bid_em_up

I think after the double (if one occured) the diamond lead should stand out by a mile. You are looking at 10 hcp, there should approximately be 20-21 in openers hand, and partner is looking at 8-9 and doubling because opener's partner could not scrape up a response. Leading the diamond Q is the lead least likely to give up an immediate trick, and gives you the benefit of seeing dummy as you plan the rest of your defense. I am just as inclined to lead the diamond Q for the same reasons even if 2N is not doubled. You are only scoring 1 diamond trick in your hand, no matter what declarer's holding may be.

Here ya go: ;) From live tourny this past weekend[hv=s=skj108xhkqj9xxdjcx]133|100|1st seat nobody vul[/hv] If its of any importance, I opened 1♥ but wasnt all that thrilled about it, as the auction quickly spiralled out of hand. 1♥-2♦-2♠-3♣-3♠-6♠ gulp.

Hard to play Leaping Michaels over a 3♠ bid.

Not being sure of how she will take 2♦ (it certainly should be forcing, imo), and I really want her to describe her hand further, I chose the cuebid of 2♣. To this, she responds 3♠ (although her call really should be 2♥, but she thinks 2♣ is limit/better ♠raise). The 2♦ bidders will hear a lame 2♠. After 3♠, I decided that I should be able to score 6-7 spade tricks, at least 3 clubs and the Ace of hearts, so I bid 3N (concealing the club suit in the closed hand, so that it will probably take 5 tricks after opps have been forced to pitch on the run of the spades). Oddly enough, she now bids 4♠. I am reasonably certain that LHO's opening bid consists of the KQ♥ and ♦AK at this point. As I am contemplating our chances in 6♠, a friend of hers walks up (remember its the last round, and other people are finishing), and says "I see you are in first going into the last round". Does this have any bearing on your call? Is it proper to use this info? It really irritated me that the person did this..... And now, what do you bid?

While 5♦ is a reasonable choice, I think 4♦ is a better choice. There is nothing that says opps will be able to make game given the likely bad breaks, and 5♦ will (almost) certainly be doubled. Let them guess their suit at the 4 level, and let them play it there.

Having on the spur of the moment deciding to go and play in a local Regional over the long weekend, I get to the playing site Friday afternoon just before game time, needing a partner. The partnership desk has noone that I feel would be compatible (I got there too late), and I am just about to give up when a lady says she wants to play in the one session side game. Now I was really wanting to play both sessions, but faced with no other prospects and not really wanting to have to return home without playing, we discussed system for a few minutes and agreed to play. Surprisingly enough, she was a competent player in most respects, with only a few trivial bidding or defensive errors occuring throughout the session. As we reached the last round (3 bds/round), I expected that we were doing well, just not quite sure how well. After getting what should be a top or close to it on the first board, I picked up this collection: [hv=s=sk10hadqj109xcakqxx]133|100|MP Nobody vul[/hv] and hear this: (1♣) 1S (p) ? and it is your call? To be continued after some replies.

1♣ These days, I believe you will find more and more top players opening their 6 card suit first, although it didnt use to be that way.

No, its on the NASDAQ.

There is one company that is claiming to have (supposedly) made some major inroads made into tar sands extraction technology, at a fraction of the costs of todays current technologies that will make it a more viable option in the near future. Whether or not the company's claims are true, I do not know. At least on the surface without drilling too deep (pun intended), they appear to be.

If your system says 1N is 14-16, offshape ok, then why are you opening anything but 1N? Isnt that exactly what you have? I must not understand the problem.

You call that football?? lol, roflmao, hahahahaha. (spoken like a true american) ;)

..//\\\ .///\\\\ ////\\\\\ ...!!!! ...!!!! ...!!!! ...!!!! ...!!!! What he said.

Was this a serious question?

I could be mistaken, but it seems like your only real chance is to duck the first club, win the 2nd, cash two rounds of trumps (all following), AK♦, ruff a diamond in hand, and exit with the K♠, hoping that east originally started with the singleton Q or J. Now, no matter what west does, he must either give you a ruff/sluff, or allow the ♠10 to score.

