hotShot

I use: 2♦ 0-3 2♥ 4-7 3♠ 8-9 Anything else 10+ NT balanced suits are 5+ This way opener can decide what level we should reach. I prefer 2♦ to be 0-3 because opener can bid both majors and NT after that (to let the strong hand play). I don't like "waiting" i think it just wastes a bid.

Partners 4NT means "pick a minor" in my book and red vs. white he is not planing a sacrifice. With an unknown partner I'll pick 6♦. (A trustworthy partner would have known that down 2 is to much in red vs. white, so he should hold 10 tricks. So i should bid 7♦ with 3 top tricks.)

Why can't I run to 2♠?

Since 2NT is artificial and forcing, you should define what double means. You could use dbl to show a weak/strong support, so that the simple 3m shows a good/bad rise. This works both with 3!C and 3!D.

If a team is formed you could count me in :).

The reason is that money rules and it is method is globalization. The lower end jobs are in competition with third world country payments. So these jobs are exported from the most industrialized nations. The result is a growing rate of unemployed people. The market forces result in the reduction of the the price payed for human labor. This results in jobs, where the payment is not high enough to make a living. This effect has started with higher qualified jobs now, as we see it in the IT-area, where e.g. India is getting the world main software developing country. The final result will be the extinction of the middle class. You will be either rich or poor, with a wide gap in between. The standard for poor will be set by the pay level of the world poorest nations in addition with the costs of transportation for raw materials and products. The EU is fighting to level this withing Europe, it was one of the reasons for the fast growth over the last years. But leveling means that high levels go down while low levels go up. The big question is: Are politics fast enough to keep pace with "global players" from the money world.

I've been playing around and made me a program that is reading lin-files and analyzes the card play. At the end I calculate a number: unlucky played cards / board. An unlucky played card is a card that reduces the number of tricks for your side. This could be just unlucky as in not fishing a stiff K or some serious error. A few results: Star (world class) 0.22 (070 boards serious competition) GIB 0.3 (about 1000 there are 3 GIB's playing each board :P ) Junior champion 1 0.33 (150 boards serious competition) Junior champion 2 0.38 (200 boards training and serious competition) Junior Star 0.4 (570 boards fun team games) Senior Star 0.48 (330 boards fun games with other stars) Me 0.5 (10000 boards with hundreds of pickup partner) Intermediate 0.64 (700 boards) Beginner Level 0.83

I think that this whole issue is about the first words said to the director. If the first words of the player in question to the TD would have been: "I was just waiting the usual time because of the skip bid." Than the whole thing would have gone the right way. But i guess opps called the director and claimed hesitation and the player agreed that he needed a little longer. From that moment on, TD and AC can't do anything else but to handle this as a BIT case. Reading the the original post, I don't see that the "offending side" claimed that they were just waiting because of the skip bid. Instead I read that they agreed that 12-14 second where used. AC's, TD's and most of all players are far better in discussing bridge topics, than formal regulations from the laws. This is why they tend to discuss LA's before it's clear that there is an UI case at all. I think it is unfair not to use the stop card and insisting that LHO broke his tempo. After a skip bid, LHO is more likely to make an insufficient bid. After a skip bid, LHO will often have to rethink his intended action, so he is forced to break his tempo, if he usually bids fast. So not giving the "skip bid warning" puts LHO in a position, where he is almost forced to break the laws.

I think we can define that grey area a little better. You have to disclose partnership agreements and partnership experience. So if you meet a pickup partner at a BBO table you never played with before and you make the usual little to nothing agreement, than it is perfectly correct to say you have no agreement. Now if you have played with a partner a few times, than you expect him/her to be on the same wavelength with you more often than on different ones. So your disclusure should be something like: "We do not have an agreement for this auction, but generally we play system on after opps double." (Or short for the alert box, "not agreed, expecting system on").

I think the argument is missing the case here. Even if opponent did not use the stop card, you should wait the usual time (10 sec.) before you bid on. So I would argue that there was no hesitation just active ethical behavior. I wonder what the ACBL suggests as correct behavior after opps missing stop card.

If you click on "upcoming ..." BBO opens a browser window with the vugraph shedule. It contains links to the events website if available.

Against typos, the firefox spell checker extension is very helpful. But I guess your boss won't install it for you :).

2H should imply a 6th heart. X says, I can tolerate whatever you do and would be almost unanimous in any poll, I believe. Did you notice that 1H was explained as 4+♥'s?

