Apollo81

Can someone suggest a good deal generator that is web-based? I used to enjoy http://www.rpbridge.net/xwd2.htm I've tried http://www.playbridge.com, but I don't think it works properly. For instance when I specify I want a hand with 5-6 spades, it almost always deals 6.

I'd like people to get my real name if they care enough to click on my profile, but not otherwise. I realize that there's nothing stopping me from doing this using the existing features, but it would be nice to have a name field alongside homepage, etc. in the profile.

I'm surprised there is no area for a member's real name in the BBF profile area. I would post this information in such an area if it were available.

I would bid RKC and try to let partner know we have all the keycards. That way partner can bid 7 if he has a decent 6-5 hand.

In 10 years of tournament play I have never accidentally seen a hand or auction at another table, and I don't think I've been "trying" not to.

Where did I say I was convinced? I just said my mind is more open than it was before. Sorry. Partially convinced? I just don't think their opinions have any validity. Well I'm still against the ban. I just don't want to lose because there is a ridiculously easy, virtually undiscoverable way for my opponents to cheat. Name another such way?

All of the following were suggested during this conversation: - Two members of the same team being away from the playing area at the same time during the match would appear suspicious. (obv this happens all the time in real life -- remember this is from a non bridge player perspective) - There are many more people who would cheat in private (e.g. via texting) than in public (e.g. while playing at a table) for fear of being discovered - Passing written notes (while abiding by the one-person-at-a-time-away-from-playing-area policy) is much more likely to be discovered and therefore would be practiced far less frequently than text cheating.

Where did I say I was convinced? I just said my mind is more open than it was before.

agree at IMPs -- makes sense to believe that the opps have spades well under control in this auction at MPs I think I would chicken out and lead a club; I could be convinced that the ♥J is also the right lead here though

This doesn't make any sense. If I were Justin then I would be posting a 3-letter acronym right now. There are X people alive today, so the number is somewhere between 0 and X, inclusive.

BLUUUUHMERRRR! Ok I admit it, you lost me! Maybe he means 1♣-1NT-3♣-4♥ or something.

I would also tend to pass 3♣. We're almost certainly losing at least one club trick, so for 3NT (for instance) to make we need partner to have a spade stopper and something in hearts that prevents that suit from being run against us. However, I don't think I could actually bring myself to pass red at IMPs. I'm pretty sure I'd pass at other colors/scoring.

Since the nationals this summer will be in D.C. (which is roughly where I live), the subject came up at work (there aren't any other bridge players at work). In the course of things I mentioned the cell phone ban, and to my surprise the main reaction I got was "well of course cell phones are banned, it would be trivially easy to cheat using them since you could do it discreetly" While I have been opposed to the ban, this reaction made me think twice about it. Perhaps I have been assuming that the number of people who would cheat if given an easy opportunity is a lot lower than it really is.

I suggest you use 3♥ as an aggressive invitation and 4♥ as a conservative invitation.

I would definitely not pass 2♥ on xx Axxx Axxx xxx. There are 5-5 minimums where game is excellent.

3♦

Perhaps we will set if we wait for our club tricks. As such, I'll lead a diamond which looks like the most passive lead.

[hv=d=w&v=b&n=sakthxxxdxckt9xxx&w=sjxxhxxxdakjtxxxc&e=sxxxxhjxxdqxxcajx&s=sqxxhakqtdxxcqxxx]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] I was West. South at my table reopened with a double and North bid the cold 5♣. I'm rather shocked that North didn't open 2♣ Precision OR negative double 3♦. I was telling some people how I got "fixed" on this hand, and I was getting suggestions that double was a reasonable call -- after all both opponents are passed hands. Anyway I thought the double was pretty crazy -- posted it here to see what people thought. Incidentally -- what would people do with the West hand in 1st seat? I thought bidding 3♦ was out since it was too likely we would miss a cold major or 3NT game. I considered a 1♦ opening.

agree with pass -- either LHO is about to bid some large number of diamonds or partner has the big hand double (and therefore might have only 2 spades)

How can dumping possibly ever be sportsmanlike or ethical?

All Vul, IMPs ♠Qxx ♥AKQT ♦xx ♣Qxxx (p)-p-(p)-1NT* (3♦)-p-(p)-? *11-14 you're playing negative doubles here

I don't like the suit for 5, but between the vulnerability, seating, and the heart void, I'm persuaded. Change any one of these things and I wouldn't open 5.

1. Redouble. I don't care whether this means I have first-round control or whether I have a partial stopper. Either way it's the right bid. 2. 4♠ 3. hearts definitely, phil summed it up well

It's actually pretty helpful that they've psyched. Now you can double and bid 4♠ when RHO runs to show a powerful hand with spades (as opposed to bidding 4♠ directly which could be less power and more shape). If RHO had just bid 4♥ like a normal person then we'd have no way to distinguish these two hand types.

Since partner has short spades and passed, he doesn't have a good hand. Pass, as 4♠ and any higher contract rate to go down.