bd71

At matchpoints with a combined 32-33 and a hand that includes lots of soft values, are you really letting the possibility of a grand dictate much of your bidding strategy?

Are English or other men with huge bellies and tiny bikini swimsuits not a peeve? Surely Germans don't have a monopoly on this behavior...

Edited now to show the 4th club/13th card.

[hv=pc=n&w=sqj6h6da9632cqj73]133|100[/hv] Matchpoints. Partner has shown a balanced 22-23 (2C-2D-2N). Your agreements are that 20-21 or stronger "balanced" hands can be somewhat off-shape. Your options are described in the above poll. What do you think is best? NOTE: Edited to show the 4th club/13th card.

[hv=pc=n&e=s6ht852daj963c863&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=1s2h3s]133|200[/hv] Both sides playing pretty standard 2/1. Matchpoints. Would appreciate folks thoughts on whether to bid 4♥ here.

Here's a useful thread on the systemic choice of whether to rebid 1♠ or 1N here... http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/48475-automatic-nt-rebid-w-balanced-hand/

During the Spingold final, one of the commentators with connections to the Polish team mentioned that the Polish Bermuda Bowl squad was simply chosen. The Spingold winners didn't even get a chance to play for the spot.

Would love to take you up on that, but am back home and at work now. Best of luck...stranger things have happened.

I have to admit we hadn't put a lot of thought into these situations, but you've convinced me. On the side...Stephen, I apologize for not introducing myself, as I've enjoyed your thoughts on the forums and knew you were at the other table. But that 3rd quarter stung (Note for all: we were down 100 or so and withdrew) and I wasn't thinking of social graces.

[hv=pc=n&s=st95hat943dk63c72&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1n(14+%20to%2017)d(1-suited)2d(Tx)p2h3d]133|200[/hv] Grand National Teams B What's your call?

[hv=pc=n&s=sqt7543hq62dt93c5&n=sak6hakjdakq4ckq6&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=p2cp2dp2hp2sp3n(26+)p4h(transfer)p4sppp]266|200[/hv] Grand National Teams B - Round of 16 Should either do more? Agreements don't cover the possibility of differentiating strength of 26+ hands. They didn't lead clubs and J♦ dropped singleton, so 4♠+3. Corresponding pair at the other table didn't have a way to cover this hand either as they were in 3N+4. So no loss, but lots of IMPs left on the table.

[hv=pc=n&s=saq84hkqj3dkqt63c&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=p3cd4cdp5cp5hp]133|200[/hv] Pickup partnership. Swiss. Your bid?

My partner and I play 2/1 with a handful of extras. I think our auction would go: 1♦ 2♣* *Unambiguous game-force 2♦* 3♠** *5+♦, could still hold 4cM **Splinter, extent of ♦ fit undiscussed 3N* 4♦** *Non-serious **Minorwood (If opener likes his two aces and bids 4♣ with "serious" interest, it proceeds the same regardless.) 4N* 6♦** *2 w/o Q, North might believe we have only 6-3 fit, so won't fake the Q **South might see only 5-4 fit, so won't go 7 w/o the Q despite all keycards and counting Cliffs notes: due to likely uncertainty on both sides about extent of diamond fit, we would peter out in 6♦ Lesson: have an agreement that splinters always guarantee a 9-card fit based on what non-splintering partner has shown. With that agreement, or if North makes that assumption during the auction even without the agreement, I think this grand is easy. Good illustrative auction to take back to partner...

RHO opens 3C. You hold... ATx AQTxxx AJxx Void Your bid?

Without making any comment on the validity of the LOTT, this type of analysis - even done accurately - is not sufficient to assess the usefulness of "the Law." LOTT does NOT argue that total trumps is correlated with throw tricks available to ONE pair, but rather to the tricks available to both pairs. If I read the analysis right, you are assuming that 2S-1 is a "bad" result, but -50/100 sure beats -110/140. You have to take a different approach to answer your question.

Go find a map of the Northwest Angle in Minnesota. Does it seem to you like this should belong to Canada?

[hv=pc=n&s=skj9432hqjt2dcj96&w=s7h764dq9764ckt73&n=saqt65hk3djt82c52&e=s8ha985dak53caq84&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=pp1d1s2d2sd3sp4sdppp]399|300[/hv] 4SX didn't work out very well for us (E/W) last night at the club. A cold -790. Appreciate thoughts about the East/West decisions here, although you can throw in criticisms of N/S too to help me think we got "fixed" a bit.

I guess I don't want to allow/disallow anything, but understand a bit more about how folks would approach this. My preference is for simpler natural bidding, limiting artificial bids/complexity/memory load/diversion from "standard" for where it's really important. I thought that 4N after the 3H bid would be RKC in "standard" 2/1...are you suggesting that's wrong? If you suggesting that we really should have the 4N jump here defined as showing extras w/ a spade stopper, in this approach would you use 4S/Kickback as RKC? Or am I reading too much into the response?

Perhaps it's not optimal, but 4N would be RKC for hearts in our system. What other non-limiting bids would you consider w/ 2164 distribution instead of 3N? Suppose hand is: AT x AQJxxx Axxx What would you recommend? Now, suppose you're a bit weaker: AT x AJxxxx Axxx What's your preference?

[hv=d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1dp1hp2cp2s(Artificial%20GF)p3dp3hp3n]133|100[/hv] 2/1. What should you know about West's strength and distribution. Specifically, does 3N limit his hand, and if so to what?

[hv=pc=n&e=s42haq73dq63ck764&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=p]133|200[/hv] Matchpoints. Vanilla 2/1. See poll...

3N and 4H seems like the possibilities.

[hv=pc=n&n=s3hqj4dqt954cqjt5&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=1sp1n(forcing)p3hp]133|200[/hv] 2/1. Matchpoints. You hate your soft values, but partner has now forced to game. What's your best bid/approach?

[hv=pc=n&s=sat984hk8753da76c&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=2hp]133|200[/hv] Matchpoints. Your agreements allow 5-card 2-level pre-empts but (1) it would involve additional distribution (54 at worst) and at this vul it's unlikely, and (2) that flexibility is more to accommodate you as your partner rarely stretches pre-empts beyond traditional standards. What's your bid and approach? Please choose from options above in poll. Am open to system/gadget suggestions, but would ask folks at least comment on their preferred approach within these agreements. How would IMPs/teams format change your approach?

My experience is that this number is likely accurate as of the time of display, but that it needs to be updated for a variety of reasons: 1. Other players may finish a board after you, changing your matchpoint/percentage score for that board and potentially changing your rank as well. 2. I don't believe that number is EVER updated on your screen for the results of your last board. So if you have a bad last board, you should expect to place lower-ranked than what was showing on your screen (or vice versa if you have a good board).