xcurt

You can park in the streets northeast of the zoo, about 18th and Harvard, at least on weekends. That's about a 2 mile walk from the site, but it's up-hill. But generally the area around the zoo is packed in the summer and on-street parking west of the zoo (where the site is) is extremely tight. Another option would be to stay near another metro stop like Bethesda, and take the red line down to the site. But metro doesn't run all night so you might easily miss the last train, so discount your savings on lodging by the cost of the cab home at night. Edit -- for airports, you probably can't fly direct from LHR into WAS. It's a small urban airport with short runways. The cab from IAD is around $50 US -- I haven't taken it in a while. You can also take a bus to one of the metro stops on the orange line. I don't have the price for all that handy but with the meto fare it will run you about $10 per person to the stop near the hotel.

I agree. However I do not thinking missing a game (for example) 40% of the time is very good. Do you? If the alternative is stopping in a making partscore then yes. I'm claiming that if we reverse, we'll almost always reach game, so we should not reverse if it's a favorite to get us a minus score.

Are you saying that would be a minimum 2♠ bid? If so, I don't see why adding a singleton ace and two tens makes it into more than a maximum. For clarification, and I bet you would have guessed this, I would bid 2♠ with Txx ATxx AQTxx A. Josh, why is the playing strength of this hand so much less?* Even if partner has a doubleton diamond the difference in value between ♦AKT and ♦AQT is very small since we probably need to attack diamonds anyway if we hope to make 10 tricks. I'd say that on hands where partner is passing a raise to 2♠, we are less than a 50% favorite to make a game. And if partner has good spades and little else, 2♠ should be our highest scoring partscore. And if partner has bad spades and a little else, at least we protected our plus. The danger hand for a raise to 2♠ is something like J8xxx, Kxx, Qxx, Kx which is probably 60-70% to make 4♠ and 3NT rolls unless diamonds fail to come in (and makes an overtrick in practice if diamonds and hearts play, and they misdefend or spades block). But if I reverse and partner has that hand, the auction is going to end in 4♠, not 3NT.

Yes, this is the line. RHO had ♥Kx and ♦Qxx, so you need to time the play to cash the ♠A before the ♥A, discard a club from dummy, cash one diamond, and exit with a club. If LHO wins the club he has to concede a ruff sluff. If RHO wins the club, he has to concede a ruff-sluff or lead a diamond into the tenace. The theme of this hand is assumptions (we must assume we can pick up trumps else we lack the tempos to pitch a club on a diamond before they ruff in and cash a club), timing (we need to unblock the spade before we use up our second and last hand entry, the ♥A), and not playing too fast (which is what I did after I led a heart to the jack at trick 2 and it held).

Slow roll with 2♠. If I reverse, my next call will be 3♠ which guarantees we reach game and also precludes 3NT when partner has moderate clubs. 2♠ keeps in play * doubling the opponents if they come in * 3NT * diamond contract * spade partial -- and there's no reason to assume that we're making a game yet Someone will surely point out that this is another win for 1m-1M; 2♣ artificial handing many death hands.

Since it's Friday night, you take a little liberty and open 1♥ on KQ, AJxxxx, Jxx, xx. Opponents don't bid. Of course you get buried in 6♥. LHO leads a club. Plan the play: [hv=n=sahq9xdaktxxxcaxx&s=skqhajxxxxdjxxcxx]133|200|[/hv] Of course I messed this up, but I think it's a good B/I play problem. As usual, adv/exp please reply hidden. Curt Edit -- fixed, N has the ♣A.

This enemy auction is dangerous for your side playing 3NT when you have one stopper and can't run 8 more tricks. The opponents have told you they have a 5-card suit with some values in the long hand, so they have an easy path to 5 tricks against your NT contract. If you have something like the hand I posted, you want partner to play NT with Qx or Jxx in their suit. And if he doesn't have anything in their suit, you still have your stopper and all of partner's values are working toward running 8 tricks in the offsuits before they get the lead back.

Partner had x, AKTxx, KTxxxx, x so 6♦ was good and both slams were cold and good for a nice pickup. I bid 2♠ at the table, then 1♦-(1♠)-2S 3♥-3NT? 4♥-6♦ P I immediately realized 3NT was stupid, 3♠ is much better in this position. About half the responders bid 2♣ on their first turn, the rest split between 2♠, Double, and other things, most calling it "obvious" or "wtp." Does this mean that "all hands with no good call invent a club suit" (like other auctions) or do we want to suggest some length or strength in clubs to partner?

