ralph23

You do have an agreement, but its terms aren't clear. Do you think they are clear? Yes very. But it's a secret as to what they are..... ;) Are you playing Roman D0P1 or just plain D0P1? Your card says "D0P1" -- do you imply "Roman" in front of that, because you're playing RKC? Or do you just take "D0P1" literally? I guess you think it's so clear that even a question as to what the calls mean is an insult. So be it. It's not so clear.

Now that should work and avoids the nastiness of what our calls mean over 5♥!!

Naw, because you're obviously a literalist.....

You do have an agreement, but its terms aren't clear. Do you think they are clear? What would you bid over 5♥ if you held 3 keycards for instance??

A nice example of insufficiently articulated agreements! Part of the problem is that D0P1 really isn't a very good name. Here's what I suspect happened (just a rational reconstruction, I don't recollect this): In ye olde days, before RKC was popular, the name and the method fit together fine. If you doubled, that was the "first step response" and showed zero Aces. If you passed, that was the "second step response" and showed one Ace. Etc. WIth regular Blackwood, all is fine. Then the methods changed: RKC and even 1430 came along. So "the first step response" was no longer just "zero Aces." It was "0 or 3 keycards" or even "1 or 4 keycards." But the name D0P1 didn't change, because it was a cool name. So now, we get to guess whether our expert partner is a 1. literalist (for him, "D0P1" means just what it says: With zero Aces (Keycards??) double; with one, pass; or 2. functionalist ("D0P1" is just a handy word to describe our methods in interference; it's not to be interpreted literally; we're still playing 1430, but the "first step response" -- showing 1 or 4 keys --- is just now double instead of 5♣, and the "second step response" --- showing 0 or 3 --- is now Pass instead of 5♦). But even guessing this right doesn't solve our problem. Because partner must make the same guess, as to what we are thinking! I.e. even if he is a functionalist and we guess that correctly, is he clever enough to know that we figured out that he is a functionalist? Or is he just going to say "Oh my partner's surely a literalist so when he passes he has one (Ace? Keycard?)" Maybe I'll just circumvent the problem and go ahead and bid 6. Actually, I'll probably assume "Functionalism is more aesthetically pleasing and my partner's smart enough to know this and to know I know it, so I'll double to show the first step of one key card and then end up guessing later." Note, that there's no advantage to playing "double" or "pass" as 1430 or 3014 here, as there is an advantage to playing 1430 over 3014 without interference. Double and pass are just arbitrary calls that take up zero room. So there's really no advantage to either literalism or functionalism here. People will guess differently but imo it is just going to be a guess. Another thought: Refuse the insufficient bid and maybe he will pass and the problem will go away! Probably not, as I think he meant to bid 5♥ all along, but maybe it's a shot.

1♥. Bidding a 4 card ♦ suit here is for the birds.... partner doesn't have ♦ when he opens 1♣. Not in my partnerships, anyhow. If he has 4♦, then he also has 5♣ and is strong enough to reverse, so I'm not worried about missing a ♦ fit. With such a weak hand, need to bid the ♥s right away and speak my peace quickly. Yes, there are hands that I would pass as responder after a double by my RHO, but would bid after RHO passes, but this isn't one of them.

http://www.acbl-district13.org/artic003.htm Article using the "Monty Hall problem" as a teaching tool to explain RC in bridge. http://bridge.thomasoandrews.com/deals/hands/triple2.html Setting out a "subtle form of RC" similar in principle to the example created by Ken.

One time it's wrong to lead a singleton is when, from the auction, partner is known to be so broke that there is no way he will get the lead. However, your partner overcalled. Hence, he's not broke. No reason he can't have the Ace of that suit. This time it didn't work out. Oh well. That does not prove it was wrong or a mistake.

RKC for ♥, unless you play kickback.

