mtvesuvius

Double post, disregard, sorry.

I'm quite confident Meckwell wouldn't want their name on that bid if used for this hand. I still hate my 4♥ call, and am leaning towards X, seems to leave us better placed later, and LHO does rate to be raising quite often.

Very interesting stuff, thanks for sharing.

I'd bid 3♣, but there is something to be said for 4♦ :)

♣9, blame Garozzo (or maybe partner) if wrong :P

4♣ for me

I finesse, if LHO overcalled on a true pile o'crap I'll congratulate him after asking him to play for money later.

I am strongly against allowing open chat (see my other posts in Suggestions for the Software) in Vugraph rooms as well. Just imagine a JEC-like chat while the operator is trying to concentrate and broadcast a match... Not good. I've operated enough to know it enrages me when I have clueless commentators in my room, I would never operate again if something like this were to happen. I think this is a case of not fixing something that is not broken. I think using an autotext tool seems fine, giving the website of an event and a few other tidbits of useful information is certainly a good idea. I used to do something similar although I just copied & pasted. The only thing you want to make sure is that it isn't more than 3 or 4 lines long. Commentating by yourself is always a depressing (and difficult) task, and I'd recommend finding another friend who would like to commentate, and arranging to get him ungagged.

Claim acceptance rate is speedballs is particularly interesting, and wow that they rejected when you were PhantomSac, Justin. However, I can also agree somewhat with that, since when I play with Owen in speedballs and I claim, it isn't always accepted... However his almost always are. I was playing in Orlando all of last week, and overheard the following at a table next to me: "You didn't state a line of play" "I have the Six of Spades, and two club tricks, the third club goes on the spade... OK?" "No, when you claimed, you didn't state a line of play... We should get one more trick" "DIRECTOR!!" The director came to table and Declarer explained that both opponents had shown out of spades on the round before! The opponents still argued that declarer didn't know the ♠6 was good. Declarer was a world-class player/professional with 9000+ MPs. Our table had to try really hard to keep from laughing while the director was at their table. Anyway, I think the point here is that even when you have all the rest, it's a shot in the dark. I prefer to claim and deal with any problems it may cause, even if well-stated. Others prefer never to claim for the exact same reason. The in-betweeners are what I don't really understand, since you'll never know the opponents will argue about a claim until you make it.

Of course I can enemy these people, but I generally prefer just not to have the problem in the first place... And accidentally chatting to the table happens quite often. It isn't so terrible when it's some comment about what they had for dinner 2 weeks ago, but when it relates to the hand being played, it is quite annoying. Obviously most of the time it is an unintentional, and I don't believe someone should be blacklisted for doing something like that once. There should clearly be other solutions as well to a problem like this. I agree on the chat from friends, and I think it should be friends of all four players. This should be done in addition to, not instead.

4♣ seems like a clear start, it will probably be a later guess whether to bid slam or not, but hopefully I can judge right when the time comes.

South. I can certainly live with the 1♣ opener, there are no rebid problems, and this seems like a decent hand... The 1NT call was the problem, 1N showed a good opener here since pass was available. South has a clear pass over 1♠, although it may not affect the final contract or result much. Unfortunately this is a problem you have to deal with when openings these types of hands: When partner doesn't have a fit, things often will go South very quickly (pun intended).

I'll try 4♥, which will hopefully have reasonable play, and will probably be the best option for getting us to a decent slam. I don't like double at all, although maybe after 4♠ from LHO it will leave us well placed for a 4N call... Nice problem.

OK this is a much better question, and sorry about my above response, I was tilted a slight bit -- was down 51 IMPs in a short match. Anyway, I think 3♦ is competitive here since G/B 2N wouldn't apply. This creates a problem on the stronger hands, but I think overall playing it as competitive will be more practical. This is one of the problems with playing 1♦-2♣ as INV+ though, and is why I prefer to play 1♦-3♣ as an INV with clubs, and 2♣ as GF.

SO WHAT?! This is an A/E forum, if partner is a total idiot and we have to mastermind everything, why on earth is this here?!?!!?!?!

I highly disagree here. Let me start by saying that I whenever I kibitz I like to chat with friends etc while playing, and whenever I play, I like to be able to chat with kibitzers... However... This option is mandatory to maintain order at a table with a few hundred specs. I've played at tables with 100-300 kibitzers, and I got messages ranging from why I made a certain bid, to asking if I really was 14, to news about someone's divorce. I don't usually mind answering questions, but being told by a random person I have never spoken to before to play faster, or that I misplayed a hand isn't good, and shouldn't be forced upon anyone. Basically, in smaller settings it isn't necessary, however for larger crowds, it makes things much more pleasant for the players, and also makes it so that someone cannot accidentally chat you while playing, something that happens a lot. I get plenty of "faster pls" or "????" messages when I am thinking or brb as well. I remember once I chose to take a squeeze line instead of a simple finesse, while having like 80 specs. I got 5 messages informing me I took a bad line, and was bad at bridge. Honestly I really don't care what someone who can't be bothered to put a name or country has to say about my bidding or play. Of course they could have left the table and came back after telling me this, but it actually requires a conscious effort to do so. Barring kibitzers from chatting to the table (intentionally or by accident) is also very useful, just imagine playing while seeing something resembling a JEC match chat? Yuck. Kibitzers allowed for tournaments is nice, although at least recently I've been seeing a lot more evidence of cheating (or just really really lucky opponents). Perhaps I'm just being a sore loser/paranoid, but in a few ACBL games recently I encountered some really weird bidding/play.

I like 3♥. If partner bids 3♠ I'll raise, if he bids 3N I'll pass and hope for the best. Taking 11 tricks in 5♦ seems like too big of a challenge, as opener will usually have at least one of the red aces.

I pass, A/E is not the place for this.

No blame, and definitely no 2♣ overall. All actions were normal IMO.

LOL Anyway, yes of course I bid 4♣.

2N, just a bit too much to pass, and I don't like playing NF constructive anyway, so I'll pretend I thought it was forcing if partner asks. Another creative option is 2♥, which will always have an amusing ending if nothing else.

2♣ is a bit much, but I can live with it, a few more club spots would be nice of course. The responsive double is a bit light, but with 3 card support and nice interior cards, I don't mind it. 3♦ is clear... To suggest passing here is ridiculous. Partner showed the red suits, and we have a clear preference, the only interesting question is what 2N should be... Perhaps the 3-6 in the minors? 5♦ is absurd. I give this bid 95% of the blame, just because it is so ridiculously bad lol Double is bad, however not ridiculous... South can see a heart lead, diamond over, heart ruff, and perhaps another trick in the wash. Personally I wouldn't double, but partner did bid 5♦ R/W... Surely he must have something, right? Right?!?!

I generally play transfers over transfers, which reflects itself in Stayman sequences as well - 2♠ is needed for INV with 5(+)♠, not necessarily 4♥. I usually just bid 2♣ on the 5♠ 4♥ hands, and then bid 2♥ if partner shows no major. I give up on some 5-3 fits, but overall I think this method is much better.

I like the 1N - P - P - 2X P - P - X As a value-showing double, usually a maximum pass with at least 2 cards in their suit... It's worked really well for me, and with 4♠, you can just bid 2♠ anyway. I think a corollary to this is that the direct X is penalty, since most of the time that responder has anything worth competing on, he'll reopen with a X or another bid.

3♥ was mildly conservative, but I think I would probably do the same. Passing 3♥ however was just plain bad. How much more do you need to have?!