If partner has ♠Kxx, ♥KJxx, ♦xxxx, ♣xx (and declarer ♠Qx, ♥Qxx, ♦Kxx, ♣QJxxx) we can get 2 spades, 1 heart, 1 club, and up to two ruffs. If partner has a 3♥ bid, he should have bid 3♥. But if, as seems possible, one of the hearts in the hand above is in fact a spade... Yes, the bidding is curious if the position is what I gave. That's why I led a heart. The hand I gave is my best guess at a construction where ducking the ♣A one round costs.

If partner has ♠Kxx, ♥KJxx, ♦xxxx, ♣xx (and declarer ♠Qx, ♥Qxx, ♦Kxx, ♣QJxxx) we can get 2 spades, 1 heart, 1 club, and up to two ruffs.

XIMPs, favorable, partner deals. 1♦-(1♠)-? A72, Q98, AQ2, QT86 Follow-up:

Because we may need to go for +200 by scoring both low trumps. Declarer did bid 3♣ vulnerable so he has to have something. I'm guessing to underlead the heart now, declarer did bid 3♣ vulnerable, aceless, on a queen-high suit. If he has only one major feature it's more likely he has a stiff spade than the ♥K. If I'm wrong, of course, I'll get zero matchpoints across the field. Now that I see we're playing matchpoints, I would definitely have whacked 3♣. It's going down most of the time partner has 1 trick and 1 fast entry. Even when partner has the ♦K and some scattered lower honors I can probably control the sequence of plays enough to ensure that declarer loses a fifth trick somewhere in the wash.

If partner has the ♠K and not the ♦A he should definitely lead the king and not a low spade. So I think a diamond is clear.

Ok I meant to post this up last night, but since this one still seems open... It seems obvious to win and cash three rounds of clubs ending in dummy, leaving ♣8 facing ♣Tx. From here, the available lines seem to be a: ♣8 not overtaking, then heart finesse b: overtake ♣8 and then b1: diamond -- hoping to endplay LHO b2: cash ♠A and then diamond b3: cash ♥A and then heart And LHO holdings no kings and 5 diamonds (we need to finesse -- and this is a truly sick overcall so I will discount it) no kings and 6 diamonds (we need to finesse) no kings and 7 diamonds (the finesse line and line b3 work) both kings and any number of diamonds (we need to follow any of the strip lines) only the heart king and any number of diamonds (we need to guess which strip line to follow, the finesse line fails unless the heart king is stiff) only the spade king and any number of diamonds (we need to guess which strip line to follow, the finesse line works) So playing for the finesse line seems just wrong, it only gains when the heart king is onside AND either we would have misguessed which endplay line to take, or LHO has exactly 6 diamonds. So what happens after cashing off all the clubs? Edit -- so given that the endplay line is a strong favorite, I'll play to win the third club in hand so I can make LHO blind pitch on the fourth club -- thus increasing the chances he is not blanking a king on fourth street. I'll probably play for his card on fifth street to be the one that concedes my ninth trick, and play as follows if he pitches a heart on the last club, ♥A, diamond if he pitches a spade on the last club, ♠A, diamond if he pitches a diamond on the last club, ♥A, heart

Lots of people feel it is necessary to play artificial methods to adequately defend against a strong NT. Otherwise, there wouldn't be Landy, Hamilton, Brozel, suction, Meckwell, DONT, etc. Virtually everyone plays artificial defenses of natural one bids: takeout doubles, Michaels, unusual NTs. Maybe we should just make opening the bidding illegal. You are talking about natural calls. Besides, natural over their NT isn't awful. Landy is almost natural and I much prefer Landy to, say, Cappelletti. Against opening suit bids at the 1-level I don't find the "standard" set of 2-suited overcalls to be that great. That doesn't mean leaving them undefined is best, but I could certainly defend, say, 1♥ natural just with takeout doubles and natural other calls.

This goes both ways. Sure, responder knows more about opener's shape, but so do the opponents who now have familiar methods (like cue-bids) at their disposal. You're arguing that any convention theoretically worse than the natural treatment should be allowed because, well, it's easier to defend against than the corresponding natural method. That's the point of the charts. We're playing bridge, not "Game Theory of Bridge Bidding ." The point is not whether the opening bid shows a suit, or suits. The point is whether or not the call creates problems for the defensive bidding side requiring artificial defenses to counter the advantages associated with the artificial opening. Once you allow people to play methods that cannot adequately be defended without artificial defenses, you start an endless arms race.

