Karma

I blame the system on this one. In my basic system 2H is natural and the raise to 3H confirms H with some values. This leaves lots of room for exploring for slam. 2C 2D, 2H 3H, 3S 4C, 4D 5D BOOM

2H. Show my real suit and values. Not strong enough to X and bid H later. with one less king in a weaker hand I would double. Another problem will come later. If it is our hand then the problem is what to do over a likely 4S sacrifice.

2H. Show my real suit and values. Not strong enough to X and bid H later. with one less king in a weaker hand I would double. Another problem will come later. If it is our hand then the problem is what to do over a likely 4S sacrifice.

On IMDB, the movies are rated by the users. And all users have an equal vote in the rating of any movie. My suggestion for BBO is a user based rating system. Users rating other users. It could be a number scale, like 1-10. or level, Beginner/Novice/Int/Adv/Exp. For the level rating, the level would translate to a number, 1-5 and the average rating would show as the level. Users can rate other users only once, but would also have the ability to update their rating. Easy to do, just make a new rating and throw out the old one. A rating would need a minimum number of votes, say 10, to be valid. Until then, a player is unrated. To avoid data overload and to let a rating evolve, the system could throw away old ratings. Perhaps keeping the most recent 100 ratings. Personally, I prefer a number scale. I suspect a lot of players will get rated at 5-7. Then 8 would be an exceptionally good player and 9 would be real a expert. And for the seriously bad players that don't want anyone else to know about it, there is the hidden rating. Any player can choose to hide their rating. To further protect their level, they would appear as 'unrated'.

LOL, not really fair to say BRBR does scary things. The scary stuff is already there in the hand records !! The cool part is you can find out your favourite trump suit and the one you score best in. Eg, highest avg MPs or IMPs. that is always useful to know. :) :D

revisited: What if Stansby gets all the right explanations and thinks partner has received the same? Then he knows 3♥ shows minors and 7♠ is natural. Double of 7N is Lightner for the unbid suit, ♥s. The correct adjustment is 7NX-7.

ummm, did you miss a word and meant to write "Opponents did NOT open quite as light"? 5 years ago I was reading Bergen's book(s) on bidding and pre-balancing. This seems like a good application. If the auction goes 2♥ P P, what would you do in balancing seat with 1=4=3=5 shape and moderate values? I, for one, would pass with the expectation that 2♥ will make and any other action will be suicidal. The only way our side gets into the auction is for partner to balance in direct seat. What if partner has a moderate hand with 5=1=5=2 shape or similar but with bad suits that aren't worth a direct overcall? eg. KTxxx Q KTxxx Qx Max Hardy had a way to deal with this hand, but I don't. Neither suit is good enough for a direct overcall or as a lead directing bid. However, this hand is ideal for a direct balance and 3 ♦ is a safe contract. (3♣ safe too).

4♣, fit showing. Assuming competent opps, they will get to 4♠ or similar. I have already decided that 5♥ will be a good sacrifice and force the opps to make a decision at the 5 level. eg. 5♠ or 6♦ or ... 4♣ should get partner off to the right lead.

The auction was simple and fast: 1NT 2NT 3NT all pass. 15-17 NT, invitation, accept. My hand: ♠ 53 ♥ 98762 ♦ 9432 ♣ KT I decided to lead a ♥, my problem was which one. I tried the ♥8 (second from a bad suit), but the end result was not ideal. :( HINT: EDIT: looks like I can't use symbols in the poll section. (my first poll). [H E] = heart

pass. some famous player once wrote: "when you are fixed, stay fixed"

