qwery_hi

At this vul, I would pass on the previous round, and bid 4NT RKC now.

I voted No and No. . Posting 1 or 10 or 100 hands proves nothing, if these hands are carefully selected such that the anti-percentage action taken struck gold. . Posting 1 or 10 or 100000 hands proves nothing, if these hands are carefully selected such that the anti-percentage action taken struck gold. . Most useful lesson I got from the "amazing 6D bid in New Orleans" thread last year - some bids can look outrageous and 100% cheating on first glance, but this forum will usually help point out the more subtle bridge reasons for the bid, back it up with simulations and this whole process is much better than a spot judgement from gut reaction.

Agree, although just a couple of years ago Djokovic was hopelessly outclassed by Nadal and Federer. Look where he is now.

Considering only bridge tournaments, what difference is there between a women only national level tournament and a for example, minorities or whites or whatever race only national level tournament?

The claim was having women's events promoted bridge among women, who were underrepresented at the elite levels. Quick, name one transgendered/transsexual person to reach the R32 a national KO event in the last 10 years. The TS/TG population is estimated around 0.5 % to 1 % of the US population. Name one TS/TG in the top 100/200 of bridge. The question can be asked, what is the ACBL doing to promote bridge among TS/TGs ? They are underrepresented in both the elite and non-elite stratas of the game. How about by income? 6 % of ACBL members earn between 35 K to 50 K. This group is vastly underrepresented at the elite levels of bridge, in fact at all levels. What is the ACBL doing to promote bridge among this group? We should have a National Championship just for this income bracket by your logic.

I'm really streching here, but I'd guess N has - KQxx JTxxxx Axx or even - KQxx JTxxxxx Ax It makes absolutely no sense for 4C to be a suit, it only can be a cue , and that in turn would mean N hand has improved to such an extent that it went from willing to play in 3D to a semi serious slam try in hearts. Either this or the opponents have no freaking clue what they are doing.

penalty, you can always make a TO (responsive or DSIP) dbl after the expected correction to 2D, and expected pass of 2D by partner.

Isn't 1D-1H-2D-3S a splinter? If it is, then 3NT after the splinter is very straightforward.

I'm not convinced 4-6 NF is a good idea, especially at IMPs. If I want to play in diamonds, Id rather respond 1NT, and correct 2C to 2D or pass 2H. For this reason, I'm more sympathetic to 5-5 and NF, or use it as a splinter.

5C. Slam rates to be better than 50% if partner can make a move over 5C.

3c, and if 3D by partner I'd bid 4D.

Regarding this law - Law 73D. 1. Variations in tempo or manner It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction. inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent and at his own risk. If one is not supposed to make inferences from opponents hesitations (like in this thread http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/46910-a-bit-deceived/ ), or rather if one makes inferences at ones own risk, isn't it lame to later ask for an adjustment because of any inferences made by the hesitation? In other words, any time a declarer hesitates while in the middle of a trick, it would be "safe" to do the anti percentage action and then claim that you were influenced by the hesitation, wouldn't it?

That link is broken, but this works - http://www.imp-bridge.nl/articles/2over1.htm

These lessons by Pavlecik helped me improve - http://rpbridge.net/rppl.htm

1. Pass 2. 3NT

Auction should have N balancing with 1S I think. This is always a pass by me. If partner can expect to make game opposite this hand, he should have opened 2C.

Where can I find a (preferably online) text of Law 41?

Good to know... I think I'm going to do this from now on.

You have a valid point. Previously, I used to worry whether any questions I ask might piss off the opponents. Nowadays, I ask if I think I need to know, and let the director or the appeals committee deal with all the implications if opponents complain. Another auction where I would like to know is 1c - 1d - 1N - As the opening leader, I would like to know if 1N could contain one or both majors.

ok, thanks. So best practice would be 1. Ask your questions, if any, 2. Make the lead face down, 3. Ask partner if he has any questions 4. Lead face up

ACBL. So the auction is over, and I have some questions regarding style (e.g. can 1N be rebid with a singleton in responder's suit?) and perhaps about the bids. Do I have to select my opening lead and then ask questions, or can I ask the questions and then select the lead?