shyams

Ben, the spade double finesse might still be best. If East switches to a low heart upon winning the first spade, we can go straight up with the ♥A and repeat the spade finesse. When we eventually play clubs, defenders can cash out two hearts but their setting trick in diamonds is not going to materialise.

It's an excellent thread. So here's my attempt: Win the ♥A, then cash ♦Q and play low to ♦A. A. East shows out on the second ♦: B. Both opponents follow to the two rounds of ♦ or West shows out on the second ♦: I wonder -- if ♦ split 2-2 and (two tricks later) West reveals a 4-card club, what is best?

I think there's no hurry to switch to clubs. If partner has ♣AQ, our side cannot have any other honor card and we cannot defeat 4♥. If West has ♣AQT9, a club switch would do more harm than good. West's problem is entries to try all their finesses. I think a ♣ switch will help solve West's problem. A diamond continuation looks less harmful.

My upvote for uday's post. Your explanation helps a lot in understanding why gib does some strange things Yes please! I'd really like to see this happen.

I'd heard this one somewhere before. Partner overbids and gets to declare. He finesses on the opening lead, takes a deep finesse on the next trick, cashes trumps which split 3-2, does a few more shenanigans and lands with an overtrick or two. LHO say to my partner "with your luck, it's a surprise the trump suit didn't break 2½ - 2½ !!"

This looks very hard (expert). - I'd probably start by ducking the ♠Q. - I'll play for West to hold both black suits and for diamonds to break kindly (either 3-3 or doubleton J10 J9 109 with West). If all goes well, West will be squeezed in the black suits when we lead the 4th round of diamond from hand It appears that ducking a ♣ (i.e. test for 3-3) won't work. Opps will destroy the timing of any subsequent squeeze by playing a second round of ♠.

... and hope that partner has the ♦8. After we duck, declarer will play two more rounds of spades and our two discards will be ♦9 and ♣2. If declarer started with ♦A8xx, we cannot defeat 6NT.

I am unable to comprehend how George Cooper's "hypothetical kingdom" example discredits r>g entirely. He says the economy doubles because twice the land as a 1000 years ago is now productive farmland. My problem is if we put one more constraint into Cooper's example. What about the impact of population? Let's say the King had 1 million subjects in year 1 and due to the fatalistic beliefs of the King and his subjects, diseases remain a problem even in year 1000. Let's assume the population in year 1000 is still 1 million. In such a situation, would the economy really have doubled in a 1000 years?

The method should be as Mycroft said. The actual x-IMP for the board should be roughly 14.1 (8x13+3x17)/11. It's not clear how the software showed 19.08. Guess the correct option in the software for IMP scoring should be #1 - cross-imp comparisons.

Just a thought (I'm nowhere close to expert). What if South played ♣Q to trick 2? I've heard experts play it to show contiguous honors. This might assist North in rising with ♦Q and exiting with ♣6

[hv=pc=n&s=saj85hkqj72dck875&n=st92ht543d975caqt&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=p1h2d2h3dpp3hppp]266|200[/hv] This is how the bidding went at our table. Would appreciate feedback on which call was the worst...

Agree with gnasher. An aisde: Would a dbl by North suggest "I want to sacrifice if you (South) have no defensive value"?

Well done. Congratulations and many more successful tourneys ahead!

I would have played the same line as you did.

The opposite. It is more likely now that Einstein was wrong. When odds shorten, the probability increases

Congratulations!

Agree completely.

Don't go! The forums are Mostly Harmless

These (first) two posts pretty much cover the gist of what may need to change in the regulation. The rest of it seems to go a bit off-track. In my opinion, while Vampyr and others are talking about players "flashing cards in a twirling motion", while Cascade and others are approaching it from an angle of one player being allowed to slow down table tempo(?) deliberately. Law 65A defines a completed trick. It does not define when the cards should be turned over. Perhaps it should -- e.g. a defender may not delay turning over his card by more than [x] seconds after his partner has done so; declarer may not delay turning over his card by more than [x] seconds after dummy has done so. As defender, I have seen dummies turn their card over but not declarer -- followed by a defender leading to next trick to the annoyance of some declarers. My point is: if declarer did not want the current trick to be quitted why did he/she not prohibit dummy from turning over the card? I think this is the main point. If bluejak found that a player was slowing down the game by repeatedly keeping his/her card face up on the table, I guess he would not hesitate to warn the "slow player" instead of the "fast leader". In other words, some of the sidetracked discussions here are moot. Finally, Blackshoe, you are a forum moderator. I don't think the 2nd sentence was necessary.

