[rmnka447]

Vampyr, on 2016-April-25, 18:29, said:

That must have been a very long time ago, because my first ACBL event was a regional Swiss teams and we got gold points for that. That was almost 30 years ago.

So first red, then gold (which you can now win in pretty low-limit events)... what points are the ACBL going to introduce once they devalue platinum points?

The Swiss I referred to was in the mid-late '70s as I recall. So, yes, it was way back there.

[Zelandakh]

Stephen Tu, on 2016-April-25, 18:44, said:

He claims to be Scottish ... the SBU web site still seems to refer to red / national points so perhaps he is claiming some of these. How many of these is supposed to be impressive probably greatly depends on when they were earned?

From the SBU Master Points Handbook.

Quote

National points or Red points are awarded in National events. In addition each District is allowed to run one Congress per annum and award National Points for the Finals of the Pairs and/or Teams Event or to the top quarter of the field if the event is Swiss Pairs or Teams. If Swiss events are played only the bonus points are National Points, awards for matches won are Local points. 100 National Points are equal to one National Master Point. For reference purposes all awards are quoted as gross figures in this handbook and will be divided by 100 on entry to the player’s Master Point record.

[Vampyr]

Oh dear, I had for some reason thought that the SBU had a similar system to the EBU, since they used to both be "British".

[PhilG007]

Phil, on 2016-April-25, 10:59, said:

This actually fits with what you are saying, sort of. Red points were prized....up until 1975 or so, when gold points were implemented. Now, red points are the "consolation prize" that you get in single session side games, section placings, match awards, but not overalls.

There's one other place you can get reds, and that's international tourneys where you represent the US, but I'll go out on a limb and say this isn't the source of yours.



Most of us have full time jobs here. I work for the largest auto company in the world. I choose to use my leisure time and $ going to tournaments because I like to play bridge instead of just talking about it.



What in the world could a veteran like you teach an up and coming player unless you consider trolling a valuable trait?



Then you will get absolutely crushed if you cannot compete effectively at any form of scoring, including rubber. But if your 'style' includes a nuanced bidding style where your tone can parse a penalty double from a cooperative one from takeout, you really don't need to learn anything new.



Can I show them my red point total to play in the big game?



Anytime. Any place. For any stakes sir.

This guy reminds me of "Mr Smug" One of legendary bridge player and author S.J. Simon's "Infamous Bridge Foursome". The other three members were
"Mrs Guggenhiem" "Futile Willie" and "The Unlucky Expert"

[Zelandakh]

PhilG007, on 2016-April-26, 07:30, said:

This guy reminds me of "Mr Smug" One of legendary bridge player and author S.J. Simon's "Infamous Bridge Foursome". The other three members were
"Mrs Guggenhiem" "Futile Willie" and "The Unlucky Expert"

By all means disagree with what someone is saying but attacking in this way is just bad form. I believe all of the forum regulars that post in this form have received official warnings at various times so I would ask you to try and stick with bridge commentary. The rest of the community can then disagree with you without necessarily throwing similar insults back in return. (one can hope!)

[Jinksy]

Especially bad form to call someone smug just a couple of posts after boasting of your Master Point total.

I assume you've contacted Phil per his request, to name a convenient time to take all his money?

[PhilG007]

Jinksy, on 2016-April-25, 13:46, said:

Well actually he doesn't. IIRC he messaged you, requesting a time for the game and you never responded. Unless you expect him to show up at your house with two robot companions, I'd say the onus is on you.



No, of course not.

https://www.youtube....h?v=9Oe1jCy2Fc8

Crude...but not unexpected

[PhilG007]

Zelandakh, on 2016-April-26, 07:58, said:

By all means disagree with what someone is saying but attacking in this way is just bad form. I believe all of the forum regulars that post in this form have received official warnings at various times so I would ask you to try and stick with bridge commentary. The rest of the community can then disagree with you without necessarily throwing similar insults back in return. (one can hope!)

Well Phil's comments about me were hardly complimentary either. If you come at me with your fists doubled,
I think I can promise you that mine will double just as quick. If you don't want to be shocked then
don't tread on 'live' wires(!)

[PhilG007]

Jinksy, on 2016-April-26, 08:20, said:

Especially bad form to call someone smug just a couple of posts after boasting of your Master Point total.

I assume you've contacted Phil per his request, to name a convenient time to take all his money?

I will face him but time zone differences are going to be a problem.

[mycroft]

To the OP:

Spots approximate

---

You start with 2♦ - and hope that partner isn't so old-fashioned that he passes.

