wyman

AKQxxx xx AKQ AK ? edit: this is too much, but you get the idea.

Wow. Do you have agreements about GSF? With solid agreements about what the 6-level steps show, I'd bid 5N GSF. If you had e.g., 6C = 0 trump honors 6D = trump Q 6H = A or K, 3 trumps 6S = A or K, 4+ trumps as suggested on http://www.bridgehands.com/G/Grand_Slam_Force.htm then this auction is extremely clean. Without the K, I'll bid 6S. With the K and 4, I'll bid the grand comfortably. With the K and 3, I'll still bid the grand. Even on a trump lead, I should be able to ruff 2 diamonds for 6 spades, 3 diamonds (1+2 ruffs), 3 hearts, and either the ace of clubs or jack of hearts, or stiff DK and trumps 2-2, or the lead of the ace of clubs with CK in dummy, or ...

If 2N shows 15-17, then I think this auction is fine from a UI standpoint. If it shows 18-19, I'm calling shenanigans.

This was my inclination as well, but I'd still like to know EW agreements wrt 2C and 2N. If EW (can demonstrate that they) play inverted minors in competition (I guess it's *an* agreement), then this auction makes some sense, and there's definitely no damage. If 2N shows an 18-19 NT, though, then the UI is an issue.

+1 With a game force, you should bid your 5 card minor before your 4 card major. The point being you'll have time to bid the major later.

I've read various places on the forums that current thinking is that 1m - 1X 2m - 2m+1 is artificial and GF [not just F1, correct?] Is this standard? and what are the common follow-up meta-agreements? An example auction (though I'm interested in general as well): 1♣ - 1♠; 2♣ - 2♦; 3♣ - 3♥; 3N What's (ostensibly) going on in this auction? Is 3H just a grope? What are opener's priorities over 3H?

Per mikeh's primer on reverse bidding, in a Lebensohl context, the following sequences are a one round force, showing 5+ cards in the major and can include weak hands: 1C - 1H 2D - 2H 1C - 1S 2D/H - 2S 1D - 1S 1H - 2S So, my question is: what sequences are non-GF? e.g., Is 2N by opener NF? What does responder do with a WJS in spades (assume a non-WJS context)? What does the sequence 1X - 1M; 2Y - 2N!; 3C - 3M [Y > X] show? What does an immediate (2nd bid) leap to 3M show? There are several other subtle auctions in here I'm sure, and maybe after some initial clarification I'll start asking more questions. Just wondering how you all sort this out. Not looking for "we play transfers after reverses," though I've gotten that a few times and it seems like a reasonable treatment. TIA.

There's a thread on RGB dated around 04 Sept 2008 on the topic (0NT, cursory search), and a related one on changes you'd make to bridge, but I can't even figure out how to follow the thing linearly, so maybe someone can find the OP and link us to relevant posts/citations. edit: I think this (http://www.gamesforu...ad.php?t=322177) spawned that discussion. edit2: also see http://www.n-n-a.com/recreational/about12563.html

4S. It doesn't even occur to me to bid 5C at MP, and I'm not passing.

the OP is quoted later in that thread, incidentally

I did this to KFay in a national pairs event recently (sorry buddy). We agreed to X from now on to handle this "I want to save, but maybe you want to convert" situation.

Referencing the hand (and subsequently quoting it) is an accusation of cheating directed at identifiable opponents. This is unacceptable.

