Bridge_Bain

Freely bidding a 3 card suit in this auction makes little sense. You want to ruff hearts in the 4-card hand? Or, maybe be playing a 3-3 fit? Second, who expects the suits to split well on this auction? 2♠ should promise 4.♠. [More I think about it, partner probably never expect 2♣ to be passed. Looking at our ♦ length plus RHO’s: Partner has at most one ♦s. Partner knew the bidding would not die, and planned to show a medium hand with 9+ black cards.] Personal Note: I never dreamed I would ever "debate" with JLall. You are one of my bridge gods. No, seriously! I love reading these things and never participate.

Yes but we showed a very strong hand by doubling 2D, at least as strong as we have here (I think 16 is quite minimum). Since we encouraged him to bid and he made a non forcing bid I don't see why it shows such a strong hand to bid 2S. The double of 2♦ surely sounds like a penalty double. It still does not promise more then 3♠. In fact, it might show wasted ♦ values. Still P made a free bid of 2♠. Partner did not have to bid at all over 2♥. This hand has all working values/controls and looks a like a lot more then a mere 16. If bidding 3S now is too much for our side, maybe partner should have just bid 1S the first time.

Bidding 3S (only) is probably an underbid 65+% of the time. However, it is always nice to give partner an "out". 4♠ is quite reasonable and extremely like to make. All partner needs is ♠Kxxx and ♣Qxxxxx and have a play. Personally, I guess partner has decent values [= 6-8.5 support points] . With crap, partner could just bid 1S even with xxxx, or pass 2♥.

Most literature I have seen uses vulnerability as a deciding factor in Forcing Pass situation. [This is especially true in fit jumps]. If this is IMPs, and partner freely bid a vulnerable game, the pass should be forcing. Maybe sanity helps here. Who was partner trying to preempt red after (his/her) RHO did not insert a spade bid? Why make a cue bid raise unless interested in slam? The cue bid just gives the opponents other chances to exchange information. But clearly, 4H was bid to make. So, this hand meets the "Game Force Principle". If it had been (us) white against red, this would not be a forcing pass, in my opinion. At MP, red-red, this should be treated like it was IMPs. -200 is a kiss of death and it is far easier to double 4H at MP then IMPs. Personally, I don't believe there is a "standard" treatment for forcing pass situations. I do believe vulnerability should have some influence. Basically, Forcing Pass needs to be discussed in some depth with partner.

Most posts so far don’t feel that 2♠ promises 5 spades, so any concept of the 4♦ bid being a fit jump is out. If 2♠ did promise five spades, then a 3♥ cue and a pull to 4♠ gets the spade fit across along with “diamonds as a source of tricks”. Again, fit jump not needed. I would say the 4♦ bid sets diamonds as trump with no interest in NT or any other suit. If there was a bid between 4♦ and 5♦s, I would take it as a cue bid. Plus, 4♦ avoids the question of whether 2♠ actually created a GF and 3♦ is a complete “go away, P” bid (if playing with a random). Since opener did limit their hand, it is not 100% clear that 4♦ is actually forcing, though extremely invitational.

I am probably too old fashion, both conservative and pessimistic. I would not open 2S vulnerable. It is way too easy to go for 800 on this hand. I don't have an offensive hand. I am flat. I can hope for at most 4-5 spade tricks. If partner contributes 2-3 tricks in 2S doubled, that decreases the chance they actually had a game, and -200 is a huge lose in MP and some lose in IMPs. If partner is going to be the one bidding, partner has a right to expect a better hand from me at this vulnerability. Besides, I know what to lead if we are defending. I pass over 5C. This is not even a forcing pass. I pass over 5D. I stated my hand with my first bid and nothing has changed. 5H is not remotely any type of slam try. There are lots of ways partner could have shown a great hand with slam interest, and 4S over 2N is not one of them. 5H is a lead direct against 6D? Which opponent will be bidding 6D do you think? The only other bid I would expect from the opponents at this vulnerability is DOUBLE. 5H is surely an alternate contract based on a Good Suit. Great hearts, club values, and diamond shortness sounds like partner's hand. With such a hand, partner might no even have 3-card support for spades with the minors stopped [Club values & diamond shortness] plus a source of tricks in hearts. I have Txx in hearts. I have zero reason to believe 5S is any better then 5H. And, as a bonus, we are not doubled YET in 5H! I pass 5H.

Both sides are white. West is the dealer. The bidding goes: W N E S P 1♦ P 1♠ D 2♥ -- --

QUOTE 1eyedjack @ Nov 21 2007, 05:55 PM Sorry, you lost me. [This was with adults, by the way.] I know at least one other responder here took the time to ask friends about their reaction to the incident. There are just too many pages to review to get it quoted here.

Did you know that a poll taken in one of the states/cities where they were trying to force “Intelligent Design” to be taught stated that 47% the people believed the world was actually created in ~ 6,000 years? [i sure wish I had a link for that fact. I saw it on NCB Nightly News. I remember my jaw dropping when they showed a live, on the spot questioning of people as they walked by, where three (3) of the five (5) people asked (live) said they agreed with the ~6,000 years to create the world.]

