Antrax

You had me at that. I never understood why that particular troll got so much attention back then, and now we're all reminiscing about it.

So's eternal youth. Doesn't mean you can deliver it.

FYI, you do see posts from people on your ignore list. They appear as a single line saying "XXX has posted" and you have a button allowing you to expand the post if you're interested. (I'd post a screenshot but I don't want to publicly call out the one person on my ignore list) glen, I generally agree with your assessment of moderation in this forum, but on the other hand from my experience with different communities, the older the median age is, the less regulation the community needs, and it doesn't get much older than a Bridge forum :P

Presumably you'll still see the less appealing posts, unless you want their posts without any of the context. So, maybe it's better to use the forum ignore feature and/or use "view posts by member" occasionally: http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/index.php?app=core&module=search&do=user_activity&mid=6354 (You get to it from a user's profile, "find my content")

...so I take it 3♥ looking for 3NT (♥ stopper, ♠A, running clubs) is overly optimistic?

Are we seriously doing this discussion? I don't want to be offensive, but Descartes pretty much cornered the market on that one, and Hume took what little was left. Yes, logic is a faith like any other, yes you can't really prove much, no it's not a very interesting discussion unless you want to troll an Ayn Rand fan.

Shape and size of the cranium != distance/proportion between facial features.

No, that's what I thought too, but Wiki says it's only about lumps in the skull, not distance from nose to ear etc.

I don't think they'll ever go away. Many old ideas that were already disproven and ridiculed are coming back: I've had people explain to me that disease is caused by toxins from the food you eat (believed in the middle ages until we discovered germs), Homeopathy (17th century) has never been stronger despite contradicting known physics, I've even seen an interview with a CEO that uses that technique where you measure the ratio of distances between facial features to determine character - don't remember the "scientific" name for it. I read a good article once hypothesizing that because there's so much information available to us that it's very difficult to be well-educated about many topics, people use the shortcut of finding some pet idea that goes against the grain, giving them the much-needed feeling of superiority over others. These misconceptions (or conspiracy theories: 9/11, moon landing hoax, etc) are usually simple to learn, they're presented in a way that lets you just learn a list of arguments persuasive enough to anyone who hasn't dedicated the 10 minutes of research, so it's an instant cheat to feel smart.

♠xxxx ♥xxxxx ♦Ax ♣Qx is not a perfect minimum?

Cue bid for what? Shouldn't XX be the "I'm strong, let's get them" bid and everything else natural?

I only suggested 1NT with a singleton as an alternative - if it's too confusing I apologize. I thought perhaps OP saw others landed in 2♠ and wondered how. I would personally prefer not to have to reverse with this hand.

Can you give a complete auction, assuming it's not 1♦-1♠-4♠, which seems unrealistic?

1♦-1♥ 2♥ After this start, it begins to diverge based on agreements. If you have the agreement that S can now splinter (showing diamond shortness and his point range), S can do that. If not, S can use a game try, and again it depends what you're playing. Some can show spade values, some can show diamond shortness, some can show a club problem (or a combination of two of those three). If S shows diamond shortness, North's hand doesn't improve (it would've been much better to have AK of another suit) but it's still not the end of the world. N will always show a minimum in response to such a bid. If S shows spade values, N will like his hand more, since JT should combine nicely with them. If S shows a club problem, N will see he shares the same problem. In my partnership, it would look something like this: 1♦-1♥ 2♥-2♠* (game try, some shortness) 2NT* (which?)-3♦ (♦) 3♥ (too bad)- 3♠(spade control) 4♦(diamond control, no club control)-4♥ (darn, two club losers)

Sorry, missed the context.

AFAIK, you can review the previous trick as long as you haven't played to the current one.

I don't understand how the auction proceeds with your "no thanks" hand after I open 1♦.

Also possible: 1NT-P-2♥-P 2♠-AP

Yep, it showed me what I could play, either hearts or clubs. I'm sure it didn't show the ♦Q. (Also, that's why you have me, so someone makes the stupid plays) BTW: why Q and not low ♦? You have sufficient entries and it makes it harder for E to duck, no?

That's what I tried to do and your site wouldn't let me! (Well, actually I tried leading a low diamond)

The answer is probably "because it's a poor play", but why can't you attack diamonds immediately?

Unless you don't play Michaels, realizing it just gives the opposing side the complete layout of the hand.

My problem with 3♣ was that it doesn't set spades as trump. Is that a wrong explanation?

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/61222-what-now/

After declarer ruffs, he probably does expect declarer to be out of spades, no?