rq4mulae

Hi there! Check your BBO Mailbox for my messages; I may be of use to you in one or more ways ... except when the Packers are on the tube. Bob "rq4mulae"

I've been a member of IAC since Nov. 2008. (OK, I'm a slow learner.) It is very awkward to go off BBO for news of scheduled events, which often have short advance notice. Currently, when I log in to BBO I need only check my BBO mail.to know what's planned for the day; notices of changes - cancellations, etc. - come via BBO Chat. This ability gets the "word" out more expeditiously than email, and distributes to more members than texting could reach. For lessons and/or teaching tournaments, it's not unusual for about 3 dozen members to participate. (It does not disturb non-members in it's efficiency.) IAC would be the only attraction of BBO to me after ACBL resumes face-to-face. games. If you persist that v.1 needs to go, then at least delay until you can add it's notice distribution features to v.3. Bob

I think you've mostly got off the track of what an "Intermediate" knows as much of your suggestions are beyond the average Intermediate. Reverses: YES Jacoby Super-Accepts: yes as a jump rebid in transfer suit, but not likely using control-showing super-accepts. Lead-directing Doubles:yes Texas Transfers: doubtful Michaels and/or UNT in NT sequences: NO Takeout Cue Bids: NO To start with, I don't think the N hand qualifies as Texas, except for gamblers. Opposite Axxx=xx=AKxx=Axx, for example, you have duplicated values. So N bid should bid 2D. X by E would not necessarily show a long suit but should be expected to win opening lead. 2H & 2NT are out, but E is worth a 3D bid, which works even wiith a super-accept, and is even better for heading off control-showing super accept like 3C. S qualifies, so bids 3H. Now a 3S bid by E should be apparent as good values with longer D's and removes any ambiguity about which minor is held. Now, white vs. white and at IMPs, N should raise to 4H and W to 5D and play there.

Dummy Play is my guess, although I must admit my 1st reaction was same as cannotputt's: Double Dummy.

Thanks, free: - In order to respond to your 2nd question I need to be able to interprete the hand. What's the void?? I'm learning to be more specific. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif club void.

Thanks, pooltuna: Q2) given that partner has 2♥ you always have oppositional possible holdings that produce a trump loser and you have some quantity of holdings that guarantee 2 trump losers. With that and the higher frequency of 14 and 15 HCP holding I would not try to go past 4♥. Very valid observation. And to me it suggests that Jacoby 2♦ is best 1st step - permitting a superaccept - and a jump rebid of 4♣ after 2♥ could not be harmful in case opener is loaded with club values.

Thanks, mfa1010: We need to know the system context. Hand and auction occurred playing 2/1 but I know of no reason why it couldn't apply to SA as well, nor a version of K-S using transfers.

Thanks, mcphee: That's a good point, and since this hand is not, it wouldn't qualify for 3♥ response by that standard.

Thanks, gwnn So, you can't read what's written between my lines, where it's obvious to me? http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif To be more specific: ♠ KQJ9 - ♥ KT98xx - ♦ KQ9

Thanks, Marlowe: #1 I guess 6c+ means 6+ hearts. Poll amended to clarify: yes, 6+ hearts #2 The answer depends partially on your agreement set, do you play Transfer / Texas transfer? If you do, 4C is not needed to show a 2nd suit, simply start with 3D, followed by 3C. So in the end my vote goes to 4C being a cue (we play mixed cues, so 4C could be 2nd round control - but look at your cue bidding style, and you know the answer). We also play, that the first cu showes an honor, so 4C showes values. If you would play tranfer, than 2D - followed by a 4C would show a club shortage, a so called auto splinter, so this would mean, so that would strength the case for 4C showing values. We play both Jacoby & Texas transfers but hand described would be too strong for Texas by mutual agreement. The idea of a jump into new suit as a splinter has some appeal, but would bypass spades in this case so might cause confusion if an attempt made later to show spade control. Regarding your 2nd question - no, you have 4 spades, this means Stayman. We reserve Stayman for 5-4 or 4-4 if holding both. With kind regards Marlowe

Secondary question: would you make the 3♥ bid holding ♠KQJ9 - ♥KT98xx - ♦KQ9 ?

I'm looking to form a WORKING partnership with expectations of playing as a pair for a few days in the WBF championships in Philadelphia in Oct. - especially for IMPs Pairs games. I will play Kaplan-Sheinwold, 2/1 or high-level SA. If my partner is willing and able to travel to tournaments in upper Midwest, then I'd hope our partnership persisted beyond Philly. I reside in the west suburbs of Chicago. I intend to be strongly competitive, but my primary objective is the experience of playing in an international tournament - hopefully without embarrassing myself and/or my partner. :rolleyes: I earned LM on April Fool's Day this year after 5 years in the ACBL, with more than half of my points earned in the last 15 months. Also, more than half of my points are in tournament pigments, so I have good sectional and regional tournament experience as well as 2 NABC's. I consider myself advanced, by-and-large, with occasional bouts of brilliance and insanity, so not close to relaxing about learning this game. Also, my game is better suited to IMP scoring. I can be generally subordinate to a superior partner while maintaining initiative capability. And I hope and believe I'm as tolerant of the errors of an equivalent partner as I'd expect them to be of me. Of course, we should play some before any kind of extended commitment. If you can imagine our partnership as having potential - for fun ... maybe even success? - please reply here or drop mail to me on BBO. Bob Quintin "rq4mulae"

