BillHiggin

OK just give me the advanced/expert responses to RKCB with a void and ignore where this thread is posted The void responses according to Kantar: 5N = even number of key cards and some void (6C asks location - if hearts agreed, cannot distinguish between black voids) 6 of suit = odd number of key cards and that void (6H when hearts agreed shows spade void and odd number of key cards) Danger: Some reverse the odd/even responses Danger: Random partners have never heard of this and will be confused. As to the odds, the 6♥ bid should show that a keycard is missing. If no keycards were missing then 4N asker should continue investigation of a possible grand by either asking about the ♥Q if not holding that or about kings (per your agreements - either count or specific kings). Since that did not happen, you should be missing a key card and since you do not have the ♥Q, might be missing that as well. If the missing key card is the ♠A, you might gain 500 by bidding 7 If the missing key card is a minor suit ace, you lose 980 by bidding 7 If the missing key card is the ♥K, then you have a bit less then a 50% chance of gaining 500 and a bit more than a 50% chance of losing 980 Modify all that by the chances that 6 was not making either and the chances of them doubling the grand. But, your ev (expected value) by raising is definitely negative.

If you want to try this example in the advanced/expert discussion, then there are ways to show voids in response to RKCB. Unfortunately, there are variations and that means possible misunderstandings. For B/I players, common fairly good advice is "do not bid grand slams unless you are absolutely sure". Here, you risked 980 points to gain 500 points on the hope that your void matched the missing ace - coin flips that risk twice what they rate to win are - well they are sucker bets.

It is legal, but that is not the same as wise. At the club level, many of your opponents will mistakenly decide to not bid when you make a powerful noise, and your strategy may gain. Better players will look for opportunities to interfere with your artificial auctions and you will find yourself paying out to doubled contracts that you cannot set (note that top players do not include these defensivly poor hands in their artificial openings - they have learned the hard way). The strong artificial opening bid (whether 2♣ or 1♣ or something else) is not the bid that produces your best auctions - it is the limits these bids place on the natural openings that gives them value. As far as the concerns about disclosure that others have expressed - so what. If you have playing strength, you are going to bid. If the 2♣ opening was based more on shape than on real muscle, the chances of real success for your bids has dramatically increased (the rest of the field not getting an opportunity to speak at a low level). Once you hear the normal uniformative explanation, bid your hand. A small percent of the time, you will get fixed - that happens.

I don't see why you need a quantitative 4NT when opener showed 18-19 exactly, but ok you can play it as that :( I agree that there is little need for quantitative when opener's range is so well defined. The actual range definition was not given and some (rare) use 18-20. My point is that while you just might want one way to bid 4N quantitative that you certainly do not need more than one. I will not even accept Helene's exception - over 3♥, a 3♠ bid would be forcing so responder could bid that and then bid 4N over opener's 3N. The possibility of responder actually having interest in spades is why I would not apply kickback without partnership discussion (and then if we agreed that 4♠ was kickback, 4N would be ERKC with a ♠ void - which is not an impossibility).

Leading a singleton against a suit contract is often a good choice. Leading partner's suit is often a good choice (and has the added benefit that you can never be blamed if it is wrong). If you spend time watching the jec matches (a worthwhile activity), you will have plenty of opportunities to hear Larry Lande list "Benito's four rules". Those are: 1) You need a good excuse not to lead trumps 2) If you don't lead a singleton, you have not got one 3) Every card on defense should mean something 4) These rules have exceptions, you must learn them Number 4 may be the most important - for instance, leading a singleton trump (#1 and #2) is not such a great thing to do, and leading partner's suit may be better than trump or singleton leads. At the B/I level, players have not enough experience yet to always get it right (world class players do not always get it right). Your partner made a reasonable choice, and it did not work today. That adds to their experience and if they think about the whole hand, maybe they will see some clue that might have led them to the winning choice. If so, then they have more experience than they did before this hand. At least they did not forsake your suit to lead some other doubleton or (horror) from three small of some other suit. Once your partner's start making the best lead choices on a consistent basis, they will be moving out of the BIL.

2♠ If I am forced to justify, then I like my queens to be in long suits. In practice, forced to justify actually means that this was not the best time for this action. So be it - will almost certainly do it again next time.

1♣ 1♥ 2N 4N Would have been quantitative. Partner did not do that. He asked about our major holding and then made a gleeful noise when we admitted to 3 card support for his suit. His values are unbounded. Ours are tightly limited. He wants to know about keycards and there is no ambiguity about that.

1♥ In a Walsh context, some agreement is needed about this, and style may depend on your checkback methods. My preference (which carries influence rating of around 0.01%) involves full xyz checkback and a soft definition of 1♠ here (IMP scoring only) - opener bids 1♠ with 4 when his hand is more suit oriented, but not necessarily unbalanced (values are "aces and spaces"). I prefer the jump to 2♥ to show the one bid problem hand - 5♠-4♥ and less than invite strength. I would definitely expect a ♦ rebid by opener to deny 4♠. Oops - misread the auction!

Maybe we should ask them all to have a sign :)

To me, it looks harder to find an auction that does not lead to slam than one that does. I guess if one has no way at all to show the sixth spade early that things might bog down. Once the fit is found, neither partner has an excuse for stopping short of slam.

I covered 3 scenarios - double does not affect play, double helps declarer and double helps the defense. Yes, there was a bit of simplification for the first case - but the overall result is the same under that assumption. The other two assumptions are either big win or big loss situations and the math is rather trivial.