I would consider 3♦ to be an extreme underbid on this hand after opener bid 2♠. Partner either has a fit for one of your suits, or long running clubs and is looking for a spade stop. 3♠ seems about right as it should show a really good hand, but no spade stop.

I dont believe the 3♦ bid, in and of itself, is 100% forcing. Opener asked for more information with his 2♠ bid, so you give it to him. After all, you were forced to make another call. How can a call that you were forced to make, be considered forcing (on your part)? It is now up to opener to decide if he wishes to take further action, which he semi-promised that he would do when he made the 2♠ bid. I would expect him to always take a subsequent call, but one never knows.

Lovely. Another case of a person bidding just as badly (or worse) but blaming their partner instead. I dont like the 1♦ opening either, especially not in an individual. At least if you open 3♦, you have about the hand partner will be expecting, 7 diamonds, <10 hcp (discounting any value for the J♣ for 1st seat opening bid). Opening 1♦, and making a free rebid of 3♦, distorts the values of the hand. On the given auction, I dont believe that your partners pass of 3♠ can possibly create a FP situation. Even though you have shown approximately 15+, his hand is the unknown. There is no way you should attempt good/bad 2N in an individual, no matter who your partner happens to be. He has shown no more than a 6 count and HASN'T shown his fit. On the auction, his own brilliant self (yea, dats da phrase I was looking for) should have either bid 3N, cued 4♠, or raised you to 4♦/5♦. His failure to do any of the these things is unexcusable, imo. Its either that or its a case of him of attempting to lose the board and win the post-mortem. Which, sadly, he managed to do. Blacklist him and move on. :( Codo: imbicil = mispelling of imbecile = A stupid or silly person; a dolt. A person whose mental acumen is well below par. (Not my definitions....Websters Dictionary)

As long as we're at it...... How come there isnt a place on the forum for your BBO ID, if your forum ID happens to be different from the BBO id?

Aye yai yai.

Again, I say hmmmmmmm. An election that was, in some voters opinions, a stolen and shallow victory. (Not my point of view as such, but I can understand to some degree where they are coming from). A policy of locking people up without charges, legal counsel or hearings on the basis of what they "might" be doing. What happened to our right to free speech? Our right to proper legal counsel/representation? Our right to a hearing on what grounds or charges are being brought against us that caused us to be held as a prisoner? A policy of what appears to be spying on the American people without warrants or just cause via wiretapping and/or data mining in the interests of "national security". Outing a CIA operative's true identity because you didnt like her husbands vocal position against your administrations policy in Iraq and the claims that were used to go to war. Using what is being shown to be false (and according to some, known at the time to be false) claims regarding chemical, nuclear, or biological weapons as the reasons for going to war with Iraq. How are the American people going to react if and when it is proven for a fact that the justifications used for this war were false? What kind of person would knowingly use false claims to justify this war? A good one? A policy of detaining and abusing POW's or suspected terrorists on foreign soil because we are not "allowed" to do so in the US. If it is wrong to do it here, it is still just as wrong to do it anywhere else. I am not saying they shouldnt be abused, I am all for staking known convicted terrorists to ant hills in the hot sun and then covering them with syrup until they tell all they know or die a slow and excrutiating death; unfortunately the courts wouldn't allow it. But I digress. And yet.......current policy appears to at least tolerate, if not actually encourage such actions or similar ones to be taken. In the current administration, it appears that if you make anti-US statements or perform any action that possibly could be considered as terrorist-related, if they so desire, they can effectively detain you permanently without cause or proper procedure. The only justification they appear to need is to claim "it's in the interests of national security". Who makes this decision? What man is "pure" enough to be given this power? In the eyes of the founding fathers, nobody was. Thats one of the main reasons why the legal bodies and powers were seperated the way they were and no one person was given this kind of power/authority and checks and balances were incorporated into the system to prevent abuse of the system. Somebody appears (at least it can be perceived that way) to be attempting to claim that he is above this authority and he is above the checks and balances when it comes to matters of national security. This precedent (or president, take you pick of words) concerns me as it should all US citizens. But as to be expected, for the most part, we are too apathetic to care. Is this your definition of "good" or "ethical" people? Or are they the actions of someone much more "sinister" and "evil"? All the while believing they are doing the right thing............ The last president was almost impeached for something which I considered to be much less offensive. To me, there is a major difference between having an affair while in office and then lying about it trying to save face (or to not piss your wife off), and actually violating the US Constitution, which is what appears to be taking place in the current administration on an almost routine basis. Both presidents took/are taking the "Deny Deny Deny" route, the only difference was that Clinton had enough charisma for it to actually be effective. People wanted to believe him and to a lot of people, they could at least relate to wanting to deny having an affair. Bush doesnt have this luxury and the "Deny Deny Deny" routine is wearing thin. Mind you, I am just attempting to be thought provoking when I make these statements, but how much more of these kind of actions do the American people withstand and tolerate before we wake up one day, only to find ourselves being governed by a state that we originally thought was "good" but has, in fact, turned out to be otherwise? The road to hell is paved with good intentions, right? Are we heading down the path of destruction of the US Constitution and the rights it granted to every US citizen? Is it ok to give up some of these rights in the interests of "national security"? How far will it go, or how far will they go, and when do we as US citizens say "ENOUGH ALREADY"?! I dont know, but I am certainly concerned. Hopefully without just cause. Please dont let these things be true because I dont know that I could look at myself in the mirror everyday, knowing that I voted for the man responsible for the downfall of this country. Oops, I gotta go....somebody is knocking on my door. Think I should let them in? Hmmmmmm. :) I actually debated with myself for several hours whether or not I was going to post this......

