make another call on this holding. Additionally, the form of scoring says vul @ imps, and I just hate missng vul games. All of this adds up to a 3C bid for me.

Put me down with the 1N bidders also.

deleted

I may or may not open it depending on who my partner is and what system I happen to be playing. Usually I would not open it. If I choose not to open it, I am under absolutely NO obligation to alert the pass. Where do people get this nonsense??

Exclusive-OR, or XOR function can be described verbally as, "Either A or B, but not both. I am going to have apple pie or cherry pie. The expression is true when I have apple pie, is true when I have cherry pie, and false, if I have both apple and cherry pie. Usually used for set comparison (I think). :)

Then I guess we would all be stuck right where we are :)

me too me three.

While bidding 1♦ sounds good in theory; in practice, I have found that it usually leads to less than desirable results. The weakness of this hand, combined with the shortness in clubs, and the failure of RHO to overcall, increases the odds that you are going to hear either 2N/3N or 3♣ (and possibly 3♦) as partners next call. While I can probably withstand a 3♦ bid, the other two calls will usually be disastrous. If 1♣ gets doubled and left in back to me, I can either XX (SOS) or bid 1♦, depending on agreements. Now partner knows I am weak and can't stand clubs, leaving him better placed as to what call to take on his next turn.

1) No. 2) No. Without MI, there is no damage. 3) No. Without damage, no adjustment should be made. 4) Table result stands. Tell the person who thinks the second X is card showing that if you are in doubt of the explanation or need further clarifications, ask more questions. Tell the 2♣ opener to find a better way to word his explantion, ie, 11-15 hcp, 5+♣, if only 5♣ will also have 4 crd major (it may also be 4-5+). The original explanation seems sufficient to me. It is usually how a precision 2♣ bid is explained. And I think that anyone but a novice would understand what is meant by it. But, due to language barriers, I can "somewhat" accept that it could be misinterpreted. However, what was wrong with 4C instead of the "supposed" responsive X? It appears to me that the real problem is with the "responsive" X, not the openers explanation. Sounds to me ike someone is attempting to take two bites at the apple.

I suspect this has more to do with an opponent holding Kxx or Kxxx in front of the Ace will not cover more than anything else (and if he does, he assures 4 tricks in the suit for you). It also wins if LHO holds Jx or KJx. Therefore you will win anytime LHO holds the King, as long as LHO does not hold KJxx(xx) along with doubleton J in any combination in either hand. Leading to the Ace first, then small from dummy only wins in the specific situations of Jx in RHO's hand or when you properly guess whether to play the Q or the 10 on the 2nd round.

As I was contemplating what I would bid, I think my vote for pass ended up as a vote for 6N. On the given auction, I would pass, but since it is matchpoints, I would at least give some consideration to 6N but partner should have bid it instead of 6H whenever 6N is making, I will trust him and pass. I would not open this hand 4♥. I probably dont open it at all. To each their own.

And fred, since I know that you have read my prior post now (I can see you that you are online and in this thread), please feel free to remove it, if you feel the need to so. :)

Mr. Gitelman, While I agree with your sentiments in this matter, I find it disturbing that you would make this post on the public forum, and I do not believe this to be the best manner of addressing the issue. My perception of what you are suggesting you might do (use BBO as a means to publicly embarrass an individual) is effectively tantamount to threatening extortion, blackmail, slander, libel and numerous other litigous avenues, ie. cooperate with us (BBO) or we will embarass you. While you are entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to mine, your's, by default, will carry more weight on BBO and its forums. If I were to suggest such a thing, people would most likely take it with a grain of salt; your suggesting it makes it more likely to become a reality. I also believe that to use a venue as great as BBO is, as a means for all of us to exert pressure on an organizing body, goes against the very grain of what makes BBO such a great place to play. That you can indeed play here with anyone in the world, regardless of status, capabilities, political or religious views without encountering the bickering of such issues is something that I believe most players value highly. If you were to put BBO in the middle of such "political' issues, then some of that "greatness" is lost. At least, for me. Not to mention that it is in total violation of our own "Zero Tolerance" policies. I also think that calling somebody an idiot (regardless of how much of one they may be) or bombarding them with emails from BBO members certainly will not be conducive to getting their cooperation in any further matters. If anything, it will be counterproductive. I also find it surprising that you, of all people, would use such language, in a public forum, to refer to an executive/officer of an organizing federation, especially in view of BBO's and the forums Zero Tolerance policies. I will conceed the point that you didnt call him an idiot directly, but only referred to his decision as idiotic. To me, it is effectively the same thing. I respectfully request that you reconsider your position of the possibility of using BBO (and its members) as a means of implementing changes within the various organizing bodies and instead seek out other means of cooperating with them that are beneficial to them, BBO, and the bridge world at large. Several suggestions have been made in this and other threads regarding some possible solutions that would be beneficial for everyone involved. Sincerely, Charles Frith BBO User ID - bid_em_up

Sorry Roland, but I cannot agree with this statement. While it is a nice sentiment, try and stay based in the real world. Its all about money. It is the job/responsibility of whoever sees a "benefit" that can be reaped from doing so. That benefit may or may not be monetary. And while Fred has always maintained that BBO would remain a free site (thanks Fred!!), I have to believe he also would like to find ways for it to also generate an income stream to at least cover some expenses (feel free to correct me if I am wrong). I know I would. If BBO (fred, sheri, et. al) were to decide that BBO would benefit/profit from making the vugraphs (and its transmission) available at all major events........then who is to say it can't become their job? Just because "we" feel that the WBF, ACBL, whoever, "should" do it, doesn't mean they ever will. At 3000-4000 (or even 300-400) viewers per vugraph, I think a nominal fee would/should cover the costs of paying someone to operate, and probably their expenses as well. Hell, eventually, it might even cover the costs of paying the commentators a pittance, if nothing else, for their time and efforts as well. As someone else suggested, even simply requesting a donation to help offset the costs might well cover all of this and then some. Corporate sponsorship of vugraph (The Spingold brought to you by Microsoft, Geico, Berkshire Hathaway, Bear Stearns, you get the idea) is another path that could be considered as well......from what I have read, and heard, I would not be the least bit surprised if Mr. Gates, Mr. Buffet, or Mr. Cayne would be willing to at least entertain such a possibility. I do not know if they have been approached regarding such an issue. Of course, these are three of the most obvious choices to seek out regarding promoting the game of bridge, however, I am certain there are others.

First of all, lets discuss the bidding. 2♥? In balance? This hand is much better suited for a reopening X. You do not know if partner has made a trap pass or not, and you can stand whatever suit your partner bids. Now to address the original question. What card I play at trick one, and what I lead next is dependent on what type of lead/count signals I am using, so I cant really tell you what I will do at this point.