You have a strong hand and are battling for the partscore, 4-5 HCP from partner will be enough. I doubt that dbl will be an unanimous vote here, because you can rebid you ♥ too. But at MP, but I think pass won't be chosen often.

Lets assume you are playing trick 10. You played your card and press the claim button after that. Now there are Tricks 10-13 = 4 tricks to win. You claim 3 of this 4. While you are typing, trick 10 is finished. Now there are only 3 tricks left. The software notices that and changes the number of tricks tat can be claimed. So you now claim 3 of 3 (notice the update) remaining tricks. So if you are declarer, this can only happen after you played from both hand and dummy and have to wait long for opps last card. You should avoid that situatioan unless you want to claim all tricks.

The 2 ♠ answer of opener could be with only 2♠s and minimum, 3♣ shows 4 cards is at least GF and looking for the best game in ♠, NT or ♣.

There are two problems with UI cases: 1) to figure out the LA and 2) find the least suggested one. But if there is no LA, you don't have the 2nd problem. And if you want to discuss which bid is more suggested by the UI you should state the alternatives. Lets assume the bidding suggestions would be: 4♥ 4♣ dbl pass Would you have them all on your list?

Your partner hesitated and than passed. The only logical reason would be, that he considered bidding. So he is likely to have something. But you don't know what bid he was thinking about. He could have considered a weak jump or a dbl with a (sub)minimum hand. This makes bidding from your side more attractive, but it does not suggest any suit. So in this case you only need to consider: Is it reasonable to pass with my hand? I you think a significant amount of player will pass with your hand, than you should pass. None of your options is correct! Among the reasonable bids available, you should take one that is not ( least) suggested by the UI. It is even possible to win a top by that!

I will demonstrate the best way to do this using this example. ____________________________________________________________ Subject: What do you bid? Dealer: West Vul: All Scoring: IMP ♠ K ♥ AKQ853 ♦ KQ ♣ QJ74 West North East South Pass Pass 1♠ Dbl 2♠ Pass Pass 3♥ 3♠ Pass Pass ? What do you bid and why? ________________________________________________________________ Any bid that comes up, is a LA to consider and this way you will get an unbiased picture of what people would do. If they know/suspect UI, they will no longer think: "What do I bid?" They will think: "Is there an alternative to 4♥?" So even if they don't intend to be biased, their answer will be biased.

@SoTired In my system a splinter (here 3♠) here is forcing to game (here 4♥), if partner does not have a q-bid (or mixed q-bid) below that, slam won't be an option. This is why splinter is an option in this hand, because I want to know the ♣ control. Otherwise I would go over 2NT. My answering structure over 2NT uses all bids below 3M as showing single or void and 3M as weakest catch all.

Yes you a are 4144 this time, but what would you bid with 3244? If your agreement includes "off shape" dbl, than the responsive double should show 4♠ and tolerance for any minor. If you dbl promises 4♠, the responsive dbl better denies 4♠ and just asks you to pick one of the minors.

Playing my favorite methods, I have an easy Jacoby 2NT, with this hand showing support and forcing. If I don't want to use that, i can splinter 3♠, because my methods "force" partner to show any first round controls he can bid below 4♥ or make the next higher bid (here 3NT) with the following answers: 1. step: (here 4♣) suit is void (forces partner to bid 4♦ as sort of voidwood with ♠ void) 2. step: (here 4♦) single ♠ 3/0 of 5 3. step: (here 4♥) single ♠ 4/1 of 5 4. step: (here 4♠) single ♠ 2 of 5 without trump Q 5. step: (here 4NT) single ♠ 2 of 5 with trump Q This way even with a weak partner slam can be explored with 5♥ or 4/5NT as rescue bids. With your methods, I have to bid 2♦ first.

Seems we agree on the time of the potential infraction. So after the winning the the ♠A west has the choice to play ♠ and ♦. West has the following AI's: East can see both red aces on the table, so playing a red suit might help declarer. South covered ♠Q with the K, while south and east share 6♠'s. Does north cover make sense holding Kxx? Can east be single?

The long tank is no infraction! It is legal to think and even legal to produce UI, west action is possibly an infraction.

It is not a violation of the laws to produce UI, just to use it. So i would like to know, what information you think east gave, that is unauthorized to west? And how did west use it? After that lets discuss, what are the LA's that west has for his lead, and which of these is suggested or more suggested by the UI.