Just wondering: If “Intelligent Design” could only be taught IF it said "some alien life form visited Earth and placed the living species here", would its supporters still want it to be taught?

** This is also posted in the original thread that was 48+ pages when I posted it. Since I never considered the sign particularly political or about the USA per se, I don’t think we should be talking about the politics of the USA in here. [The sign did, and still does, sound like a personal comment between the players at the event.] But the politics of the bridge world itself should be discussed. When I read the article linked below in the New York Times, I was shocked, embarrassed, and very sad. Not because of the sign that was held up at the ceremonies, but by the image it portrayed about the bridge world, bridge players, and bridge organization’s leaders. I gave the article to some non-bridge players to see their reaction. They said, “I thought you said bridge is fun and stimulating. If the slightest irregularity leads to such a negative, vindictive tone talking about legal action and sever punishment, why bother? I don’t think I want to be involved with that type of neurotic personalities.” Note: these are their words, not mine. But, I too felt totally alienated by the response. It seems that IF we are representing the USA, the USBF should have taken ownership and apologized to the WBF, upset sponsors (if the existed), and worked to deflect the issue away from being a [uSA] political statement to what it appears to be, a statement to the other players. The stance taken by the USBF leadership did nothing but spread dissent, anger, us-against-them, and overall negativity in both the outside world and the bridge community. If these World Bridge Events are about representing countries/zones rather then just a conduit to bringing the great players together, then the USBF should have made it clear, after apologizing, that they intended to set strict dress policies about what members of the USA Teams may wear or display in the future so there are no future potentially embarrassing incidents occur regardless of it embarrasses the USBF, WBF, or bridge players in the USA. Such a reaction would have given a positive image of the bridge world instead of the black-eye it received. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/14/arts/14b...rss&oref=slogin

Since I never considered the sign particularly political or about the USA per se, I don’t think we should be talking about the politics of the USA in here. [The sign did, and still does, sound like a personal comment between the players at the event.] But the politics of the bridge world itself should be discussed. When I read the article linked below in the New York Times, I was shocked, embarrassed, and very sad. Not because of the sign that was held up at the ceremonies, but by the image it portrayed about the bridge world, bridge players, and bridge organization’s leaders. I gave the article to some non-bridge players to see their reaction. They said, “I thought you said bridge is fun and stimulating. If the slightest irregularity leads to such a negative, vindictive tone talking about legal action and sever punishment, why bother? I don’t think I want to be involved with that type of neurotic personalities.” Note: these are their words, not mine. But, I too felt totally alienated by the response. It seems that IF we are representing the USA, the USBF should have taken ownership and apologized to the WBF, upset sponsors (if the existed), and worked to deflect the issue away from being a [uSA] political statement to what it appears to be, a statement to the other players. The stance taken by the USBF leadership did nothing but spread dissent, anger, us-against-them, and overall negativity in both the outside world and the bridge community. If these World Bridge Events are about representing countries/zones rather then just a conduit to bringing the great players together, then the USBF should have made it clear, after apologizing, that they intended to set strict dress policies about what members of the USA Teams may wear or display in the future so there are no future potentially embarrassing incidents occur regardless of it embarrasses the USBF, WBF, or bridge players in the USA. Such a reaction would have given a positive image of the bridge world instead of the black-eye it received. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/14/arts/14b...rss&oref=slogin

Their sign reads likes a personal statement, probably to the other bridge players at the event. It has no element of what I consider a political statement like “Stop the War Now”, “Get Out of Iraq”, “Fund health Care for all”,. “Vote for Hillary”, or “I Don’t Approve of Bush, Just Like 75% of Americans Don’t. Would everyone be in the same uproar if each woman had worn a Pink Ribbon to show their support for Breast Cancer Research. What if they wore two ribbons where the second one was Red for AIDS Research? Do these types of personal statements also deserve sanctions? Clearly, the USBF does not have a clearly defined dress policy or specific uniform the members must wear. Until they do create such a policy that clearly states what is acceptable to display on their person in any public place at the tournament, any talk of sanctions it completely out of line.

I lead a spade!

How do I remove an old forum ID I no longer wish to use? [FYI: Not this one!] Thank you.

On all WinXP machines I have tested, all have had the same issue. If disconnected or signed-off with out exiting the program, BBO will NOT EVER successfully re-connect. [it hangs at the (re)connecting message for as long as I do not kill the process.] It does not matter if it was BBO trying an auto-reconnect on its own, if I am returned to the “Login” window, or if I am returned to the “main menu” window. To get back on, I must EXIT the program completely and restart the client. I have not tested this on my Windows 2000/2003 systems. They are servers with restricted use. I have tested on other people’s WinXP system with the same result as on my systems. This “bug” has existed for several (possibly all) versions. It just was not critical enough to both to write about. Thank you. The Bain Also posted under Suggestions for the Software. I am new, so I am not clear where to post this problem. Sorry.