BillHiggin

"Wrong" is much too strong a word here. Both your figures and mine are probably written with too much precision. Your 40-50-10 figures are certainly great for "at the table" math, but really represent single digit accuracy. Two digit accuracy would be 41-50-9. Adding another decimal point would be about 40.7-50.0-9.3 but then other inferences really become significant. If we round off properly to two digit percentages then your 58% and my 58% are no longer different! I would certainly use the 40-50-10 figures when I did not have access to a high powered computer.

This question brings up a B/I type issue (Csaba surely never would even consider cashing the Ace first since experts immediately know that the King is the correct honor). Cashing the Ace first will lose to both 4-0 splits since you now have lost the chance to finesse twice. The two options to finesse before cashing either honor are also unequal - leading the Jack towards the King will pick up either 4-0 split but leading towards the Jack will only pick up one of them. In fact, leading the Jack towards the King with the intention of letting it ride is better than cashing the Ace first. Exact percentages are seldom really useful - at the table there is usually some additional information. But assuming that the only real information available is limited to the opening lead and the card played by RHO to that trick (and assuming the long suit is in declarer's hand for simplicity purposes), precise numbers would be: 1a] Cash King then the Ace - 58.1% 2] Cash King then finesse - 56.2% 4a] Hook LHO immediately - 54.7% 1b] Cash Ace then the King - 53.4% 3] Cash Ace then finesse - 51.6% 4b] Hook RHO immediately - 50.0%

Today, an opponent actually specified a line of play in the claim box. I was shocked that the accept/reject dialog displayed actually covered part of declarer's hand (my LHO). Note that I was using the Flash/Browser version of BBO. There was no actual damage (it was a valid claim). I expect it will be another 6 months or so before someone else actually specifies a line of play so the issue will not arise too often. Still ....

A swap of 'trans to ♣ then 3♦' and 3♦ from AMBRA: 'trans to ♣ then 3♦' = both minors GF then 3♥ asks for shortness 3♦ = GF long in one minor, short in the other then 3♥ asks which (3♠ = long ♣, 3N+ = long ♦) The swap ensures that transfer to ♣ is not done on a ♣ shortness. This is a bit more complex than I really prefer, but the idea itself seems reasonable and this topic seems as good a place as any for mentioning it.

All Bridge players fall into one of two groups: Those who are similar to me The rest

Older version (GIB): cheap cue = raise, dear cue = 4th suit Kleinman version: cheap = cheap, dear = dear. Exception for non touching suits - transfer.

I'll bite. What is "the usual way"? The explanation given for 3♣ seems to match what I think is the standard(original version). Danny Klienman suggested another approach which I would prefer if all other things were equal. But competing versions is always a very real danger.

He did - open the longer minor when they are unequal. A: 1C - 3 clubs is longer than 2 diamonds B: 1C - same C: 1C - 4 is more than 1 D: 1C - 4 is more than 3 E: 1H - 5 is 5 (I would not criticize someone that decided to treat the heart suit as a 4 card suit - as long as they stick to that through the auction).

Fourth possible plan: ---1D, D, D (may miss heart fit but will not have a disaster) It may seem strange, but a mentor claims that no less than Dano DeFalco told him "If you have a seven card suit then you have a one-suited hand" and stuck to it even for 7-6 examples with no strength in the seven bagger and a strong 6 card suit. I wish I could offer more than a third hand attribution.

Since the data seems to have been pulled from vugraph records, the statistics in the list will be composite stats (i.e. both intermixed).

He does about as well under either name ;)

I am trying to visualize this strong hand which does not have diamond support but needs help with heart stoppers (and clearly has no more than a jack in clubs). Must have about 7 or 8 spade honors eh? I have stopped trembling at the prospect of the opponents sacrificing in 4 or 5 hearts tho. I trust that insufficient bids are still outlawed. Redouble - there may easily be a grand.

From documentation at: http://community.invisionpower.com/resources/documentation/index.html/_/documentation/administrator-control-panel/look-and-feel/post-content-emoticon-management-r166 If the activation text were changed to "B-)" most of the issues would go away.

In the past there was a time when I clearly had too much time on my hands. I calculated the number of hands for each possible distribution and each losing trick count. From that exercise, I can state that the average raw losing trick count is 7.56. That would be consistent with the 4.5 playing tricks mentioned above (only under the limited conditions where the ltc rule of 24 has some validity).

For those that play fit jumps by a passed hand, how far off is the North hand from such? (I presume that balanced hand is not a plus factor ). South would certainly perk up upon hearing a 3♣ fit jump response!

In fact, you only make 6♠ by making an error!

I am able to download the pdf (but not the txt version of the FD file). Your suspicions are mostly correct. Bridgeguys has pdfs of 3 issues of a Delhi Bridge Association Newsletter that each contain a single page article on Gazzilli. This pdf contains the first two of those pages. For some reason the newsletter pages contain the attribution "(Contributed by Sudhir Aggarwal)" that is missing from this pdf.

In "a fairly standard 2/1 system" this is a known problem situation. By that I mean responding 1♠ to a 1♥ opening bid while holding game forcing values and heart support. On good days, opener will rebid 1N or raise spades, then things are fairly simple. If the rebid is in a minor, you can at least use the 4th suit to establish the GF. But if he rebids any number of hearts, you are in deep stinky stuff as far as scientific bidding goes. Responder will need to guess well and will generally not be able to determine whether opener likes the spade suit or not.

At the size used for pips on playing cards, the 4 color schemes do not cause me much trouble. When used in publications at smaller text font scale, the orange and green can tend to disappear (which is very annoying). The ♦ symbol offered in this editor is NOT my friend.

In fact: 1 of 12 males have impaired color vision (inaccurately called color blindness). That means 1 of 24 people or about 4%.

Of course you will also use 1♣-1♦-1z-2N as a relay to 3♣ You may have room for some serious food asking bids!

Another way to see your own profile: Kibitz some table, show kibitzers and your name will be in that list. Now you can view your own profile just like any other. Note that it is likely that you will see "Tournament completion rate: Unknown". This means that you have not played at least 10 tournaments in the last month (and will be rejected from any tournament requiring any completion rate at all - bummer).

Partnership agreement alarm! When a partnership has a fundamental disagreement, there needs to be a resolution. Absolutely the worst possible outcome is for each member of the partnership to declare victory and proceed each according to their own ideas. Even if we could say that one opinion was clearly much better than the other, agreeing to the poorer opinion will still work out much better than having no agreement at all (or a known disagreement).

I have to do more than scroll. I need a serious magnifying glass! But then I could use it on Ben's hand diagram as well. Am I experiencing a browser specific issue (I am using Google Chrome) or do others also find these too small?

Perceptions as to what is happening may vary. I had just arrived at the table when the chat series from the OP occurred. My impression was that Larry was acknowledging that he had re-enabled kib chat and making a general warning to all. It was clear that Steve thought the general warning was aimed specifically at him. I still do not see it that way. I.e. the phrase above just happened to occur prior to the warning rather than triggering it. Clearly, Steve sees it the other way.