BunnyGo

Another way to think about it: Playing small only requires LHO to have the J of diamonds to be correct. Playing the Q requires LHO to have the AK of diamonds to be correct. One card is more likely than 2 cards (all other things equal).

For those who don't like google docs unfortunate difficulties, one can get similar functionality from dropbox (auto synchronization of documents) and use your favorite text editor.

Welcome to the forums. We do try to keep complaints like this anonymous. As to your problem, it's interesting. It sounds like a lot of it could be fixed simply by only letting people claim at their turn to play.

Wow, that's great. It's even better than the (apocryphal? fictional? I dunno) hand where a pair made 7♠ off the ace of trump. They made on a cross ruff and when the person holding the ace also had 14 cards and the perfect distribution so that they could never ruff in, the slam was made.

Do you find the time to do this in a pairs event too? I'm just curious because I usually do not, and the OP was for an NAP qualifier.

Do you work at the Mathworks, Hrothgar? Seems like you're in the area.

Looking at both hands, I want to roll this back to 3♥X. If the heart A is in the south, I'm not too happy in 3NT, but any time 3NT makes, I'm setting 3♥ at least 2 tricks, and I'm (almost) always setting 3♥ at least 1. That said, I don't think that East should pass.

I like the following organization (but I make no claims that it is "best"): At the top of the notes, a rough outline so that someone who just reads this section could probably guess most of the bids that normally arise. (e.g. at the top say, "we play a standard 2/1 with inverted minors inv+, 15-17 NT with transfers to majors and walsh relay, etc.) In this way you can skim and remind yourself what these notes contain. In the next sections, divide the notes into a flow chart. Section 2 describes all the opening bids, then for each opening bid, a section of flow chart starting with each opening bid and response. Also include what to do over competition in any of these sequences. Have a section on overcalls and another on carding at the end.

The favorite of mine that comes to mine, was I was declaring a hopeless 2♥ contract. With about 5 or so tricks to play, RHO was on lead and all 4 players (even dummy) knew (or should have known) what the remaining cards were. However RHO led up into dummy's tenace finessing her partner and rectifying the count for me (by giving me a winner) for a squeeze. After her partner was then squeezed for another trick, RHO berated her for a minute about not pitching her stoppers.

The upvotes have become a bit meaningless lately. There seem to be one of two cases: 1) I read a post, think it's great, see it's been voted up and it's (nearly) always by person A. 2) I read a post, think it's awful, see it's been voted up and it's always by person B. Not sure what purpose this serves. I actually preferred the days of downvote wars to this...there was at least the hope things would improve. Turning it all off might just be best.

I played a pair in a GCC event (GNT flight B) this past summer that played a similar system. It was GCC legal (had a ruling on it) because their opening 1C bid was 15+ points and so any response was acceptable. Perhaps this was the situation?

Ok, that's about what I'd done too, but I was hoping you'd done the precision. I couldn't tell how much error was introduced that way.

Could you sketch the derivation of the 2% number?

Your 8 card suit number is just for one player. I don't know how off the top of my head how to handle the correlation between hands, but it is certainly better than 1-200 against having some player have an 8 card suit on any given deal.

LOL! Yes, it did. My friend has since corrected me. The hand was actually: void, AKQT986, AKJ3, AK

Yeah, I guess this should happen about once a month (for a daily game), and if it happened twice or three times that often I wouldn't be the least be surprised. The most damning "evidence" so far is Han's suggestion that spot cards have a "memory". I have not looked at the hand data produced over thousands (or millions) of trials, but I doubt the data address this issue. It'd be interesting to see a study of correlation between successive hands.

3rd seat, local club game. You hold: void, AKQT9876, AKJ3, A What do you bid? (my friend got a top when his opponent opened 4♥...it's not a good club....)

But when both opponents bid the suit, maybe you should have one... http://tinyurl.com/3s929by

Yes, very good point. My most recent partnership had the agreement: 3♠ = 3/4 card spade support not 5 hearts 3NT = undiscussed, but would assume at the table it showed extra-values but no desire to play 3♥XX Pass=2 spades, no extras, no desire to play 3♥XX XX = a desire to play opposite xx of hearts and an invitational+ hand.

I'll turn the cube. If partner has at least 2 hearts and any tricks he'll sit, otherwise he can run.

Here's the link. Here's an example with the other auction.

i don't think the decision is obvious. I would personally pass. I'd consider a double--both on the principle that 2NT-P-P-? can be doubled on principle, and that it'd get partner off to a heart lead and if declarer is trapped in his hand with a dead dummy, I might have enough entries to cash out my hearts. That said, I'd pass.

That was a very interesting hand. I wonder what would have happened if Hurd had returned a small club at trick 2. Maybe declarer should get it right, but it puts him to a guess.

It's somewhat popular now (especially if kibbing the Bermuda Bowl is any suggestion of what is popular). The structure is the same as puppet stayman, except switches the meaning of 3NT and 3♥.

Yeah. Maybe someone will do this for the 9th inning: