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!

What in this auction would be a Cuebid? Wouldn't everything else be natural? I'm not sure I'm ready to let the auction 1S-2H-3m to be a cuebid in support of hearts and not be natural. I'm far more likely to need these calls as natural than I am to show a 16+ with 4+♥ hand. If I bid 2♠ with these hands, then we need a relay sequence ... now your system of 3♥ shows 3 and 4♥ shows 4 is not so easy. I would also think that 2NT and 3NT would be far more useful to show range than to be used artificially. Partner and I play 12-14/18+ 2NT rebid and 15-17 3NT rebid in these auctions. Making either of these artificial would put a lot of strain on opener. What alternatives are there?

Kfay, Given that it is IMPs, I agree with 2♣ and 1♦. Best to show where you live on the first hand. Partner will continue over 1♦ on the second hand if it is right, so I don't foresee missing a 4-4♥ fit. On the third hand, I like 1NT. Given that RHO is a passed hand and is doubling 1♣, he is almost assuredly 4-4 in the majors. With that information, you don't mind a lead in any suit and are in a good position to play the hand correctly. Why everyone wants to bid 1♠ and put partner in a tough situation without a ♥ stopper I don't know.

They do not, be assured. Really? What I find interesting is that if North shows a decent hand with 5+ Hearts, won't South Keycard? Won't he find out that his partner has both missing keycards? It is only at this point that I would expect BETTER players to try to count out 13 tricks to determine the best spot (5NT to follow of course). Some b/i players might be scared to bid 7, but others may bid it because they have all of the keycards and "a really good hand". 6♥+1 may be justifiable, but I wouldn't base it on the logic that "they don't have the methods to get to 7". Would you still assign this score if you found the traveler to have most pairs getting to 7♥ and thus give this pair an Avg-? Just food for thought.

I lol'd

Zenko, You are right that the situation is unusual to ask about the second discard and not the first. It may be that declarer missed the first discard. This does NOT, however, relieve the opponents from accurately describing what the ♠2 shows. This is taking advantage through deceit, which is unlawful. Had the opponent given the correct explanation as to what the second discard meant, but said nothing in regards to the ♠5, then all would seem fine. My example earlier was if someone asked what the ♠2 is I would say "count", as our first discard is lavinthal and all remainder discards are count in the suit discarded. If declarer next asked what the ♠5 meant, I would explain our methods thoroughly without referencing specific spot cards. By letting the opponents get away with this, you are condoning that there are "legitimate times to deceive the declarer with a misexplanation". There is no other way around this argument.

To all those who believe that the Offending Side doesn't deserve a penalty should reread what we were told in the initial post: The way this is presented is that they were completely aware of the ♠5, but gave an intentionally wrong explanation because declarer asked about the ♠2. This is entirely unethical. Had this been a novice player who was capable of not paying attention to the first discard and unintentionally gave an explanation due to their believing it was the first discard ... then there is no reason for this thread in the first place. E/W do deserve a penalty and N/S does deserve an adjustment. Nowhere in the original post or otherwise has it even been a possibility that E/W accidentally or unintentionally gave the wrong explanation. So that argument must be thrown out the window as far as assessing damage is concerned.

Everything here seems pretty logical with the exception of what the appropriate response is to the ♠2. Wouldn't the correct response be to explain whatever the 2nd order of signaling is? For example, my partner and I play lavinthal first discards. The following discard would be count. Should my opponent ask "what does this card mean?", my response should be "count". The earlier post where the defender must point out that it is not the first discard and explain what the ♠5 said earlier seems to be way over the top in the reverse direction. Should the declarer be allowed at any time throughout the hand to ask what a defenders first discard was? Absolutely not, but that is about the equivalent of explaining the agreement of the ♠5. Had declarer asked specifically "what did the ♠5 show", then a correct explanation seems in order. The only reason this is actually an issue is the fact you were blatantly lied to. For that, the defenders deserve to be severely punished.

I'm playing LHO to be 5-3-3-2 or 5-2-3-3. I want to protect against AJ of clubs (which is why I wouldn't hook the Club Jack at trick two). I'm going to ruff trick one, KQ of diamonds, AQ of Hearts, A of Diamonds and a Club to the King. I assume this loses to LHO Ace of Clubs. He is either forced to lead away from AJ(x) of Clubs or King of Spades. If he happens to return the last trump, then I have to play him for AJ of Clubs, so I lead up to Queen. If he returns the King of Spades (after winning the Club Ace), I ruff in dummy and play on Diamonds until RHO ruffs, which I over ruff and still have the Club Queen as an entry to get to the last potential diamond. If he returns a Low Club (after winning the Club Ace), then I play low to the 10 ... this is the worst case scenario.

Blackshoe, First: Law 68A: "Claim Defined Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks. A contestant also claims when he suggests that play be curtailed, or when he shows his cards (unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim)." So first and foremost, we agree this is a claim of two tricks and a concession of the third trick. You pointed out Law 68B: "Concession Defined Any statement to the effect that a contestant will lose a specific number of tricks is a concession of those tricks; a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of the remainder, if any. A player concedes all the remaining tricks when he abandons his hand. Regardless of the foregoing, if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects, no concession has occurred; Law 16, Unauthorised Information, may apply, so the Director should be summoned forthwith" Law 68D states: "After any claim or concession, play ceases. All play subsequent to a claim or concession shall be voided by the Director. If the claim or concession is acquiesced in, Law 69 applies; if it is disputed by any player (dummy included), the Director must be summoned immediately to apply Law 70 or Law 71, and no action may be taken pending the Director’s arrival." So I cannot see how play could possibly continue after West faces his hand and states a line of play. It is now entirely up to the Director to assign equality based on Law 70A: "General Objective In ruling on a contested claim, the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful points shall be resolved against the claimer." I believe the emphasis here is that any doubtful points shall be resolved against the claimer. I'll concede that the term OS may not be appropriate in this situation, but in context has the same meaning. E/W should be given the worst of equal options and N/S should be given the best of equal options. These were the points I was trying to make. I can't see how UI plays any role in this situation and I cannot fathom that the play "continue". There are 3 situations in which the Concession is overturned: "71A: Trick Cannot Be Lost 71B: Contract Already Fulfilled or Defeated 71C: Implausible Concession" I cannot see this particular situation falling into any of these three categories. It is not Implausible for East to duck the Queen of Spades. Therefore, the third trick belongs to N/S. Your thoughts?

Campboy, If this is the case, then truly what needs to be examined are the laws regarding claims and not a concession. Though West conceded a trick, he first and foremost made a claim. It is to my understanding that after ANY claim, play stops. Therefore, that is where the jurisdiction should fall. Blackshoe: E/W is the OS because W made an inaccurate claim. While West still has rights, they fall under the laws pertaining to claims. Explain to me why South should be punished when East sees West's hand and explains his alternate line of play? While I have no doubt that West's statement is probably legitimate, his partner's claim has given up the right to "alternative lines". It should come down to the laws regarding a claim and assigning appropriate tricks. It is possible for East to duck the spade trick, therefore the benefit of the doubt should be given to South ... who is again, the NOS.