You seem perhaps a little confused about the rules in asking opponents about their bids, and how they are to answer. I probably can't undo the confusion but here goes anyway. You are entitled to know opps agreements (explicit or implicit) about the meanings of their bids. You are not entitled to know whether the bidder's hand in fact conforms to the agreement. Some people say, "You're not entitled to know the contents of an opp's hand, only their agreements." When your LHO answered, he obviously did not give you their partnership agreement. Their agreement as to a 1NT overcall by a passed hand CANNOT possibly be a balanced 15-17. Such a hand would open 1nt (playing strong NTs anyway and in any event it would open something). They cannot possibly have the agreement that such a hand must originally pass, then wait and hope it can overcall 1NT. So he did not answer the right question. (In "standard" -- whatever that is--, a 1nt overcall by a passed hand is "unusual" --a variety of the unusual NT --and shows the two lowest unbid suits.) If you had persisted and said "No, don't tell me about your hand, what is your agreement??" you probably would have gotten a "huh??" response or maybe the probable correct response "We don't have an agreement as to the meaning of the 1nt overcall by a passed hand." Instead, he lied about his hand and there is a Law addressing an opponent's doing this sort of thing. Someone else will cite it soon enough.... You should have received relief, but not because he didn't truthfully tell you what his hand was! He should not have said anything about his actual hand, of course. What he should have said was either "Shows the red suits" or "Shows the minors" or "No agreement, let's hope my p can figure it out!!" He was obviously a poker player unfamiliar with bridge, eh ??? :P In any case, it's no different in real life bridge. The opp's statements are not recorded. So BBO and real life are in a dead heat as far as that goes. In BBO at least the auction is recorded and the fact that your LHO overcalled 1nt will not be disputable, and that makes your story credible, especially if LHO was not loaded with length in the two lowest unbid suits. So perhaps you just did not have a very astute director?

2♠ all day.

It is probably out there somewhere on the Web, and I think Martin Gardner included it in his paradox book...which I no longer have.... the Great Predictor? Do you know it ? I think it is also called Newcomb's Paradox...... regarding two boxes....

Restricted strawberry shortcake ????

Did I miss something? They actually ISSUED a statement? I thought all that had happened so far was that the BoD of USBF voted on Monday 15 October to issue a "letter of regret" == and that Jan Martel was assigned to draft the same for the Board's review and later issuance. BTW, for those not so familiar with the language of diplomacy, a "letter of regret" or "statement of regret" is not an apology. "The United States deeply regrets the disruption that the earthquake has caused for the people of Chile....." -- the US can't "apologize" for the earthquake. It can express regret that it happened.

Well really what people are intending to do is smear the politician(s) leading a country, not the people who reside in it. But it's true, the peanut galleries are often careless or thoughtless and end up smearing the innocent people as well, even those who also hate the politician. It almost makes one think that if one despises an unpopular politician who leads ones country, that one should make sure the world knows not to make the mistake of necessarily associating the people with the leader. ..... Perhaps by a small sign held up during the only time in their lives that there is a worldwide audience to actually receive the message? Oops, sorry. Blasphemy. I wasn't referring to the ladies, Josh. I was referring to the folks in the other thread who decided to take a completely off-topic, gratuitous and baseless swipe at the Iranian people. One person presented a hypothetical situation: "So Robbie Fissure, America's greatest bridge player, wins (with his team) the BB held in Chicago, and holds up a sign stating: "Jews are scum. Shame they were not exterminated long ago like rodents. Hitler was right."" Another person said: "... But I bet he'd be welcome in Iran." To which the first person responded: "May be right about Iran !!" I seem to be the only person here who found that offensive and completely inappropriate for this type of forum. I wouldn't want something similar said about either of my native lands and while I don't know anyone who lives in Iran or who is from Iran, I'm quite certain they would feel the same way. If this were a political forum, wingnutty flatulence such as that would be completely acceptable, of course, but it's not. Mr. Anything Goes, I think your post is offensive to someone -- don't know who but surely someone ---and should be removed. LOL. :) :) :lol: Freedom of speech = bad when Jon's ox (or ox of his Iranian pals) is gored Freedom of speech = good when someone else's ox is gored Still too funny for words. This Water Cooler isn't a political forum? Who made that rule? Oh sorry ... YOU did of course, so it must be true!! :lol: :lol: :lol: ... well maybe it's not a "true" political forum like the presentations of the Venice Cup are but .... :lol: