S2000magic

I agree completely. As bigbenvic pointed out - and I agreed - starting with a 2♣ response would have been better. I will say this about my partner: she is one of the nicest partners I've ever had, and we've generally done well together (having met in August and only played together maybe half-a-dozen times). She's eager to learn, and doesn't tend to make the same mistakes again and again. (On our first outing she passed my 5♥ cuebid after this auction: 1♠ - (3♣) - 4♠ - Pass - 5♥ - Pass. She has since learned about cuebids.) We came in fourth overall in a local Swiss teams a couple of months ago, and probably would have finished 1st or 2nd if I hadn't blown the play in a pretty (and relatively straightforward) dummy reversal. I didn't find this auction upsetting; I, too, found it amusing. ("OK, we're here; how do we get get there?")

Agreed: we haven't committed to (or even suggested) even a game contract, so we cannot make a forcing pass.

I was pretty sure that she intended it as showing 4-card heart support. It became clearer as the auction progressed. ;)

While I agree in retrospect that starting with 2♣ instead of 1♠ is correct (on this hand), it doesn't really get to the crux of the issue. Surely things wouldn't have fared much differently if I'd been dealt: ♠ K 10 8 4 2 ♥ 8 ♦ A 9 6 ♣ A Q 10 8 instead of my actual hand. Anyway, I'm certainly not trying to defend all (or even any) of my bids; it was simply a funny auction. At least the opponents were amused.

This argument is even stronger against a lead from 9 5 4 2.

Good point. Although, this partner might never have believed that sequence would show 4 spades, even if they were rebid. Actually, she thought that 5NT was asking for kings. You're probably right that 6♣ might have been safer, but she also might have thought that it was a cue bid. Later she said that over 6NT she was considering 7♥.

Partner opened 1♦. With no warning of the impending doom, and looking at: ♠ K 10 8 4 ♥ 8 ♦ A 9 6 ♣ A Q 10 8 4 I responded 1♠. Partner rebid 2♣, and, still blissfully ignorant, I forced with 2♥. Then the fun began: Partner bid 4♥, and I corrected to 5♣. Partner persisted with 5♥, and I tried to get out with 5NT. Partner wasn't to be deterred: 6♥. I bid 6NT and, mercifully, that ended the auction. Our opponents mercifully let me out for down 1; I should have been down 4. Partner held: ♠ --- ♥ A J 10 5 ♦ K 8 5 4 3 ♣ K J 5 3 Both 6♣ and 6♦ make.

In his book Doubles for Takeout, Penalties, and Profit, Bob Ewen advocated for a bid of 1NT on hands such as this, reserving the takeout double for a full opener. (I'm recalling this from long-ago memory as I think I lent out my copy and never got it back.) His reasoning is that the only way you're going anywhere with this hand is if partner has a good hand, and if partner has a good hand, the only reason that he passed is that he has hearts. It's an interesting idea.

You're a charterholder, too? You said it: killer exams!

So, is the strategy at IMP pairs the same as at masterpoints, or maybe a hybrid between IMP teams and masterpoints?

I know that many of the best bridge players in the workd have come from financial backgrounds, and with the Level I exam coming up in December I was wondering if we had any Level I candidates here. If so, stop browsing BBO and get back to studying! ;) Best of luck on your exam!

I've been a member posting here for only a short while, so, for the most part, I'm not qualified to comment on the goings on, the personalities, and so on. However, there is one topic on which I am qualified to comment: the members here have been extremely nice and helpful, and I'm grateful for that. I've already received PMs from some of the members introducing themselves, and from some of the members introducing other members. This forum is quite enjoyable, which, in my experience is novel for a newbie. Thanks, everyone!

The scales fall from my eyes. Thanks!

Good point. That's what I get for looking at this stuff when I should be working. ;)

If people didn't disagree, there'd be nothing here to discuss. (1) Fair enough. (2) As I said, there are reasons to lead a trump, and reasons to lead something else. This is a reason to lead something else. (3) I did mention 5-5 as a possibility for opener. I'm not sure that declarer shouldn't bid 2♣ on the hand given, but reasonable people can disagree on that point. As for responder, while he may have 5 clubs, I believe that 4 clubs is far more likely. (4) It sounds as though you're advocating more of a coöperative double than a takeout double here, and that makes perfect sense, as long as partner's in on the secret. A takeout double - asking partner to pick a suit - doesn't seem to make much sense as there's only one unbid suit; if you want to draw partner's attention to diamonds, you can bid 2♦.

I don't see how. ♦A, ♦ ruff, ♥ ruff, ♦ ruff, ♥ ruff, ♦ ruff, ♥ ruff, ♦ ruff, ♥ ruff is 9 tricks.

I think that your 2♦ is fine: you need to keep the bidding open, and no other forcing bid really fits the bill. I disagree with your interpretation of partner's hand, however. If you follow the principle of fast arrival, I wouldn't credit partner with 16 points. (If you don't, then 16 is possible, I suppose.) I wouldn't expect him to be 4-3-3-3; I'd expect 4=1=4=4, 4=2=3=4, or, remotely, 4=2=2=5. I don't agree with partner's 1♠ on ♠ A Q 6; I'd have rebid 3♣. I think it's too hard for you to field a 3-card spade suit on that auction. After 3NT, I's say that 6♠ is a reasonable shot. It's hard to imagine that a scientific auction will garner the information you need to decide between 5♠, 6♠, and 7♠. Just my thoughts.

There are certainly times when the lead of a singleton trump is advisable, even required. (For example, if your takeout double of an opening bid of one in a suit is passed, you must lead a trump; partner has said, in effect, that he wants to be declarer in the opponents' suit, so you must draw their trumps.) If the auction suggests that declarer is likely to gain tricks by ruffing (including a complete cross-ruff), then you should consider a trump lead, even a singleton. Here you have lots of information. Partner's 1NT bid suggests some length in clubs; if he has four a forcing game (leading a long suit to force declarer to ruff, weakening his trumps) might be an appropriate defense. On the other hand, the opponents have contracted to take 9 of the 13 tricks when it appears that the high-card strength is about evenly divided between them and you; thus, they're relying on some distributional strength. Translation: ruffs. That suggests a trump lead. I believe that the key bit of information is that it's likely that the opponents' trumps are divided 4-4 (or, possibly, 5-4, if opener's hand is very distributional; either way, dummy should have 4 trumps to raise declarer's second suit), making it less likely that the forcing game will work: declarer might be able to trump in his hand but still draw trumps with dummy's length. That would sway me toward the trump lead. As there's only one unbid suit, I wouldn't interpret a double here as takeout. Furthermore, it's unlikely that South will want to play in 2♥ knowing that opener has 5 of them.

Yes, your examples make sense, because 200% = twice. Fifty percent smaller shouldn't mean the same thing as 2 times smaller because 50% ≠ 2 times. It isn't the % sign that's changing the meaning; it's the meaning of the numbers that's changing the meaning.

So, if they'd said it's 50% thinner, would that mean that it's twice as thick (1 / 50% = 2)? If not, then you're saying that "twice as thin" means the same thing as "50% thinner". I'm sorry, but that makes no sense. You're correct: there's no such thing as negative thickness. That was precisely my point.

I do wish that authors of scientific articles such as this - who should know better - would refrain from using phrases like "1,000 times thinner than a human hair" when they mean "1/1,000 as thick as a human hair". If it were 1,000 times thinner, it would be -999 times as thin. That's probably thinner than the author imagined. Apart from that, the stuff looks really interesting. I saw another article on it through a link on a magicians' forum.

Not the way it's written; if it had said that the odds against Einstein being wrong had shrunk, it would mean that it's less likely that he was wrong. (In your defense, the author of the sentence you quoted probably meant the odds against Einstein being wrong, and fouled it up; most laymen, in my experience, don't understand that the common (mathematical, statistical) use of "odds" refers to odds against something happening.)

No. Whether partner huddled or not. This is an 8-loser hand with nothing to say.

I also had a situation - again, about 20 years ago - in which I horribly misplayed a suit combination and still won the maximum number of tricks because LHO didn't cover an honor when he should have. After the hand his partner asked him why he didn't cover. He said that the actual layout never occurred to him because he knew that I was too good to have botched it so thoroughly.

Nine HCP, 2 or 3 for the singleton, 7 losers: all suggest that you're on the brink of game. I'd bid 3♠. (Not 4♠: if you have to ruff more than 2 diamond losers you'll be using the ♠ A K; I'd be more inclined to bid 4♠ holding: ♠ 9 7 4 2 ♥ Q 5 4 2 ♦ 3 ♣ A K 4 2)