One would hope and expect membership shifts to diminish quickly as members get to identify and know one another. My prioity was never a formal structure, but merely to bring some order out of chaos. If the director wants to accomodate anyone expressing an interest in playing, that's fine. But then the director should not whine about how much work is to be done. The idea of responsible captains was to spread the load. As far as participation last week and this is concerned, the aforementioned shifting has left my association vulnerable. But I will be making myself available for participation - with or without a predetermined partner/team - in the future, and leave it to the director to fulfill her priorities.

1. It is always harder than it sounds to run a league or captain a team. 2. You need a large pool of players in the team, more than 10, if you intend to play on a regular basis 3. It is very rare for a player just to 'no show'. There is normally a good reason and you just have to live with this. Make sure you have subs available. 4. If you have a large pool of players, then if you get a lot of acceptees then play 2 teams. 5. Matches that consist of two halves are best. This allows a team to involve more players in a match, plus switch line ups and let reserves play the first half and late comers the second. Paul (paulg) Thank you, Paul, for some very good points. 1. I've been a captain and it was a lot of work to begin with, but as the team settled down into who was reliable - for showing up, more than ability - it got simple. Parts became interchangeable, playing mostly SAYC, and some pairs could play 2/1 or extended SA with mutual availability. 2. I disagree here. Much more important than the size of the pool is the degree of commitment. But it definitely helps to have a couple of spares. 3. True, committed teammates are almost never "no-shows" without an emergency. But in that case, there is often another teammate who was planning to kib who can sit in. Worst case is a pickup sub, but most who've been on BBO any time can find someone to invite as partner. The main thing is for players who become unavailable to notify their captain ASAP so alternative arrangements can be made. This is why captains are essential. 4. I'm not quite sure to what you refer here. If you're talking about a sub list with specific dates/times available attached, that would be something helpful to captains. If you're talking about people standing around who may or may not be available at any given time, the search for subs could be quite aggravating. 5. This one is HUGE! For one thing, it provides captains with ability to put (almost, or) all available teammates to work on any date. Less chance of hurt feelings or time conflicts or extensive search for sub for emergency "no-show." People are much more likely to feel a part of a team if involved every date. Pam: The ladder to which I've referred could consist of no more than a simple spreadsheet, as I envision it. Send me the results and I would maintain it, and submit updates to you for posting in the Club News. It need not be any more complicated than baseball or football standings, with the additional impact of noplay penalty. If 1 or 2 sessions missed, a team loses a rung. Captains make/accept challenges and arrange for teammates' appearance. Of course a team would not have to be on the ladder if not interested, but then would have no feedback on performance. As far as a pool of individuals wishing to play a match on any given date, why not have interested people appear in a chat room to work out pairings & teams ... amongst themselves. If any 4 agree to play together, they can notify the director to have a match set if another team is formed. Those on a team but not scheduled to play a given session may join this group for that session. I in no way meant the ladder to be prohibitive of participation in matches, but as a means of establishing a goal for settled teams. As far as pickup matches go, they could happen anytime rather than at scheduled sessions. I'd be willing to set such spontaneous matches up on many occasions, if one person took it upon themselves to identify the 8 participants. Most people on BBO are too old to be spoonfed, however.

I think some of us are missing the real issue here. These are TEAM matches we're trying to run. So TEAMS are the consideration, not pairs or individuals. Therefore, TEAMS must be established as such, with captains selected to represent the TEAMS to the league/club and to be responsible for the participation of the TEAM. Any pairs or individuals who are not on a team may either join an existing TEAM or form their own. This should be the only basis for inclusion, as pairs and individuals can play in the club at any time of their choosing. But TEAMS are to play at an appointed time & day. Furthermore, if captains arrange the matches, the director would only be needed to direct! The remaining issue of fulfilling commitments should impact the TEAMS as TEAMS. We all play matches in competition. We have the Relaxed Bridge Club or Main Lounge to mess around in. For competion there needs to be rewards and penalties. For that reason, I believe the league needs to be set up in a ladder format. Not with a great deal of structure and formality and it's own website as Geof's league's had - which I miss greatly, but understand why they no longer exist. The ladder needs to be no more than a heirarchical list of teams in Club News. Simple rules might be like no team can challenge down, and teams can challenge only up to 2 or 3 places above. Failure to be available to play results in a drop in rank, as does a forfeit for failure to show for a committed match. Standing otherwise would just be based on winning percentage, perhaps with IMP differentials as tie-breakers. (All teams start tied for #1 at the outset! So everybody can be #1 at least once in their life! :) ) Those TEAMS not playing will drift down to the bottom to rot - as they should. And perhaps a champion could be crowned after a period of time such as 6 months - and feted to a saucer of chocolate fish from hoki? Is this proposal not sufficient? Bob