shyams

I've played (badly) in a few of these before. If allowed, I would like to play in Challenge Event #9.

Power corrupts everybody. He won't let an opportunity to pass -- never! Secondly, he is not an island within the Labour party. Whatever his personal stance, his party will not let him pass on an opportunity to be in power.

Well said!

Barely a tough decision. Corbyn will take any deal as long as he gets to be Prime Minister; even if such a deal means bidding adios to Scotland in the long run.

I use Chromebook to login. Use Google Chrome to open (http://www.bridgebase.com/client/client.php) and login from there.

London Grammar, a British band worth being heard around the world.

Scoring: Matchpoints [hv=pc=n&s=sj3hqjt98763dkcj5]133|100[/hv] And an additional question (if you don't open 1♥): -- What is the smallest strengthening of the above hand that makes it good for 1♥?

I'd have opened 1NT

From West's perspective, it is crazy unlikely for East to bid 4♣ without the ♥K -- especially given the vulnerability. So, "knowing" that East has ♥K, the West Robot IMO believes that "all cards are equal" and leads any heart.

You (South) hold ♠Q ♥A 10 7 4 3 ♦K J 8 7 6 ♣K 2 As dealer (all green), you open 1♥. West intervenes with a 3♠ preempt. Now, partner bids 4♠ -- described as "Cue bid -- 13+ total points; forcing to 5C" East doubles partner's 4♠. On to you! What is your next action? What do you expect partner to hold? I ask because:

When I type my ID & password into the web version of BBO, does it always transmit this information to BBO servers using secure socket (i.e. https) or other suitable encryption/protection methods?

Perhaps an improvement on Nigel's line would be: - When ♠Q wins, play a low ♥ towards the South hand immediately. This option will backfire if West started with a bare ♥K. However, it should be superior to ♠A then ♥'s for other configurations.

This was as big a shock as the other one for the day! :) English batters successfully attacking Indian spin bowling in India! What surprise lies around the next corner?! Putin to step down? :)

Is it OK to assume West was not dealer? A potential line is to play East for ♦Tx and thus try an intrafinesse. However, if West was indeed dealer and passed, then that line become much lower %. All indications are West holds ♣AQ(xxx) and is very unlikely to also hold ♦KQxx and pass in the first seat.

Results of matches 3 and 4 3. awm 35 IMPs -- shyams 36 IMPs. WIN BY 1 (results link) 4. P_Marlowe 27 IMPs -- shyams 27 IMPs. TIED MATCH (results link) I have finished my board for the 5th match as well, waiting for elwood913 to play out the set.

Seriously, does anyone who works in sensitive functions really transfer their office emails to public mailboxes like this? I mean, I can understand if something like this occurred in the late 90s or early 00s. How can any organisation not reinforce the risks associated with such transfer of emails? In one of my previous firms (an investment bank) we were all repeatedly told never to download or transfer sensitive files to personal email IDs. We were told of a real-life example of a M&A deal that was compromised because an analyst decided to zip his 'due diligence' files and attach them to a personal server in order to work offline from home. The client found the weblink using a simple google query on the deal codename! And all hell broke loose.

My oft-repeated theme (also used in other GIB bidding threads) is that IF GIB uses sampling to determine likely winning action, I cannot think of many hands where a PASS will come out worse than a 4♦ bid. I refuse to believe that GIB cannot compute (using whatever programming logic it has) to infer correctly that PASS has to be a winning action. What I also find odd/suspicious is that neither GIB E nor GIB W could compute that doubling 4♦ is a no-brainer.

I feel really sad that such a beautiful area in Italy has been struck by such a devastating earthquake. My good wishes to the people affected -- be strong!

While I am not denying that, as Secretary of State, Mrs Clinton had access to some of the most sensitive documents, the US Govt classification system and the number of people in the US with access to such "classified" documents is severely flawed. 1. I believe around 5 million people working for (or contracting for) the US Govt have access to classified documents. 2. I also believe a good 10%-15% of these have access to all but the highest level of classification {I have no idea what that means and how many levels of classification exist}. 3. Every "classified" document is supposed to be treated with kid gloves by all these 5 million people. Are we saying there are never any accidents?! Or worse, malicious incidents involving such classified documents? And how does the media or the senators decide whether a leaked classified document is low level classified or has a very sensitive classification? My point is: The tag "classified" has no significance unless someone with authority and knowledge can opine that the documents involved were really sensitive and meant for access by a handful of people. In absence of such opinion, no incident involving "classified information" can merit any of the debates going on in the media.

