PrinceNep

Thanks for the endorsement, Lall, Debbie, Donn, Chase and Dave. As for letting "stars" play, I can certainly keep that in mind for the future. Since this is the first time we are trying this event, we need to determine the general success of it. Perhaps in the Fall, we can try an event where each pair must contain at least one player 25 or younger. Unfortunately, I don't have control over the age boundary. However, the ACBL allows the addition of pairs/teams, who would otherwise not be qualified for the event, to help fill in "awkward movements". The worst case scenario, the regular Midnight KOs are in the same room ... so socializing between rounds (which last about 15 minutes anyway?) will still be easy. Thanks for your feedback.

Free Junior Midnight Zip KOs at the 2013 Spring NABC in St. Louis What: Free Junior Midnight Zip KOs Where: 2013 Spring NABC in St. Louis When: Saturday, March 16 Time: 11:30 pm Had enough of serious bridge for one day? Grab your friends and kick back over a casual Midnight Zip KO before crashing in your hotel room. Wait, some of you have never played in a Midnight Zip KO before? It's, like, all the best parts of bridge. Here's the low down: 6 board matches, 5 minutes a board. Winners move on to the next round. It's fast and fun, and oh by the way, you can still win masterpoints. You should totally play with someone you've never played with before, or try a new bidding system. Partners and teams are guaranteed, so if you can't talk your friends into it, there will still be other cool players to play with. There will be free drinks and snacks all night, so even if you get knocked out, you can grab some munchies and watch the winners go head to head. This event will be open to players 25 and younger, and starts at 11:30 pm. Why 11:30 pm when it is called Midnight Zip KO? Good question! But you'll be playing well past midnight anyway … so the earlier we can get it started the better. I mean, you still have to play bridge the next day, right? Just next door will be the Open Midnight Zip KOs, for anyone 26 and older … so even your parents or older friends can play while you hang out with us. It's Saturday night, so what's wrong with staying up late for some fun, not-so-serious bridge? See ya there!

Hi All, I have a quick question in regards to percentages and likelihood of breaks. I'm using the website: http://www.automaton.gr/tt/en/OddsTbl.htm It seems to be a very useful tool. When I was goofing around with this, however, I came upon a peculiarity. When I enter Qxxx, there are 4 types of hands which have a 1 frequency. I'm assuming (and this is what I'm attempting to confirm) that the site also takes into consideration that 3-1 breaks are more likely than 4-0 AND/OR the theory of empty spaces. Can someone give me the mathematical backing to get to the percentage for a Qxxx opposite void (suggested probability of 4.783) verses Q opposite xxx (suggested probability of 6.217). The more information/explanation you can provide the better. Thank you for your help in advance!

I have no qualms with that ... but I consider that a situation in which a Procedural Penalty is the only way to restore equity. Certainly those who are affected by the irregularity should be taken into consideration as well.

Just a comment on the procedural penalties .. I enjoy reading the commentary on situations regarding law on the forums. Situations can be so unique and dealing with them can be ridiculously complicated. The one thing I always shake my head over, however, is the amount of Procedural Penalties that you people would hand out. Procedural Penalties, especially at the CLUB level, should be reserved for situations in which someone intentionally attempted to foul the board or cheat (and maybe loosely for those who have a record of being told the same thing over and over and just not getting it). Not everyone can be as savvy regarding the laws as the majority of you here. You need to take a step back and realize that the PURPOSE of these people to gather in a room is to PLAY a GAME and ENJOY themselves. What is the point in punishing someone because they didn't follow the LAWS exactly to the tee? Those who assign a PP every chance they get, need to reevaluate why we get together to play cards in the first place. Certainly there is a time and place for Procedural Penalties, and if it is absolutely necessary in order to restore equity, then that route must be taken. I would expect any good club owner to attempt to restore equity to the best of their ability without giving Procedural Penalties that aren't merited. Education is the goal here ... not punishment.

LOL ... I don't think there is any question to the jurisdiction.

Giving Count from 9x or J9? :(

Phil, This becomes an even more interesting problem then. Surely LHO will go up with the King if they have it. If that is the case, then declarer has 2 hearts, 2 heart ruffs, 4 diamonds and the Spade King for 9 tricks ... so we can never set it if partner has Qx of Spades. I'd have to change my perspective about the layout in my last post, as obviously if declarer has Kxx then the 10 sets up in Dummy while partners QJ drops doubleton. Now we don't get two spades. I guess we need to find declarer with QJx in Spades instead of Kxx.

I like Mich-b's bidding, except over 3♠ I think South should bid 4♣ and then North 4♦. Now South can Keycard and realistically stop in 6♥ ... bidding 7♥ on state of the match (Jxx in one suit and 3-2 in another happens sometimes, right?).

Hey Matt, LHO appears to be 3-5-4-1 (something like Kxx AQ875 AKJ3 x). Looks right to duck this heart. When LHO plays another heart, partner should cover correctly which is ruffed in dummy. Whatever black suit that LHO now leads (likely spades), we fly Ace and play another Diamond. Should come to two spades, 1 club and 2 hearts. The need to ruff two hearts in dummy suggests the poor quality of LHO's suit.

With that logic, Kx Kx in the majors wouldn't be enough to get to 3NT either. I can't say this hand is an overwhelmingly "you must get to 3NT", but I just don't understand driving there no matter what RHO is showing. That is all I'm saying. If you don't have methods to show stoppers in this auction (understandably), then perhaps you should just show your diamonds as naturally as possible and leave it at that. If partner can bid 3NT by himself over that, all the better.

How does partner know that you have a Heart Stopper on this hand if 2D showed the majors?

I totally agree with you hroth. I don't see why someone would choose "No Difference". To bid 3NT no matter what RHO is showing is not playing partnership bridge. Even though it is MPs and Non Vuln, RHO is still aloud to have AKQJx in Spades. One hopes that you have agreements in place to handle these types of hands to determine if you belong in 3NT vs a minor suit. If RHO has the majors, I'm going to bid to show a heart stopper and let partner make an intelligent decision If RHO has hearts and a minor, I'm going to show a GF with diamonds on the way to 3NT. You can decide that the hand is a GF, but I can't see how you can determine you are going to 3NT regardless of what RHO has.

Adam, In addition to your point, I was also under the impression that "dual methods" were a system that declarer would NOT be able to interpret the meaning but the defense would. By leading odd/even cards to indicate two different suits as signals, the opponents are in a much better position to decipher the meaning while the declarer is not. In the method listed above for opening lead, I don't see any reason why if the declarer asked what the meaning of the lead meant, that he wouldn't be able to figure it out. Declarer is in plenty of a position to understand the information and play accordingly. I don't quite see why this method would be damaging so long as the opponents accurately describe their agreement when asked. It should be the responsibility of the declarer to ask for the lead/carding methods at trick one so that he can use the information accordingly. This doesn't seem to me to fall into the "dual message" category anymore than when I lead "low" I'm asking for a continuation and when I lead "high" I'm asking for non-continuation.

I agree with JLogic entirely ... sounds like a good partner!