semeai

Except when it doesn't, which is the point of this thread. I'm not seeing a strong connection here. Would people really make fewer rare unconscious slip-ups if they know it'll cost them a board, say? People aren't going to be sitting there constantly thinking "don't revoke, don't revoke" to themselves.

Hey, this hand sort of qualifies for an extension of that ridiculous convention Reverse Flannery++ I jokingly suggested: A jump to 2S over 1H showing 4S and 5+C. Doesn't quite fit the suggested invitational strength requirement though. :lol:

Why is it an unholy mess? I didn't know it had been changed and just went and read it. It looks really good --- just about exactly what I suggested in my post. In any case, I'd want that for bids out of turn as well, under law 31A2 (i.e. include the language from 27B1b there). Added: At the least I'd want same bid after a double/redouble (instead of pass) allowed in 31A2 if it has the same or more precise meaning. Added #2: One of the main drawbacks of 27B1b I suppose is the fact that the meaning of the insufficient bid could be difficult to determine (you have to ask the player in what context he thought he was acting perhaps). This problem is not really there for 31A2: most likely the out-of-rotation caller thought he was bidding in the auction to date filled in with passes.

I count my HCP and then pass the pair (hand, HCP) to my judgement function (which, as you say, passes some judgement back to my conscious self). This does mean I'm sort of stuck with HCP as it's one of the variables my judgement is tuned to, but I think it's actually fairly good as something to pass to the judgement function. The judgement function then gets some holistic sense of shape, A/K-vs-Q/J-iness, honor placement and combination, lesser high cards [all K&R stuff so far], and then all the additional how-is-it-going-to-play concerns. In some contexts I'll pass a few extra variables to the judgement function. Unadjusted LTC is actually something I pass to the judgement function moderately often --- not because it's a great evaluation method, but because it's quick to compute and because I have some extra judgement tuning in place with it for whatever reason.

It doesn't sound so nice, but I suppose it's okay. I suppose here "it" is supposed to stand for for "a wallet, if I found it on the street," as in "I would be proud of myself if I would return a wallet if I found it on the street." Both "if I were the sort of person who would return it" and "if I returned it" (this last one with not exactly the same meaning) seem cleaner. (Note the subjunctive case of the verb to be while we're at it. :P)

Thanks. You agree that this is the correct hand type for X, or you agree that you're not certain what hand type is best for this to be? We have a lot of bids here: X, 2S, 2N, 3C. I'm not certain what they all should mean. One possibility is that X should have >1 ♥ and still the minors, and with this shape I'm supposed to bid one of those other things if I decide I'm worth a call.

Thanks. Needing a good 6 card suit with less than an opener makes sense, or maybe as Codo suggests a hand with 5♦-4-not-spades, though we should have better texture than here I suppose. If we open it up to the possibility that I'm unpassed and the auction went P P 1S ?, unfav, imps, what's your minimum with this shape (4-2-5-2)?

How heartening, all of you deciding you'd never play with me. Have you never made poor aggressive calls or non-thinking errors? This was a quick, casual online session. I swear, my bridge instincts and ability with a normal several second pause >> my bridge instincts and ability with a very short pause. Furthermore, the session was injected with a little lighthearted braggadocio and a somewhat carefree attitude toward the (at least bidding) results. Anyway, the thread was mostly supposed to be funny (hence the opening paragraph), an amusing exercise to decide how far off from real bids these were (I think all were poor), and also to test out people's minimums for these calls. I'm particularly interested in #2, which was the only one partner actually spoke up about at the table. I'm not even certain whether this is the correct hand type to play it on. I guess the consensus is that it is this hand type, and that everyone would certainly do it if it had, say, another King, or maybe Queen?

To bring the discussion back to bridge, what's the least upgrade to that hand you'd be comfortable overcalling on at unfavorable at imps?

I'm known for understatement. You appear to have a penchant for overstatement. I'm not so sure we think all that differently about this hand. But really, here I am offering up for criticism some hands I specifically did something stupid on, from a quick online game. You might be a bit more courteous in your disapproval. "Truly awful" I don't mind. I asked for opinions. The four ?'s and the bold? That seems uncalled for.

I like 1/1 forcing and 2/1 non-forcing (if not playing transfer advances). Of course, 1/1 nonforcing is also decent. Here I agree that 2C is the bid.

Maybe a mod should split off this discussion about Lurpoa, hearts, upvotes, signature formats, and personalized content. Then the mod can post here about it!