Thank you all for your replies. #1 happened a few weeks ago playing with a pick-up partner on BBO. Partner's hand was consistent with what you expected. I mistook it as more shape with minimal strength. We reached 5♥ -1 :( #2 happened a long time ago -- club bridge with a pick-up strong partner. Partner was (approx) ♠Kxx ♥xx ♦xx ♣AKJT9x. I passed and made 13 tricks on favourable lie of cards but we were cold for 12. Partner said the sequence suggests minimum (as said in most replies) but with nearly solid ♣s. #3 happened a few days ago on BBO -- I held ♠Tx ♥AJT98xx ♦QJ ♣K3. I thought I bid OK -- please feel free to comment if you disagree.

1. If the bidding went as below, what would South's hand look like for his jump bid? Is this a sequence with a fairly standard meaning (i.e expert standard)? [hv=d=s&v=0&b=1&a=1sp2hp4h]133|100[/hv] 2. What would South's hand typically look like in the below sequence? Is this a standard meaning? [hv=d=n&v=0&b=11&a=1sp2cp2dp4s]133|100[/hv] 3. And how about this jump by South after partner made a GF bid? [hv=d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1hp2cp4h]133|100[/hv]

Is encrypted bidding illegal? I thought only the defensive carding encryption is prohibited. On the assumption that encrypted bidding is allowed: 1. The use of 4 cards as keys is too burdensome. You hold all 4 deuces on 0.06% of the hands, making it too rare to use in a "psyching system". 2. Instead, how about only two "psyche key cards" -- a. If I hold ♣2+♦2, I am permitted to psyche 1♠. b. If I hold ♣3+♦3, I am permitted to psyche 1NT. Holding both sets of key cards, I psyche 1♠ or 1NT (my choice). c. Psyches are not mandatory on me -- it is my choice based on dealer / vul status. 3. The probability of holding at least one pair of "psyche keys" now rises to approx 5.2% (1 in 20 hands). And the fun begins. 4. When partner opens 1NT, responder alerts and says "15-17, except when he is holding both ♣3+♦3 he could be psyching". 4a. About 35% of the time, the responder will hold one of the psyche key cards and will know the 1NT bid is real. 4b. The rest of the time, responder can decide to do whatever he wants. 5a. The effectiveness of psyches can be increased by integrating into any strong club system. And making the psyches as 1NT and 2♣. 5b. If playing SAYC or 2/1, the system after a 1♠ opening can be modified to make 1NT response non-forcing. This is just the start! It is possible expand this (warped) thought process to build a high-variance bidding system.

Nice post, Simon. I may be tempted to buy the software as well.

Law 46A and Law 43A should only apply. 46A: When calling a card to be played from dummy declarer should clearly state both the suit and the rank of the desired card. Law 46B includes "(except when declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible)". Here, declarer's intention was incontrovertible albeit illegal -- he/she clearly wanted dummy to make the 50:50 guess on behalf of declarer. Since dummy is prevented (law 43A quoted by pran) from deciding on behalf of declarer, the applicable clause becomes 46A -- i.e. declarer's designation is not clear. Call TD -- who should ask declarer to designate one specific card.

Here are my choices Bermuda Bowl Winner: Italy Runner-up: USA2 3rd/4th: Poland and Netherlands Losing QF: USA1, Israel, Brazil and China Venice Cup Winner: USA1 Runner-up: France 3rd/4th: China and Germany Losing QF: USA2, Netherlands, England and Poland Senior Bowl Winner: USA1 Runner-up: Poland 3rd/4th: Denmark and USA2 Losing QF: Australia, Bulgaria, Indonesia and Pakistan