wow, a lot of heated discussions on this one. What really blows my mind is that so many world class experts can make so many novice mistakes!!! Error 1 - Garozzo forgot their agreement for 3♥. But at least he gave what he thought was the right explanation and played it as though partner knew what he was doing. Error 2 - bid of 7♠? surely these WC players can come up with a sequence to discover the missing control card and stop in a safe 6♠ contract. Error 2 - double of 7♠. bad idea. It was 50% to lead the wrong ace and 7♠ is making. It is also possible and likely there is no right ace to lead. If Garazzo was void in both red suits, then the auction would go exactly as it happened at the table. The only card I can have in my hand that justifies doubling 7♠ is the ace of trumps or similar, like KQ or QJT (or all three outside aces and a trump to lead). You are either getting a great score or a bad score and double won't help you. The risk /reward for the double is too high. Too much risk for not enough reward. Error 3 - Bidding partner's hand. For me, this is the worst one. De Falco assumed partner made a mistake and got a bid wrong. This is so very wrong on so many levels. Even if you know partner got a bid wrong, players are required by the laws to assume partner knows what they are doing and play/bid accordingly. If De Falco had followed the laws then he will pass 7♠X, have a chance for a good result, and know he did the right thing. Frankly, the adjusted result and penalty for this one were too generous. I can't imagine the difficulty of the director(s) in adjudicating this one. Error 4 - Double of 7NT. After the double of 7♠, this creates a problem for partner who is on lead. Giving partner a problem is not good. Even without the double of 7♠, double of 7NT is still wrong. Put yourself in West's seat and replay what west knows. 1 - Garozzo hasn't blinked and will be as cool as a cucumber as if this exact same auction came up this morning. 2 - Garozzo has a big hand, unknown shape/distn/strength. 3 - De Falco bid/showed/explained as 6 card spade suit. 4 - not on lead against 7NT. 5 - thinks partner got the same explanations. Thus, double of 7NT means nothing more than what brianshark wrote: "Sometimes double just means the opponents are idiots and they are going down". The double doesn't ask for any particular suit. The opps could have 13 running tricks in the black suits. The only reason to double 7NT is with all 3 aces outside of spades. My bottom line: Why do we have to assume the opponents know what they are doing? Partner doubled 7♠ because he has the trump Ace. There is NO OTHER card partner can have in his hand that justifies doubling 7♠. Therefore I lead a spade and win the post mortem.

Where was the option to blame both? West is not minimum and should have bid 2NT. The scoring is MP and 2NT beats 2H. The bidding up to this point suggests 2NT is almost as likely to make as 2H, but might not make 3H. I will take the small risk for the extra reward. After 2N by West, East has an easy raise to 3N. East has extra values and should bid 2NT over the 2H preference. For all the same reasons described above. After 2N by East, West should find a raise to 3N. At IMP scoring it should get easier because players look for plus scores. Here is a good IMP auction for these hands: 1♥ 1N, 2♦ 3♦, 3♥ 3N

1 - I did consider 4♣, leaping michaels. 2 - I don't think it is clear that balancing 2♣ is michaels, it is too useful as a natural bid. You can certainly play it as Michaels, but that was never the intention of the Michaels cue bid. For one, it doesn't pre-empt the opponents. Also, 2NT balancing is NOT unusual NT, why would it be Michaels? 3 - I opt for a simple 1♠, then I am prepared to rebid ♥ at any level. 4 - The hand type is also interesting to discuss if the ♠and ♥ are reversed, i.e. 5-6 in the majors. With this hand, I would bid ♥ then rebid ♠ at any level.

Comments from the one only authority that matters, me !! :) board 1 - 1♠ overcall is bad. Pass or a weak 2♠ are the only choices. I like the idea of a weak 2♠. After that, the 4♠ bid is insane and the XX is even more insane. The only meaningful bid by south is 2♣ to show a maximum passed hand in support of ♠. board 2 - Several problems with opening 2NT and I agree with what Flame wrote in this regard. The best opening in my humble opinion is 2♣. Then bid your suits and see if you can stop at 3NT. On the hand presented (after revising ♠ position, the auction goes: 2C (3♠) X all pass !!! Winner for worst bid: XX. 4♠X was already going to be a horrible or great score. There is no reason to make it better or worse.

Interesting idea, McB. This would be very useful for any Indy Championship, for several reasons. The most useful would be the ability to publish the 'system' for the event and have confidence that everyone is playing the same system. Nothing can ruin your day like one opponent making a non-system bid and the other opponent fielding the bid. A Blind Indy should prevent this problem. For example, a player is thinking of making a psyche bid and/or a response bid on a 3 card suit. In fact in some systems and countries, this is very common and players will automatically make this bid. If the bid was made in a Blind Indy it is unlikely to be understood. Thus, to do well in the Indy, a player must spend at least some time to understand the bidding system. A player can get lucky once or twice, but in the long run that player will not score well making 'random' bids. As for the examply hand, I don't believe a Blind Indy would have helped. The whiners will still whine, and the bounders will still bound.