This is a nonsensical argument. I'll let you figure out why. I don't mean to say that the conclusion is wrong, just that the argument cuts no wood (literal translation of a Dutch expression especially for Josh). Assume that double does not alter the chances of the contract succeeding. Let a be the number of other tables that stop short of game. Let b be the number of other tables that bid game and do not get doubled. Let c be the number of other tables that bid game and do get doubled. If they score 9 tricks then your score is a+b/2 if you do not double or a+b+c/2 if you do. Your gain is (b+c)/2 by doubling. If they score 10 tricks then your score is b/2+c if you do not double or c/2 if you do. Your risk is (b+c)/2 by doubling. Therefore, your risk to gain is equal - double when you estimate the odds of their success at less than 50%. When your double leads declarer to a line of play that works when normal lines fail, you lose big by doubling. When your double guides partner to a winning defense (or leads declarer to a losing line), you win big by doubling. Does that "cut wood"?

The idea of a double just because I hold most of our sides high cards is one that I find apalling. On this sort of auction, the opponents have bid a close game - they will have about 24-25 HCP. Whatever strength I do not hold of the remaining 15 or so will be in partner's hand. If I double because I hold most of it, all I do is aid declarer in his task. But, if I know trumps are splitting poorly then I can freely double regardless of my strength. Whatever I do not have, my partner will hold. Double here with knowledge of the poor split (either very short or long holding in their trump suit). In fact, the weaker you are the more effective your double will be (and partner will not even entertain pulling it).

It is important to recognize that an awards ceremony honors both the individuals and the organization they represent. The flag display and national anthem should be considered as tributes to that organization more than to the individuals (who may have quite tenuous ties to that nation). When opinions are expressed at such a ceremony, they will often be taken (whether that was the intention or not) as reflecting the opinions of the represented organization. That is what makes this inappropriate. It is also the reason that the USBF has every right to demand an apology.

And that is how people ought to be judged. Actions are a different story. Actions should be judged by their appropriatness irregardless of the intent of the actors. The individuals involved are to be congratulated for their fine performance at the bridge table. Their actions at the award ceremony (not them as individuals) are to be condemened as completely inappropriate at a formal occasion. Black power salutes are inappropriate at Olympic awards ceremonies. Michael Moore and the Oscar ceremonies themselves are a mockery (goal for many of the female finalists - dress as close to nude as you can get away with. For everyone - do whatever it takes to get press coverage).

The message of the jewelry or ribbons may be more clear than the sign. If you read through the threads, it doesn't seem that people can come to agreement about what this particular sign meant. What the sign meant is totally irrelevant. It is the sign itself that violated decorum.

Those who lump jewlrey sized religious emblems or small symbolic ribbons in with signs that can be read at a significant distance (further than personal conversation spacing) are simply trying to cloud the issue. You either have good sense or you don't. NO SIGNS!

I was not there. I have seen others who have traveled to similar events suggest that such may indeed happen. That possiblilty fits with the action taken, so I am willing to at least consider it. If the statement was strictly political, then it is totally out of line - but if it was "please don't blame or hassle us" then I have some sympathy. My political views are similar to those expressed, but I take extreme care to not express them in a context where my personal views either could be interpreted as the views of an organization I am representing or especially when my views moght be antagonistic to my hosts.

A truly unfortunate situation. I am willing to consider that this may have been a reaction to excess anti-american (anti gulf war) sentiment by others. That does not excuse the display. Appropriate action at this point - demand an apology. Appropriate reaction - deliver such in as sincere a manner as possible. Yes boss, I know what I did wrong and I will never do it again. Other than that - congratulations ladies on your fine victory at the bridge table.

As of yesterday, that is... What do you mean - is there some news I didn't catch that occured yesterday? 2007 laws were approved yesterday. There is substantial rewording and reordering of the rules on partnership understandings (I will not pretend to comprehend the implications). For a comparison of 1997 with 2007 on this section see http://www.ecatsbridge.com/Documents/files...ws/Law%2040.pdf I do not see where there is anything new that would further affect encrypted bidding agreements (but not seeing is different from asserting one way or the other).

I could be mistaken, but I believe that you must use anonymous login in order to have multiple viewer windows open - you cannot have multiple instances of your nick logged in. One named instance works - I was logged in via the windows client and had another anonymous bbotv instance running to kibitz both tables of the USA1/SA match.

Color blindness whining! The red used for ♦ and ♥ is giving me trouble. I can see them fine in the card diagrams (and the darker red used on card images is fine). In the bidding box and in the final contract box they give me trouble (background color). In the box at lower left, the "other room contract" is unreadable if it contains red symbols (this at the largest size table I could get - much worse when smaller). Perhaps there is some option to modify colors that I have not found. White backgrounds or a darker red would do the job for me. I know that I am not the only one with R/G colorblindness issues.

My opinion (fair market value is less than 2 cents) is to make 3 card super accepts (cheapest Nt bid) based more on control structure than strict min/max considerations. I would agree with a super accept on either example. I probably will not be able to make assumptions about my partner's failure to super accept until I can increase the value of my opinions to around a nickel or so.

My recollection of the tempo - reasonable but not excessive pause at trick one, completely in tempo up to the drop of the ♠J, and then the obvious claim. The play to the second round of trumps was quick enough that none of the commentators had a real chance to suggest he could get it right (the possibility of getting it wrong was mentioned).

http://www.brenning.se/results/2007/shangh...-qualifying.htm And the good news - their numbers agree with yours! There is a page with links to round by round butlers, but Fred might shoot me if I mentioned it :) (hint - think of 7-4-1-1 shaped hands)