hotShot

I bid 4♠, it will make more often than not and I intend not to help opps to find a better lead or defense with more information about our hands.

If this is true for people from different areas that have never played together, than I would call that common bridge knowledge.

I don't think that the belief that killing is wrong implies that you accepted to be killed without resistance.

A society believes that killing people is wrong, so they kill murderers. They consider killing people to have a finanzial advantage is even more unethical, but they argue that executions are cheaper than paying for a lifetime in jail. Moral is hard .......

West could have 12 HCP and up to 8 loser, and opposite the possibility of this kind of junk, East has a GF. West should hear the slam bells ringing after that. I'm not a 2/1 expert, but if 2♣ was GF why does West waste bidding space with a splinter? Both opponents have passed already, it's unlikely that they will reenter the auction again. Actually the splinter tells opps that they (most likely) have a ♠ fit. Would a 2♥ bid by West show ♥? East won't pass (he has forced to game), and his ♥ QT7 look much better than. Isn't going slow after a GF a hint for extra strength? 1♦ (unbalanced) 2♣ (GF) 2♥ 2NT (♠ values) leaving you with all of the 3 and 4 level to find out about slam.

I would suggest the following check: Pick from all the boards where declarer did not go down those where the DD-par is of the same denomination and level ( partscore, game or slam zone). Since the effects of game or slam bonuses are eliminated, the result only depends on the number of tricks taken. 0 - 10 = 0 20 - 40 = 1 +1 M,NT / +1,+2 m 50 - 80 = 2 +2 M,NT / +3,+4 m 90 - 120 = 3 +3 M, NT You can calculate how many IMPs you should have won. If your set is large enough and if distortions are averaged out, these IMPs and the actual XIMPs won should be the same. The IMP scale is not linear so I doubt that distortions average out. It also indicates that the actual extra IMPs for an overtrick would be smaller than based on over (under) tricks. But any significant deviation would indicate some sort of bias.

If each side plays half of the boards, 1/2 a trick at the lead is about 1 trick in 4 boards.

Looking at your actual results (assuming they are from BBO XIMP play) Playing in a heterogeneous environment has a systemic bias. Lets assume 2 pairs of beginner play a partscore. Each beginner will miss a trick he could take, but since there are 2 defenders and one declarer, the result is +1. Lets assume 2 expert pairs play the same board, Nobody misses a trick., the result is =. So you lose playing the par score. If you play a lot of "swiss" tourneys where good player soon meet good opponents and the same applies to weak players this effect is significant.

If it is significantly higher, this would suggest that your opponents play significantly worse than the DD-Solver. An analysis of card play I did a few years ago showed that the average beginner loses more than 1 trick per board to the DD-solver while it takes GIB and WC player 4-5 boards to lose 1 trick to the DD solver. Combined with bad bidding this means a lot of IMPs. Can't imagine that your average could be lower ....

Although I agree that a clock could be good for the game, you need to find a solution for the disclosure problem. If I ask my opponent about the partnership agreements of the last bid or play, who's time is running down until I get an answer? If the answer adds to my clock, opps gain an advantage from answering slow or unclear. If their time is running down, an unethical player could extend his thinking time and put time pressure on his opps by asking unnecessary questions.

Interesting article: http://scripting.com/stories/2011/09/24/facebookIsScaringMe.html

This is a suitable response.

100% North There is no nonforcing hand that South can have that would pass over 1♥ and has a standalone ♦ suit now. OK the 3♦ bid is worth 100% blame too.

If opponents play this weak-in-lower suit or preempt-in-higher-suit, I would suggest to my partner that we use the 2-in-higher-suit bid as T/O for the higher-suit and dbl as T/O of the lower-suit..

Let dead threads rest in peace.

Can't be worse? How do you expect the trumps to break, if preemptor has a max. of 2 cards in that suit. How many rounds of ♣ do you intend to ruff with the north hand (because that the only suit short enough for a ruff) knowing that RHO is short in ♣ and has 4+ trumps too. Sine 3♣X= is 670, you should not go down 3 dbled, so you need to make 7 tricks. South gets the A♦ and maybe ♠Q and ♥J are useful, but since finesses are most likely off, north needs to have about 5 tricks in his hands. If north's semibalanced hand can produce 5 tricks although finesses won't work and although RHO can overruff or promote his trumps, than 3♣ won't make and going down is too expensive.

This is MP, so I seriously consider pass. Since I hold 4 ♣ opps will often only have 8(or even 7) trumps, which means that our side does not necessarily have a fit at all. Partner does not advertise a long suit and we can't win much playing a 7 card fit on the 3 level. At IMPs pass is no option, because its to expensive if they make 3♣X.

I don't like North pass over 2♥, the reopening double by South is misdescribing the South hand. North 3♣ shows a very weak hand, that is forced to bid because of the reopening dbl. South has no choice but to pass 3♣. So North has to take most of the blame, but South should not blame anyone but himself as the reopening dbl is terrible.

I don't have a Mac, so I can't tell you how "good" this works. It is a Python Frontend to Bo Haglunds DDS that runs on Os X. (You will need to do a lot of compiling yourself. http://www.aleax.it/Bridge/ Thomas Andrew's Deal is available for OS X, it think you can download binaries there, but it does not perform the task the way you wish.

South 100% If you ask your partner to bid 3NT when he has a ♥ stopper, than you should better stop the ♠ (,♦ and ♣ ) yourself. North 3♦ bid is ok. He knows that partner can't have many ♥, that opps are likely to have a fit (not in ♥ but in a black suit) and 3♦ ain't that risky and opps will never find their fit now.

Happy birthday! :)

I agree with cherdano, this has / had nothing to do with the water cooler. When I joined the forum 2003 the community consisted of only a few active posters and most of them had very high standards in behavior and bridge. The community has grown since than and it seems logical that a larger community will have a wider range of standards. IIRC this thread was started when a few active and established poster left because they felt mobbed.

North has to take the blame. North knows that he has 6♥ to partners 4♥ and 3♣ to partners 5+♣. That means that he knows about a double fit with at least 18 cards. He knows that defending the best possible split in ♥ will allow 1 ♥ trick and that about half of the time there is only 1♣ trick for their side. He also knows that a ♠ trick in more than unlikely if opps can play ♠ from the table at least once. And the odds for a ♦ trick are dubious at best. Knowing all that, combined with the knowledge that opps will have an 18-card double fit too, anb because they have the ♠, he should bid 5♥. and not 4♥ (he can be pretty sure that partner won't have more than 1♠ and he's got a ♦ singleton).

Your choices are: - Uncalled lecturing your opponents about ethics and bridge rules (the worst choice) - being someone who calls the TD very often (you said you would like to avoid that) and let the TD sort it out - let the TD / teacher do the lecturing - ignore it - play at another club I don't think that any of these options will make you friends in that club.

If people still had real friends, they would not need advice from strangers.