cherdanno

Aha!. I would take "positive" as at least a K or so, i.e anything worth a game force.

Fred, of course your comment may not be completely serious, but I am still curious about it. From watching you on Vugraph now and then I had already noticed that you like to make such 1NT overcalls, and if I were playing precision, and if I were your LHO (two big "if"s...), I would probably just lead my best suit. When you play against a top precision pair, are they typically aware of your tendency to make such 1NT overcalls, and similarly lead diamonds as much as clubs on this auction? I guess more generally I am curious how well top players know each others' styles.

So aside from the fact that mrdct misleadingly compares Olympiad and BB performances, he also seems to disagree with PeterGill about whether the 2009 team was selected by a teams trial or pairs trial.

I don't think the 5♠ bid is terrible, but your partner' hand should just bid 3♠ over 2♥, setting trumps and letting the cuebidding again. Then you could easily bid slam over your 4♦ cue, and easily avoid slam if you have the ♥A instead.

After the 4♥ reply and the pass, it is obvious to East that they do not play 4♣ Gerber in the way he expects it. Do we really have reason to believe East would make a takeout double of 4♥ after 4♣ is explained as "asking for aces, could be a weak one-suiter", given that he didnt make a double on the actual auction?

The double is penalty. I would also bid 6♠ since I have an ace. I hope partner isn't asking for good trumps :P :blink:

I would double when red at IMPs. All white at MPs I would also double. Same at teams when favorable. White against red at matchpoints? Think I would also double.

You are thinking of a completely different auction. Playing 3D as natural non forcing here wouldn't make much sense at all. I think he is referring to if opener's third bid is either 3m or 3♥ over 2NT. But I don't remember having that discussion, and I think all opener's bids like that should be forcing. Phil, maybe you were referring to http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...ndpost&p=397030 ?

Can't do that weekend either.

Don't tempt him, please don't.....

I rule the TD has to pay for the rounds of scotch.

I agree that "almost nothing" is a sliding scale. But in every relay systems the relay break is infrequent, and most of the time relayer will just continue to relay. Hence (by definition), there is very little information in the relay. I would argue that in every example by Adam, there is considerably more information in responder's sequence of bids than in a typical relay sequence. But again, I admit this is not a black-and-white issue.

I think all of your examples are bogus. The point of relay bids is not that they are artificial, it is that they tell almost nothing about relayers hand. 1H-1N-2C-2S is a good club raise, how on earth can this be a relay? The forcing NT is a better example, but again it says something - responder does not have GF values (unless maybe balanced in some versions of 2/1). Bart shows one of a few possible hand types, making this not even a catchall bid.

You will get a pop-up with the scores when the previous one is finished. You can also go to My BBO->Hands and results->... to look up previous tournament results (this is for the web client).

You erase an event from memory when you do worse than hanp? I also can't remember every playing in one, btw. ;)

If we really know partner is 3334, then I think partner should not very often commit to a strain over 4♣ without good clubs - i.e., AJxx. If he has xxx Axxx in the minors, he may bid 4D or 4N. Then over 4N we can pass, and over 4D we can raise to 5D. Over a cue, we can bid 5N. Shouldn't this get us to the right level and strain very often?

Rainer, I don't think your simulations corresponds to what people call a "constructive raise with 8-10". This means they would have 8-10 hcp with a typical shape, e.g. 4432 (of course they would upgrade with great hcp, like Q of trumps and AA, if they are sane). It certainly does not include xxx Kx Qxxx Qxxx. I would think 9-11 points in your count comes closer to describing it correctly.

:lol: I would never pass on this auction with shape and a 9-count. :P Hmm, are you really so sure about that? :lol: Well, ok, maybe if my singleton is in partner's suit I would consider it. B) Good! :lol: But I would still like to bid! :unsure: But what if... :lol: Really, I would like to bid! :unsure: ...what if LHO had bid one of your 5-card suits? :lol: Oh. Well, then I would look at my hand and the auction more closely. :unsure: Good! Also... :lol: Hmm. Let's see. :unsure: also LHO... :lol: oh and LHO showed length in my other 5-card suit? :unsure: Yes! And look at... :lol: Wait! You are telling me I have a singleton in partner's suit, no aces, opponents showed my 5-card suits, AND i have really bad suits? Like K8xxx at best? You really think I was going to bid with that? I know I am a joke, but I am not THAT crazy! :unsure: Glad we settled that!

Why does opener have 18-19 balanced? Btw, I think at IMPs ducking would be clear, but the 40% matchpoints in the scoring makes me hesitate.

I like double and pass much much better than 4♦.

I am not sure I quite follow this discussion. Surely if we were to switch to a purely computer-based play, we could sit North and East at one table in one room, and South and West at another table in another room? So the change in the social aspect would not necessarily be so drastic, compared to playing with screens.

Well, apparently at least some world class players think this is not true.

Double.

I think it would already be helpful to use electronic playing cards, so that every play in a major tournament gets officially recorded, along with the timing.

I would splinter.