You don't have diamonds - in fact you have clubs? Yes, but there's no forcing club bid available, and a "new suit by responder" is 100% forcing. In fact, so many people made this bid with this hand (back in 1950 or so) that everybody started expecting it to be "forcing, should have diamonds, but I wouldn't count on it"; and then they just decided "why not just play this as "forcing, says nothing about diamonds; I'll have time to confirm diamonds later". Voila, New Minor (after 1minor-1Major-1NT) Forcing, or NMF. A Convention Is Born.

Most people will understand this; almost everybody will bid whether or not they understand; many will (and all should) bid 2♠ with 3 spades (which is exactly what you want to hear). If not, you can bid 3♣ on your next turn. This one's a little more dangerous (opposite a new bridge player you don't know), but the reasoning is as follows:

• If I just had clubs and a bad hand, I could have bid 2♣ over 1NT, "to play";
  
• If I just had clubs and an invite, I could have bid 3♣ over 1NT, passable;
  
• If I had 5 spades and a bad hand, I would have given up on the clubs and bid 2♠ over 1NT, to play;
  
• If I had 5 spades and and invite, I'd give up on the clubs, and make my 2NT/3NT/pass call now.

So, 2♦, then 3♣ shows the "too strong to worry about you passing" raise. Because of the weird way the scoring works, this implies slam interest (especially if partner responded 2NT to 2♦, implying a diamond card). You're in control, hopefully, no matter what happens.

What if partner does something that doesn't let you bid 3♣ (bid it himself, say, or 3NT?) Well, aren't you happy now? Partner's got extra clubs or a full maximum for 1NT; we can afford to go past 3NT looking for slam (we hope).

[Phil]

PhilG007, on 2016-April-27, 08:38, said:

I will face him but time zone differences are going to be a problem.

I really don't care if I play you or not. Timo probably feels the same way.

I just have big issues with players that shoot off their mouth, and make challenges just to try to prove they have the bigger d**k.

Tell you what friend. Instead of trying to lose (or win ) a few dollars (quid) to me why don't you try to be a better citizen here?

1. Don't talk about treatments like strong direct cue bids that haven't been played since Kennedy was president as if they are commonplace. You know they aren't but you like to be contrarian. All it does is confuse newer players and that's a very bad thing and will not and should not be tolerated.

2. Put a little thought into card play problem instead of just what your gut tells you. If your such a great player, spend some time trying to think which is what a great player does. I don't remember Andy Bowles recently saying "well this is a tough hand but my gut tells me that the lead is more likely from a King than a Jack.

3. But most importantly, stop acting like you are the big dog until you've won something.

[PhilG007]

Phil, on 2016-April-27, 10:44, said:

I really don't care if I play you or not. Timo probably feels the same way.

I just have big issues with players that shoot off their mouth, and make challenges just to try to prove they have the bigger d**k.

Tell you what friend. Instead of trying to lose (or win ) a few dollars (quid) to me why don't you try to be a better citizen here?

1. Don't talk about treatments like strong direct cue bids that haven't been played since Kennedy was president as if they are commonplace. You know they aren't but you like to be contrarian. All it does is confuse newer players and that's a very bad thing and will not and should not be tolerated.

2. Put a little thought into card play problem instead of just what your gut tells you. If your such a great player, spend some time trying to think which is what a great player does. I don't remember Andy Bowles recently saying "well this is a tough hand but my gut tells me that the lead is more likely from a King than a Jack.

3. But most importantly, stop acting like you are the big dog until you've won something.

Personally I don't care either,I'm indifferent. You say that strong direct cue bids are antiquated. I can assure you they are not..they are still very actively played...it depends on the bidding system being played and partnership agreement.
I am not a "great player" On BBO I'm only at the advanced stage. Give me credit for my honesty here instead of professing to be an "expert" as I've seen on other profiles then despairing finding out they're only an intermediate wearing an unworthy badge. You speak about "speculation" in the playing of a hand...often you have to go with your 'gut' 'instinct' hunch' call it what you will if its the only way to fulfil a contract.
You urge to stop acting like a 'big dog' until I win something. Actually I have won something....respect just, not among the ingnorant and the pompous(!)
Finally,I've noticed that in bridge schools,beginners,novices and intermediates learning this game are being taught how to win. There is a far more
valuable lesson that isn't being taught but should be....learning how to lose..how to accept defeat with good grace..not absconding from a tournament half way through just because things are running badly or acting like a Prima Donna. I have never been a quitter at this game or any other.. When I enter a tournament,I'm there from start to finish whatever the result. I take my creed from the great chess champion Bobby Fischer "I play honestly and I play to win. When I lose,I take my medicine." Spoken like a true champion

[Zelandakh]

PhilG007, on 2016-April-28, 01:06, said:

You say that strong direct cue bids are antiquated. I can assure you they are not..they are still very actively played...