Great. Cascade's answer is for 8 cards or longer (which is really what we should use here, since had you seen an 8, a 10, and an 8, you'd also be surprised, but I'm happy to use PrecisionL's low estimate). So let p be the probability you want to use (whether it be 0.0187 or 0.01985 or whatever). Then the odds of seeing 3 or more deals is 1 - the probability of seeing exactly 0 - the probability of seeing exactly 1 - the probability of seeing exactly 2 Prob of seeing exactly N in 36 boards = 36CN * p^N * (1-p)^(36-N) So your computation should look like this, when p=0.0187 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1+-+Sum+of+[binomial[36%2Cn]+*+0.0187^n+*+%281-0.0187%29^%2836-n%29]+for+n+from+0+to+2 You get 0.0295, which is about 3%, so once in 33 sessions (or, as others have said, ~once a month for a daily game). If you were to include 9+ card suits, you get 3.4%, as Cascade mentions above. So, this provides no compelling evidence that Dealmaster's RNG is broken. Also, keep in mind that as you look at the daily games to see what seems normal, you're running experiments. So you might say "oh my god, we got 2 days in a week where we got 8 card suits 3 times! What are the odds?" But if you've been watching the output for a year, you've actually run that experiment (look at one week, count days where we get 3 8-card suits) 52 times (and arguably more, since you can choose to start your week on Monday, or Thursday, or whenever you want). It's a dangerous game (see comic strip below). http://xkcd.com/882/ Cheers.

See above: Dummy (not declarer) won the revoke trick.

Yes, but if you google "laws of contract bridge," the 3rd result (and first non-pdf) is on the ACBL's website as linked above. I'm just saying probably they should update that page with a warning, update it with the correct laws, or take it down. [imho]

Agreed with you until the last line (though I dont think the X'er in (1) has to be as strong as you suggest). I'm here to make the best MP decision I can, and if I know that LHO tends to step out with marginal hands, I'll happily try to collect 300+ instead of 140. If, in the long run, I think sitting will pay more MPs, I'll happily sit. My partner likes to win MPs too, so -- even if he disagrees with my assessment of LHO -- he will understand why I made my decision.

Amazing, as I've quoted from the laws posted on the ACBL website. [cf. http://web2.acbl.org/laws/play.htm] I see that you are correct, looking at the article from the BB about revisions to the laws, but it's annoying that the ACBL is still hosting outdated information. Thanks for the heads-up.

I was afraid someone might suggest that. We should look, then, at 64A2 (though I feel as though, for the purposes of these laws, declarer should be both the offending player and the one to win the trick): 2. Offending Player Did Not Win Revoke Trick and the trick on which the revoke occurred was not won by the offending player, then, if the offending side won that or any subsequent trick, (penalty) after play ceases, one trick is transferred to the non-offending side; also, if an additional trick was subsequently won by the offending player with a card that he could legally have played to the revoke trick, one such trick is transferred to the non-offending side. Clear, I think, no matter how you slice it. 2 tricks to EW.

Isn't the right ruling 2 tricks to EW? A. Penalty Assessed When a revoke is established: 1. Offending Player Won Revoke Trick and the trick on which the revoke occurred was won by the offending player, (penalty) after play ceases, the trick on which the revoke occurred, plus one of any subsequent tricks won by the offending side, are transferred to the non-offending side. (my emphasis)

:sigh:

your location is wrong imo edit: Location:Ann Arbor, MI

Please excuse that my comment was imprecise. I meant (and I thought this was clear): someone please compute directly the probability of an 8+ card suit appearing in a _deal_. Also, there's no reason to ignore 8-4 or 8-5 variations. And we should include the (small) probability of 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 card suits appearing in a deal as well. edit: this should be just a big PIE but I think there are some subtleties I ran into when I tried to do it in 2 seconds.

Gah, someone just compute the probability of an 8+ card suit appearing in a hand directly. This should not be that hard. I will try to do so if I get some time today.

Do you really think it's useful to have 3 bids showing 2 aces after opener opens a strong 2 and then jumps?

I guess I'm more asking how appropriate it is to summon a director to ask whether (rather than to point out that) the opponents are doing something illegal. For example, I would not have known that GF transfer responses were GCC-legal (but I also wouldn't have known enough to say 'I think these might be illegal in this event'). So had I sat down 3 days ago and heard (1S) (2C!) and not known whether it was legal, should I have called immediately? Is my not knowing whether a convention is legal an irregularity by itself?