Hanoi5

I think it could be any. It's a matter of agreement.

I voted for 3♠, as long as it is forcing. If it isn't 4♠ and a discussion afterwards.

I heard the Italian Bridge Federation appoints the three pairs that will represent the country.

What do you mean invitational? Could I pass 3♦? Could my partner pass 3♥ by me? Could my partner pass 3♠ by me? Explain this a bit please.

Is this one of the cases where irony is lost over the internet? Do you know what they put in Coke Zero? Do you know it's not the same in the US than in other countries? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola_Zero Anyway, I agree the guy is nuts and evil, but this is not what people should be worried about, there are plenty of worse things.

I'm surprised he didn't want his free mammogram, too. That was funny. And they'll just keep coming. There's an unwritten rule in the women are equal thing: it is not true. As a bridge player you should be aware that there's twice the chance of a woman having breast cancer than a man having prostate cancer.

What's the problem with 1♠? I like bidding 4 right away but the only way to find out about slam is to go slow, so 1♠ for me.

I really liked Gran Torino.

link please? I was writing on the subject for my Bridge Guide and I only found an article in a dead magazine (the American Popular Bridge) and some stuff in a chapter in a book. And also some stuff in the bridge encyclopedia. Not much. Can you link me to that book?

Maybe he's just psyching.

Allow me: LOL ?? LOL !! LOL

I'm thinking of ruffing the third diamond in dummy, returning to hand to win 2 hearts and another diamond towards the table. I'm playing all suits to break evenly (hearts 4 in West) and spade J with West. I'd only play the King from the table against someone who leads the Q from AQJ against suit contratcs, i.e. no one. If I held a singleton club I'd play the King (usually) especially to keep the leader from holding the first trick and possibly switching to a dangerous suit.

Just as I predicted in my first post! Edit: It can't be made, unless as someone said ♥A is led. With the ♠Q lead or any lead you wind up with one winner less than neccessary.

What 'no 4' said.

♦ I think.

1♥ just to have the follow-up (and that's what I'll do at the table).

This is a pretty interesting idea. And isn't the Bermuda bowl played like this? Or the bridge Olympiad? There are several groups (maybe there are too many teams/countries in each group) and then they revert to the knockout stage. Of course some people will say they are always in the 'death group' (Argentina anyone?), but I thnik it's a nice idea for tournaments where dumping has become an issue.

1NT-2♥-3♥ (stayman without a heart stopper)-Pa 3NT (I have the heart stopper)-Pa-4♦??? Anyway, I'm not sure how to continue after 3NT, Pass is an option (the best at MP's in this case) and I'm biased 'cause I see 6 cannot be made (unless the guy who bid 2♥ has ♥A and ♠QJT or any 4 or more spades). Of course that sequence works if you play Lebensohl, but anyway you should have clear agreements with a partner on what to do on these situations.

I want to play (edited: 5♣).

You guess what? If you give people what they want they'll always want more. If you control people they'll tend to behave correctly. What's the problem with them playing the same boards? Is it that they go to the bathroom and then comment on the hands? They can still talk about the hands they're playing and ask for advice and stuff, can't they? They could be leaving little pieces of paper for their partner's, they could write messages on the walls! I mean, if you let a player go to the bathroom during a match he could go there and flip a coin in order to decide what to do on a hand, and that is not allowed! He could write formulas on the toilet paper, you know, so I'll tell you how to solve it (just as not playing the same hands solves the security problem): You have the players sit at a toilet during the matches! There. Do you like my solution now? Does it make more sense? Now, if you explain to me that there was a breach of security during a tournament, that some players had access to the computer with the hands and therefore it was deemed better to just shuffle at the table and that each table shuffles their stuff, alright, I would accept that, but only as a part-time solution. And if you tell me that the more hands played the betterm for there is more variety then we could argue, but then you know what opinions are like. And finally you could tell me there is not enough people, machines, or boards for duplicating the hands, and then I'll tell you to use your money better. But I don't think having the players start or finish the matches as they see fit as a proper excuse, sorry.

So it is better to give in to the players' bad behaviour than making them follow rules? Amazing. It's a good thing people thinking like that are not in congress... Yes that's exactly what I said. Thank you for your fair and accurate quote so that we could have a reasonable discussion. Hanoi, let's say you were playing in an event like this and you thought maybe one pair were using the break for nefarious purposes. But you have the "right" to insist they stay at the table. Let's say you enforce that right against only the one pair you suspect. Now you have de facto accused them of c******g. If you enforce the right against all pairs, everyone will wonder why you are being so difficult. I'm not getting the issue here: - During the RR all teams played the same boards. They were in the same room. - Now on the KO teams are separated and sent to different hotel rooms and playing different hands on each match. - Why do you need them to play different hands? Excellent. And then when the finals start what if some players don't want to play in the other's schedule? All right, the schedules were posted at the beginning, but it doesn't change the fact that you're giving in to the player's whims and it is bound to have some consequences, especially in the world of bridge where egos are so inflated. Duplicated hands allow for better discussions and enjoyment of the game by players and kibitzers, as well as for easier reports and starting and finishing hours (order). Non-duplicated boards allow players to start at whatever hours they choose, go wherever they want to go during the match, smoke (and maybe even have a drink).

So it is better to give in to the players' bad behaviour than making them follow rules? Amazing. It's a good thing people thinking like that are not in congress...

Let me see if I understand this right: There's a team tournament and different matches (from the same tournament) are playing different sets of boards. If this is the case I think it is VERY wrong. We used to do this in my country but it led to so many complains and it was really unfair. What if we deal dull hands and win in only one board while the others are having swings all around? How about going into the next phase? Some teams will surely be more tired than others (they had more difficult decisions to take) and some others will be fresher (they're hands were 'easy'). Safety should be achieved in some other way, like having people watching in the bathroom or making sure there's no noise (-1 VP or X number of imp's for those who discuss the hand at the table).

4♣ was an interesting way of dealing with that problem hand. Pass is another. 4NT quantitative is wonderful but very few people will have such agreement. Why didn't partner bid 4NT over 4♦?

[hv=n=sqt9xxh6xxdxxcak9&s=sxhakjtxdakt9xxcx]133|200|[/hv] This was the bidding: Pa-2♣ 2♦-3♥ (4+♥'s & 5+♦'s) 4♣-4NT 5♣-5♦ 5♥-6♥ The lead was the ♠Ace. West takes the first trick and thinks for a little while before playing a club. Take it from there.