That's fine. Believe me, I am not one to buy into the "conspiracy theories" that rampantly abound. But considering that: George Bush has ties to the oil industry, and that he would realize what the likely effect on the prices of oil from an attack on Iraq would be. Prices would most likely go up, benefitting both himself and his friends in the industry. Dick Cheney has ties to Halliburton, the company that was awarded the majority of contracts dealing with of rebuilding Iraq's oilfields. For a look at how this has benefitted Halliburton, you only need to reference their 5 year chart: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=HAL&t=5y Or for a more dramatic effect, take a look at the charts on Halliburton Watch. http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/ You cant convince me that they didnt forsee or couldnt project the probable outcome of the financial effect on this stock by making the attack on Iraq and its future "rebuilding" efforts. And now this with Rumsfeld. Granted, these are all men from powerful and influential families, movers and shakers so to speak, so the possibilities of their having ties to companies that stand to benefit from key policy decisions at some point in time are increased. Their likelihood of being on a Board of Directors or president of a company that would stand to benefit is much greater than mine, and most likely yours or the majority of any of the other posters on this forum. Fine. I conceed that point. But, at what point in time, do these things stop being coincidences that are bound to happen on occasion, and instead, start becoming legitimate concerns? How many have to occur? Hmmmmmmmm.

I can't and didn't make any negative remarks about his play. Please don't imply something that isn't there. In my opinion, the vast majority of his methods should only be used by those who are already at advanced or higher levels in their bridge expertise. Unfortunately, all too often these methods appear to be marketed to the beginner/intermediate player, and I have problems with promoting or being a fan of any method that by default, starts to teach beginning/intermediate players to open "Rule of 20", just to name one example. All too frequently, I see people stating, "I open Rule of 20 partner" and since they think that it means open any hand where the two long suits length plus HCP equals 20, they proceed to open on: Jx Axxxx Qxxxx K or AQ xxxxx xxxxx A because they truly believe it qualifies as a Rule of 20 opener. And it doesnt matter to these players what position they are in, or what the vulnerability happens to be. Heck, their expert partner/teacher told them they needed 20 and they have it, so lets open it. It works for them (the expert teacher/partner), so why shouldnt I do it? Of course the expert partner wouldnt open either of these hand, especially not first seat vul (ok, maybe some would but its not for me), but most (if not all) would open if it were xx AJxxx KQxxx x, would open regardless of position or vulnerability. Granted, Marty's methods themselves attempt to stress this, but it is not something that can be "taught" and the parts about downgrading values for stiff honors, or having values outside your suits are usually somehow omitted from this discussion amongst lower-level players. The same applies to Bergen raises (and its variants), his preemptive styles, and so on. You also might try reading Larry Cohen's own article titled "Love Thy Partner" for his thoughts regarding partnerships and conventions for another perspective, if you have never read it. It can be found here: http://www.bridge-forum.com/Archives/Cohenluvpd1.htm From Larry's own perspective (and certainly he is a top player as well), too many gadgets/conventions are not necessarily a good thing. Having to discuss lots of different sequences and their intricate meanings has its downsides on partnerships frequently. Having to