IdiotVig

Except when there's no suitable discard, in which case, it will take an eternity to choose something. Expect the tempo in which the actual card is played to slow down considerably.

Yeah, but that's not how it went in my head.

You can't play the 9 to the T?

I'm surprised so many people are sticking to a hard and fast rule to evaluate how to bid here. This is a problem shape that can lead a potentially-complicated auction. Seems worth it to completely evaluate suit qualities, potential problem auctions, and bid accordingly. Obviously, partnership agreements help (like what hands you can raise 1M to 2M on 3-card support), but in a vacuum, a knee-jerk "100% 1C" or "100% 1D" seems like an inflexible, uncreative way to play bridge. [i seem to recall a passage in Rosenberg's "Bridge, Zia, and Me" where he indicated Zia basically randomizes the 1C or 1D opener with this hand type, so I'm probably biased.] That said, in a vacuum/pickup partnership, I tend to open 1D. But...it depends.

This. How much time do you get before a session to inquire about methods? I find you'll get a lot of mileage from asking these three questions: 1.) What are the minimum hand requirements to open in 1st/2nd? 2.) What's your overcalling style like? 3.) What's your preemptive style like? You'd be surprised how many auctions are uncovered by getting specific answers to these, rather than name-dropping conventions for a first-time partnership.

[hv=pc=n&s=sakj9hkq63dakqck7&n=s65ha4d875caj8643&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=ppp2cp2dp]266|200[/hv] A mouseover on 3NT here shows 25-27, which was selected by 3 people, and was passed out by GIB. One person elected to bid 2NT, showing 22-24, and GIB jumped to 6NT. What happened here?

This was a problem hand given at the club last night. It probably arose out of bidding practice or a sim or something; the problem-giver is creating a home-grown system, and didn't bother us with the details. Assume MPs, no auction provided. You hold: [hv=pc=n&n=sat952ht32dqjck32]133|100[/hv] Here are the parameters given by the person who posted the problem - Partner is specifically 4-4-4-1. RHO has "shown strong clubs". You're being forced to choose between 3S and 4S. What do you pick if partner shows: 1) 11-15 HCP 2) 11-14 HCP 3) 12-14 HCP None of these totals would count a stiff Q or J of clubs towards the total HCP, but could include a stiff A. How many spades are you bidding with each range?

Stud games are the only ones I found to improve card recall. While playing a lot of face-to-face poker may improve table presence at the bridge table, I think the actual value is marginal. I don't see much crossover between most forms of poker and bridge. The variance in poker will give you a better appreciation for the comparatively minor swings in bridge, though. I guess that's something.

Finally. A unanimous poll.

I love the idea. While this suggestion destroys the brevity of the system, why not put the length in parentheses to avoid ambiguity with spots altogether? You could even omit the (0). Would AK(4) AJ(1) A(1) QJ look that unwieldy?

I think Tim's point is independent of this; he's saying the statements the top x players made to you may not have been made with as much fervor or certainty when in front of someone from the ACBL.

It seems inherently incongruous that someone who implies to have more knowledge than the collective requires a line-by-line explanation of all attempts, for the sole purpose of shooting them down.

There's a BBO poster that's among the best in the world - and considered by some to be the best. I have no idea whether he'd want his identity revealed, but I had the pleasure of meeting him when I was a director of a large tournament in Boston several years ago. (And I have no doubt he could clobber Harrington, although they're both excellent players.) But yeah, I'll echo the rest. Great game. I ran the New England Backgammon Club for several years, and got to know some of the best in the game - Bill Robertie, Walter Trice, Herb Gurland, Marty Storer - and several other champs who visited from out of town. Were it not for the poker boom, I believe that backgammon would've seen another renaissance, similar to its heyday in the 70s.

You've never taken a flier before?... It's kind of the same thing, really. You make it sound like a low-percentage, high-variance play. So, you can either 1) go for it; chalk up the good result when it works and learn from it when it doesn't, or 2) sit on your heels and listen to us in the post-mortem. I know what my choice would be.

Quasi-seriously, we can run an experiment. We'll get some kind of RNG to simulate coin flips. After some arbitrary number of consecutive flips that come up the same (tails = 6, heads = 10, whatever), I'll take 55-45 that you can't name the next one. Whatever stakes you like, minimum 100 trials.