qwery_hi

yes. I know. sorry. The impression i got from the O.P. was that they had tried it, but due to the flood of messages somehow couldn't get it to work. Yes, the client was frozen, so I couldn't change the options.

This is really cool. As for the spammer, I dont think it was intentional - if someone has the enter and another key simlutaneously pressed, even if by accident, this can happen

I'm experiencing this as I type this. If a player bombards the lobby with chat messages, at the rate of 100+/minute, the windows client is unable to handle the load and freezes; probably form the updates it is getting from the server. or maybe the server is loaded from the messages. Unfortunately have chat from lobby on at this time. One workaround is to turn it off. Would it be possible to build a flood control for the rate at which someone can speak to the lobby?

I understand and share your feelings. I have been unable to get funding for a new car I designed. It has 10 mirrors instead of only 3 mirrors. All VCs I approach suggest I drive one of the standard cars. It is my contention that a 10 mirrored car will reduce the number of automobile mishaps in the US by 0.137 %. Simulations on my computer using stochastic processes and behaviorial economics were used to get this figure.

I agree. However, until Fred or the moderators decide to ban gossip, these posts are valid. I think the best way to kill gossip is to ignore it.

And telling others what their business is is your business?

I agree with jdonn. In some cases, eve B/I can recognize forcing pass situations. e.g. 1S - 2S - 4S , and the an opponent bids 5C. In these situations, even if you are the responder and have a flat 6 count, if opener passes 5C, I would have to bid. I would actually err on the other side - if they reach a competetive auction and my partner has passed and it may/maynot be a FP situation, a double would be safer than a pass.

Its not just good but very good. I wouldn't know what to do with all the time I would save if I stopped reading and replying to posts on BBO.

I think I meant this - Can a pair decide to play 2/1 Vs RM , but if they happen to be facing Nickell they play precision. Note that they would have to submit 2 convention cards, well before the Bermuda Bowl, in accordance with all the rules, etc. As far as the opponents are concerned, their work is not increased.

In a team game, can a pair decide to play system 1 Vs opp. pair 1 and system 2 Vs opp. pair 2? If this is banned, what is the logic behind the ban?

(1) Whom are you referring to? Do you not think that people that actually take the time to explore variants on methods do not actually research other methods? Or, for example, that they discuss these methods with other people who play similar methods? Or that they ask good players what they think of the methods? (2) Do you think there is nothing to learn from going through the process of coming up with the methods from scratch and considering all of their ramifications? (3) I find it funny that you have concern about re-inventing relay methods from scratch. That was one of the most interesting things I've done with bidding. And once done, (I have a big Excel spreadsheet), it's so much easier to do going forward. Yes. I re-invented relays, but kept them symmetric. Did I have a reason? Yes! I moved 5-5 majors hands from a 1♥ opening (in Tarzan) to a 1♠ opening (in modified Tarzan). I changed the 1♠ GF relay over 1♥ to a 1NT GF relay over 1♥. I could not have done this without changing the relays. The other interesting aspect was to do a diagnostic on the relays once I had all of the hand types listed. So I knew how many of each shape went it to what bid. This told me how much room each bid had to handle more shapes (or if it was already overloaded). Then I could group similar hands into similar bids. It certainly felt like a worthwhile exercise to me. But then again, I just like playing around with Excel. (4) Perhaps I'm being unfair because you mention the practice of "not even considering and rejecting," which does not refer to me or the system designers with whom I typically correspond. So maybe you know some of these people and they should not design systems. It would be nice to have an understanding that when people propose new systems in the forum, they say what the system was inspired by and provide a reference. Since they went to all the trouble of designing the system, perhaps they could do a comparative analysis of these systems and tell us in which auctions theirs is better.

Thanks for your replies. Bidding on at the 5 level with flat hands is one bad habit I have to unlearn. After 3 years of playing, I still haven't learnt to stop hoping for miracle fits/miracle hands.

I mostly agree. In sequence (3), I know partner is limited. In sequence (1) , (2) partner's hand could be much stronger. The interesting thing is in (2) and (3), one person is 5+5+ either way so choice of games is perfect for finding the best fit. But in 1, I think 4D is more of a courtesy waiting bid, to give partner a chance to describe his hand further.

Should East play partner not to have signaled by dropping the K under the A with KJTx or not to have signaled by dropping the J under the A with JT7x? IMO, the latter is far more likely After partner played the 8 and 9, the jack, ten and 7 are of equal rank....and you did lead the 6. Partner knows you can afford to play the jack from JT76 or the king from KJT6, but you could also hold KJ76(x) or KT76(x), from which holdings you'd follow with the 7 (or x). Your are right. When south plays the Ace, K J T 7 6 are all of equal rank. When partner plays the 4, he is either 1. Showing a broken holding 2. Forgot to signal correctly. My point was that if he forgot to signal correctly, he is more likely to be holding JT74 rather than KJT4

Should East play partner not to have signaled by dropping the K under the A with KJTx or not to have signaled by dropping the J under the A with JT7x? IMO, the latter is far more likely

Partner had ♠K98764 ♥K832 ♦Q ♣Q3 I bid 5 spades, and was doubled for -1.