constantly change a system to meet a specific need is not a good thing. I have to wonder, if Marty was such a great theorist (and I am not saying whether he is or he isnt), why was their system constantly having to be changed? Could it be because there was a flaw in the original theory? I dont know. But I think that is usually the case, when one is constantly having to make system changes/adjustments. Or it could just be because he likes to tinker. I dont know. Another insight might possibly come from another article Larry wrote regarding partnership style, which can be found here: http://www.culbertsonbc.com/Larryc.html Again, imo, Marty Bergen's aggressive tactics are more suited for use by the already advanced player who is seeking to improve his arsenal of weapons, and should be attempted only after they have a firm grasp on fundementals of the game and are not methods that should be taught to beginners and intermediates as I see to be so frequently the case. I, personally, feel that those teaching these methods to beginning/intermediate players are doing what has been one of the biggest disservices done to the game of bridge in the last 30 years, which leaves me not being a fan of his methods. I also realize that I am in the minority opinion regarding this subject, but those are a few of my reasons for it. There are other reasons as well, but I will not go into them on a public forum.

What I find disconcerting is what you find out if you do some research on who stands to profit from bird flu. When was bird flu first discovered in humans? 1997. What is the current proscribed method for treating bird flu? A drug called Tamiflu. Who has the development and marketing rights to Tamiflu? Roche Laboraties. Who owns the patent and licensed Tamiflu to Roche Laboraties? Gilead Sciences. When did Gilead license Tamiflu to Roche? Sometime in the early 1990's. At some point during the summer of 2005, Gilead decided that Roche had not marketed Tamiflu properly and sued to terminate its license agreement. In November 2005, in the "interest" of public health, the two companies reworked their agreement to give Gilead a larger percentage of royalties along with some additional "reimbursements" for prior royalties and lack of marketing. What current Secretary of Defense was on the Board of Directors of Gilead Sciences from 1988 to 2001 and its Chairman of the Board from 1997 to 2001? You guessed it, Donald Rumsfeld. He left Gilead Sciences in 2001 to join the current administration, but still retains a substantial stock holding (estimated to be between $5 million and $25 million) and that is probably undervalued considering that in 2001 shares of Gilead Sciences, Inc. traded in a range between $6.64 and $17.93. Between January and April 2006, its price range has been $53.00 to $65.62. They currently trade at $55 and change. As Arsenio Hall would have said.....Things that make you go, hmmmmmm.

A google search revealed a Bridge World article titled: Houdini by Jules van Ogtrop Sep 2001, page 7. Thats all I found, and have no idea if its what you are referring to (but I suspect it probably is).

Sorry for the misunderstanding. But I believe what foo meant to say is: "The flip side of this is that if you are not going minus more often on close games than you are going plus, then you are not bidding enough close games at IMPs." He's welcome to correct me if I am mistaken. Of course you should be bidding your 60/70/100 percent games, and they will make the majority of the time (based on their percentage). This, of course, should give you a much higher combined frequency of making game as opposed to going down, as you state. But, that was never part of the equation since we were discussing bidding game with invitational hands (not certain game forcing ones), and what the cutoff point is for where it begins to become profitable to bid these close games. Sorry for the confusion.