Thanks for the responses. Some results and self-assessment: 1. The opponents bid hearts and I was off the hook. It seems a pretty bad bid, with only moderate upside and large not infrequent downside. Let's say a 4. 2. I was least certain about this hand. Partner was 2-3 (something like xxxx J9xx xx xxx) in the minors and pulled to 3C, was doubled, he ran to 3D, and they went back to hearts and let us off the hook. Partner rates to have at most 3 hearts so they likely have a 9 card fit (not true on the actual hand) and acting can find a nice fit, but maybe I'm too weak with two live opponents. I guess I'l say 2. 3. We ended up in 5, making (partner had 2+Q). The logic of course was that all I cared about now was the Aces and Queen of trump. The bid was just undisciplined, though: passing must be correct. This gives me a shot to stop low if partner is very unenthusiastic as well as a shot at finding out about a void. I'll agree mostly with Han that the problem was that it was poor to do instead of my hand being too weak, but notice that with KJ10x Axxx KQx Kx it seems fine to just bid keycard (solves the strength and void problems simulatenously). 4. This was just silly. My hand is weak and I don't actually expect to make and they're not in game. I didn't bid 4D because I didn't want to help them decide whether to bid 5C and didn't think we were going to 5H (not sure about this theory). They bid 5C (wouldn't have made) and partner went to 5H, doubled down 2; diamonds were 4 - 1 - 4 around the table (i.e. 1 for partner). Let's say a 3. 5. This did make when partner showed up with Ace sixth and a club stop, obviously a super max. Not having the superaccept possibility was unideal, sure. The theory of course was for partner to have ♦A and the opponents to lead spades and not switch to clubs, which is hoping for a lot in general. This one, like #3, is not an overbid but is just bad.

Oops! Many apologies.:unsure: I guess there are separate personal scoresheets, and people don't bundle/stack/fold them together?

People keep their scores on the reverse side, so they write in it after every hand and thus like to have it close. If you just filled out the convention card anew, you might just have the sheet of paper out, folded in half, with the scores inside, or conceivably folded in quarters in your pocket or under your leg. Otherwise people put it in a plastic sleeve that has flaps to hold onto more on the other side, where you add in blank ones with the scoresheet side showing (some then fold it, some lay it flat). Are convention cards and scoresheets separate in England, or do people just take it back between hands to write scores on?

Dummy's hand and your hand: ♠42 ♥9652 ♦AJ973 ♣109 ♠A9765 ♥AJ10843 ♦K4 ♣--- Bidding: (You deal, all red, imps) 1♥ 2♣ 3♥ P; 3♠ 4♣ P 5♣; 5♥ end Trick 1: ♣K 9 4 ♥3. What's the safest line?

I was playing one of those breezy online sessions where overbids flowed like wine. Fortunately, few of the hands resulted in any immediate unfortunate consequences. Looking back over the hands is giving me a headache, though. Rate my overbids on a scale from 0 to 5, with 0 being "I'd bid that myself in serious competition" to 5 being "Those cards with the letters on them, those are the good ones." Also, upgrade each hand (by adding/improving high cards to the hand) to give a normal minimum for each action, if you please. Everything at IMPs. 1. 1st seat R/W. Qxxx xx AK8xx Jx. P P P 1S; 2D 2. 1st seat W/R. AJx x Q109xx AKJx. 1D 1S P 2H; X 3. 3rd seat R/W. KJ10x 10xxx KQx Kx. 1S P 2N P; 3H X 4N 4. 3rd seat W/W. Jxx KJ10xx KQJx x. P 1C 1H 3C; 3H 4C 4H 5. 1st seat W/R. Kx AK10xx KQJ xxx. 1N - diamond transfer (no invite possible) - 3N.

However, a google search for "[that institution] cheating scandal" turns up no real results.

Okay, maybe I'm gullible, but it seemed to me that her upvotes were just because she liked the threads (for the OP upvotes) and agreed with or found the answers helpful [Added: whether they're objectively good/helpful posts or not is beside the point]. Are they actually super ironic/trollish upvotes due to all the history?

oh snap!

Maybe it's time to give the anti-Lurpoa stuff a rest. She did her time as the black sheep of the forums for whatever happened a while ago and her upvotes and posts now seem harmless and mostly genuine. That said, Lurpoa, making exaggerated claims isn't going to help things. Just use your hearts, we know you love them so much, and don't worry about it.

At least we haven't heard literally unique yet, or at least I never have [with the figurative use of literally, of course]

Surprisingly unique

Neat, I'd never heard of this before. The Nuckelavee of Orcadian legend makes for some interesting reading: a skinless Horse-plus-human-torso [two heads, one horse one human-like, not a centaur] from the sea, enraged by kelp burning (to make soda ash!) who blights crops and is kept in check only by the Mither o' the Sea and by his fear of fresh running water. Thanks for mentioning it!

In case you find yourself in this situation again, be aware that nothing horrible should befall you if you've had no discussion. Natural will do well enough for a hand.