I strongly recommend Standard bridge bidding for the 21st century by Hardy. If you have $$ to spare, the Advanced bridge bidding for the 21st century by the same author is also worth studying From the introduction to the first book "Really, a broad and comprehensive book that will turn a lot of not so accurate bidders into players who know how to get the maximum out of their cards. Well done, Max Hardy!" written by Mike Lawrence

That is funny, I think these books are absolutely terrible, along with the main Hardy text. They are just a random mash of conventions that Hardy likes, with cherry-picked example hands to demonstrate their merits. Every example hand or problem in the book is chosen to be painfully obvious, there are no interesting judgment calls of any kind. Also, the tradeoffs involving each convention are not even addressed. Furthermore, many ideas he has are outdated, and newer developments (like two-way NMF or XYZ for example) are not even covered in his yellow book. Most importantly, though they are marketed as 2/1 books, the majority of all of these books has nothing to do with a basic 2/1 framework. In fact, very little detail goes into 2/1 fundamentals, and like I said, it is just a random collection of conventions with mediocre explanations. The books are also just very dry and boring to read. These are the kinds of books that can hold an aspiring bridge player back for years, and I feel bad for anyone who has made the mistake of studying these books with any level of seriousness. There is a reason Hardy never achieved any meaningful level of distinction as a player. Edit - Disclaimer: I read these books 2 years after I stared playing bridge. Prior to that, my main source of bidding knowledge were the SAYC links on annam.co.uk I am not an expert, perhaps not even advanced. Wow! Are we talking about the same two books? I read http://www.amazon.com/Standard-Bridge-Bidd...y/dp/1587760495 and http://www.amazon.com/Advanced-Bridge-Bidd...5466638-1193451 I think the first book did a mighty fine job explaining what 2/1 is. The second book has all the bells and whistles modern experts might like to add including splendid contributions by XYZ - written by Fred Hamilton 2 w NMF - written by Grant Baze BART - by Mike Passel Meckstroth Adjunct - by Meckstroth LoTT - by Marty Bergen serious 3NT - by Eddie Wold The hands are cherry picked, but I think that is a as it should be. The beginners should know what to do in the standard situations before they can bend the rules in the non-standard ones. Perhaps you are talking about some other book?

Edit - I got the hand wrong. S has the Jack of spades, not the king. 1. Would the answer change if S had the King? 2. Would the answer change if S passed initially? [hv=d=s&v=n&s=sqjt2hj65dat6ckjt]133|100|Scoring: IMP W N E S -- -- -- 1♣ 1♥ 1♠ P 2♠ P 4♠ 5♦ ? [/hv] I face these decisions quite often, and don't know what are the factors to consider while choosing between 1. Pass 2. Double 3. 5X I know 'the 5 level belongs to the opponents', can you help me understand when if ever it is correct to bid on? Thanks. PS I don't know if this belongs in the some other forum PS2. Is there an easier way to indent the auction while entering it using 'one hand'?

I strongly recommend Standard bridge bidding for the 21st century by Hardy. If you have $$ to spare, the Advanced bridge bidding for the 21st century by the same author is also worth studying

Since the original question was what are the chances of a player bidding and making 7nt, in a club at mps I guess, the answer of 37+ hcp hands is probably not far off the mark.

I see online bridge as one of the reasons for the lower table counts. For example, instead of driving 5 hours to Reno and spending $500, I can play bridge from home using BBO. I have made a few friends on BBO and I enjoy playing online with them. I don't always miss the thrill and competitive fervor of playing in regionals/nationals, but sometimes I do. Personally, one of the attractions for me to go to the regionals is so that I can play against zmud-balicki, or one of the top american players. I don't think I can name another sport where for $10 I can play against the current national champions.

Your books also remind me why I love this game so much. (If you are david burn the author that is) Being on a committee is a thankless job. We are lucky in that, to my limited knowledge, all who serve on bridge committees do it for the love of the game. While we have differences of opinion, the love of bridge overshadows all other considerations I think. However, I must say, if you are on a committee and there is a potential conflict of interest situation, I will still point it out, and if I happen to meet you, would let you know that I think the right action would be to excuse yourself from that committee.

Assuming perfect defense, 7nt requires 37, 38, 39 or 40 points. There are hands with these points which do not make 7nt, but they would be a minority. Hence Part 1: making 7nt on two consecutive boards = having 37+ hcp in the two combined hands on two consecutive boards Part 2: similar to above. Using the site that nige1 mentioned, the above can be calculated. The answers will not be accurate, but they may be more accurate than the simulations. EDIT - I realized that some hands with less than 37 hcp may make 7nt if the opening leader has no ace to cash. The above solution is only a stab at the answer

Why, because you declare it so? Maybe it's simply equal to pretending there are no better solutions! Yes, I declare it so. Do you declare it so otherwise? :)