From the standpoint of defending against artificial 1m calls -- with Tim's proposed method (1♣ showing spades) responder knows something about a specific suit in opener's hand, and can do things like bid 1♣-P-3♠ preemptive If 1♣ is one of the Precision Club/Polish Club/could-be-short-but-ostensibly-natural methods, responder knows something about the general parameters of opener's hand, but there are enough different shapes and primary suits in there that responder is hard pressed to place the strain unless he has his own self-sufficient suit. Maybe "all-purpose" is poorly worded but since we cannot create complete contracts, probably not even if we return to a convention chart that is an enumeration of allowed methods -- and that would be far worse than what we have now -- this is a problem without a good solution. Maybe what we need is a commentary on the charts from the C&C committee explaining the logic and giving mad scientists some idea of what's going to be allowed in actual play. Curt

Off the top of my head * ... if I wanted to be in a 5-3 major suit fit that badly, I would have opened 1M. * 1NT-2♣; 2NT is a frequent problem auction. Of course if you allow little leeway for 1NT (no upgrades, infrequent 1M on 5M-332), then these factors should be weighted less.

Why? Because by bidding 3♣ first you've made a reasonable description of your hand, so partner is better placed to decide what to do next. Bidding 2NT followed by double would give partner the impression of fewer clubs, more spades, and therefore better defence. I guess I should elaborate. I was asking a rhetorical question hoping to get the OP to explain why it's at all tempting to double them in either auction. Of course, I don't agree with his statement that snapdragon double shows a stiff in overcaller's suit either -- generally snapdragon indicates tolerance for overcaller's suit. Without tolerance you just bid your suit if you have sufficient values to control the ensuing auction, or you pass and bid later.

Why?

If you're polling between Pass, Dble, and 4♣, I think Dble is clearly the worst option of the 3. As Josh points out we should have just bid 3♣ last time. Now we have the hand without our side's cards in the enemy suit trying to guess (repeat: guess) what to do, instead of the hand that knows how many trump tricks we can take in the enemy suit deciding what to do.

Rather than make up a method yourself, just play Holo-Bolo against prepared minor openings. Actually I think there is a sound theoretical reason for switching from "bridge mode" to "poker mode" with certain hands after the opponent opens 1-prepared-minor. And so I don't consider this unethical. You choose to play a convention, you deal with the effects. You choose to play an ill-defined conventional call, you need to pay the full price for adding it to your system.

Actually, yes. I'd love to watch an event like that. That's what invitational tournaments are supposed to be. The Platinum Pairs is just a somewhat more exclusive version of the LM Pairs and the Blue Ribbon Pairs. Not so exclusive that it's only recognized names, but few flight B players will be eligible. There's a big difference between an invitational and an open event no matter how tough the qualification standards -- in an open event, anyone who plays well enough to qualify can then play the main event, where if they play well enough, they might win. I suppose it's possible for me to play well enough to scratch in an event like the PPP, I've done it in stretches but never long enough actually win a NABC. On the other hand, there is no danger even if I started playing tournament bridge again tomorrow, even if I somehow played well enough to win a few NABCs, that I would be invited to any of the major invitational events -- they are so small and the goal of the organizers is to create the most interest in their event -- in the case of the Cavendish this probably translates to "maximize the auction pool" -- that you really need to be a well-known full-time player to get a shot at getting invited. The organizers of these events aren't trying to run a major championship like the LMs, BRPs, or World Open Pairs. And I have enough other interesting things to do that I have no interest in playing bridge full time. So my whole point of raising the issue of qualification by placings is that the ACBL can't devalue the standard over time, to the point where the PPP is another BRP/LMP event -- and then we wouldn't have an opening on the NABC calendar for a fourth six-session pair game. And judging by my accumulation of PPs just from session awards, racking up 50 PPP in three years is going to include a fair amount of the folks who regularly do damage in regional events and can play three NABCs per year, so in a few years time, another LMP/BRP is exactly what we will have. Then again, creating another attendance incentive is probably exactly what the ACBL wants -- and, after the table shortfall in Boston -- and needs. Curt

Add a way to show a balanced game force over 1M to your system (eg by playing 2♣ as an artificial game force which might have natural clubs).* Playing typical North American 2/1-partnership methods without Flannery I would bid 1♠. If I bid 1♠ then partner bids 1NT I could bid 2♦ artificial game forcing and then NT, if partner bids 2♣ I can bid 2♦ artificial game forcing and then support clubs (or just take over if partner shows a good 6-4 with 2♥ next), and if partner bids 2♦ I could bid 3♣ artificial game forcing and then unless partner shows a good 6-4 or 5-5 I could content myself with 3NT. That seems OK to me, and it burns less space than auctions beginning 1♥-2♣; 2NT-?. If we're playing Flannery (or if partner raises 1♠ aggressively on 3 trumps) then 1♠ is more likely to lead to 1♥-1♠-2♠ at which point I would wish I had bid 2♣. * OK I didn't say that in the BI forum. I agree with the posters in the Aus/Nz thread a few days back about working on judgement first and not loading up on system. But it would help on this one.

Agree with 3♣ for this reason. 4♦ puts tremendous pressure on partner to cuebid with no trump honors. We really only need ♠xxxx, ♥A, ♣Q to make a slam.