I lost both matches I have played so far: 1. dadim 23 IMPs -- shyams 15 IMPs. LOSE BY 8 (results link) 2. smerriman 12 IMPs -- shyams 4 IMPs. LOSE BY 8 (results link)

[hv=http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&lin=pn%7Cshyams%2CRobot%2CRobot%2CRobot%7Cst%7C%7Cmd%7C4SK82HQ52DAQ93CQ93%2CSAJT764HADJ642C65%2CSQ53HT874DK87CKT4%2CS9HKJ963DT5CAJ872%7Csv%7CN%7Cah%7CBoard%202%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7C1C%7Can%7CMinor%20suit%20opening%20--%203%2B%20%21C%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%2012-22%20total%20points%7Cmb%7C1S%7Can%7COne-level%20overcall%20--%205%2B%20%21S%3B%208-17%20HCP%3B%209-19%20total%20points%7Cmb%7CD%7Can%7CNegative%20double%20--%204%2B%20%21H%3B%207%2B%20total%20points%7Cmb%7C1N%7Can%7C2-%20%21S%3B%209-11%20HCP%3B%2012-%20total%20points%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7C2S%7Can%7C6%2B%20%21S%3B%2013-17%20total%20points%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7C3C%7Can%7C1-%20%21S%3B%2011-%20HCP%3B%20biddable%20%21C%3B%2012%20total%20points%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7C3D%7Can%7C4%2B%20%21D%3B%206%2B%20%21S%3B%2013-17%20total%20points%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7C3S%7Can%7C1%20%21S%3B%2011-%20HCP%3B%20biddable%20%21C%3B%2012%20total%20points%7Cmb%7CD%7Can%7C3%2B%20%21C%3B%2011%2B%20HCP%3B%2012-13%20total%20points%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7C4D%7Can%7C4%2B%20%21D%3B%204%2B%20%21H%3B%207%2B%20total%20points%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7CP%7Cpc%7CS9%7Cpc%7CS2%7Cpc%7CSA%7Cpc%7CS5%7Cpc%7CHA%7Cpc%7CH4%7Cpc%7CH3%7Cpc%7CH2%7Cpc%7CS6%7Cpc%7CS3%7Cpc%7CDT%7Cpc%7CS8%7Cpc%7CHK%7Cpc%7CH5%7Cpc%7CC5%7Cpc%7CH7%7Cpc%7CH9%7Cpc%7CHQ%7Cpc%7CD2%7Cpc%7CH8%7Cpc%7CC6%7Cpc%7CC4%7Cpc%7CCA%7Cpc%7CC3%7Cpc%7CC7%7Cpc%7CC9%7Cpc%7CD6%7Cpc%7CCT%7Cpc%7CSJ%7Cpc%7CSQ%7Cpc%7CD5%7Cpc%7CSK%7Cpc%7CCJ%7Cpc%7CCQ%7Cpc%7CD4%7Cpc%7CCK%7Cpc%7CST%7Cpc%7CHT%7Cpc%7CC8%7Cpc%7CD3%7Cpc%7CDA%7Cpc%7CDJ%7Cpc%7CD7%7Cpc%7CC2%7Cpc%7CDQ%7Cpc%7CS7%7Cpc%7CD8%7Cpc%7CHJ%7Cpc%7CD9%7Cpc%7CS4%7Cpc%7CDK%7Cpc%7CH6%7C]400|300[/hv] After three rounds of bidding, and having shown a basic minimum hand, I decide to double opponents on what appears to be a misfit. I feel safe in the knowledge that partner cannot assume it as takeout because opponents have shown all four suits (including the one I originally bid) plus I have denied a fit in partner's major. However, North GIB thinks for a while. Then decides to take out to 4♦. I must say North showed restraint in bidding only 4 because I made exactly FOUR tricks :angry:. Well done, GIB. Minus 600 instead of Plus 300/500.

I have not been on BBF for a couple of days and did not see the notification of the groups. I have accepted two challenges today. I will play through the boards as soon as practical. I will get the remaining challenges rolling later in the week.

Of course :) I need coffee!

Assuming the basic line of play is: (a) draw three rounds of trumps and (b) cash all winners in the side suits (ending in the right hand), we have two options: 1. Play King to be over the Queen. -- You will go down on all 3-3 splits provided opponent correctly covers the Queen with the King -- You will also go down on 26 of 40 combinations of a 4-2 split. In your first example, playing this way only succeeds if West holds exactly KJxx (6 combinations), KTxx (6 combinations), KJ OR K10 stiff (2 combinations). 2. Play King to be onside. -- In addition to the 50% chance of finding the King onside, you also succeed when the King is doubleton offside. Option 2 is clearly superior. Leading the Queen will not win in the long run. Am I missing anything?

I'm in. Perhaps there is something called 4th time lucky and I might progress beyond the first stage :)