Name one world class pair that plays (1X) - 2X in this way. You can find CCs of almost all internatonal pairs online so I am sure you will be able to provide several links for such an actively played convention. Just one will do for me...

[PhilG007]

Zelandakh, on 2016-April-28, 05:36, said:

Name one world class pair that plays (1X) - 2X in this way. You can find CCs of almost all internatonal pairs online so I am sure you will be able to provide several links for such an actively played convention. Just one will do for me...

The Acol system(the dominant system in the United Kingdom) uses the direct cue bid to show a rock crusher of a hand. It's Game Forcing. For details see "All about Acol"
by Ben Cohen and Rhoda Lederer.

[gwnn]

Publication date 26 Aug 1985

[Tramticket]

gwnn, on 2016-April-28, 07:01, said:

Publication date 26 Aug 1985

No - Originally published in 1969!!

[Tramticket]

PhilG007, on 2016-April-28, 06:31, said:

The Acol system(the dominant system in the United Kingdom) uses the direct cue bid to show a rock crusher of a hand. It's Game Forcing. For details see "All about Acol"
by Ben Cohen and Rhoda Lederer.

The EBU's "Standard Modern Acol System File" shows a cue bid as Michaels:

See Page 25: http://www.ebu.co.uk...system-file.pdf

[kenberg]

gwnn, on 2016-April-28, 07:01, said:

Publication date 26 Aug 1985

Seems like yesterday, but it was long ago.....
I'm older now but still running against the wind--- Bob Seeger

Anyway, back to the OP..
Many hands can be handled reasonably without conventions. This isn't one of them. If 2D is not agreed to be artificial and forcing, or if you are not sure whether partner treats it that way, I don't know what you should do. Even if 2D is forcing there could be problems. You bid 2D he bids 2H. For some this denies three spades. For others, holding four hearts and three spades they start by bidding 2H. Of course (?) after 2D-2H a bid of 3C should be natural and forcing, and it gives him room to show his three spades if he has them. If, instead, he bids 2S over 2D I suppose that shows not only that he has three spades but that he has a minimum. If he had a max he could have bid 3S.

But if partner has the club Q and Qxx in spades I can already count a probable nine tricks and I have accounted for only four of partner's presumes 12 count. If he has the two red aces I am up to 12 tricks.
But that's placing a lot of specific cards in his hand.

Anyway, I start with 2D if it is known to be forcing. If nothing is known to be forcing then I dunno, I probably just bid 4S. If I don't have tools, I make my best guess. Or what appears to me to be my best guess. It would not amaze me if 6C is on ice, but how to see when it is and when it isn't?

An observation: If partner does not have either three spades or four hearts then he has four clubs. Actually he has five clubs if he opens 1D when he is 4-4 in the minors. So if it starts 1C-1S-1N-2D-2NT I will be very optimistic about a club slam. My next call would be 3C as long as I need not worry partner will pass it. Kx in hearts will stop them from taking the first two tricks in hearts in 6C, which is not the case in 6S.

Anytime he doesn't have three spades he has four clubs.

[masse24]

PhilG007, on 2016-April-28, 06:31, said:

The Acol system(the dominant system in the United Kingdom) uses the direct cue bid to show a rock crusher of a hand. It's Game Forcing. For details see "All about Acol"
by Ben Cohen and Rhoda Lederer.

Surely this is intended as a joke? Citing material from a half-century ago and trotting it out as "authoritative" would seem to be poor tactics in an online disagreement.

But maybe that is intended, with the "gotcha!" statement to follow?

[Jinksy]

PhilG007, on 2016-April-28, 06:31, said:

The Acol system(the dominant system in the United Kingdom) uses the direct cue bid to show a rock crusher of a hand. It's Game Forcing. For details see "All about Acol"
by Ben Cohen and Rhoda Lederer.

I live in England and regularly play club bridge in which people often describe their system as 'Acol'. Not once have I seen any of them using a direct cue as a game-forcing hand. You can claim it's not strictly Acol if you like, but then your claim that it's 'the dominant system in the United Kingdom' is ludicrous.