EricK

I put this deal into the computer program Jack (v4.01) and asked it to analyse the position (this involves it dealing 1000 possibilities for the opposition hands at random and deciding which play works best double dummy). At trick 3 it consistently recommends a small ♥ to the Ace (not implausible) But at trick 4 it consistently recommends cashing the ♦K (which I don't really understand) Then, unless something interesting has happened, it cashes the ♥K and, if both follow, crosses with a ♦ and plays another ♥. One time it cashed the ♣A before playing the second top ♥, but I'm not sure whether this was due to the spot cards which had appeared or just the nature of the 1,000 random hands (as it normally rates the ♣A as slightly worse than the ♥K at trick 5) I'm not claiming that this is the best line (or even a good line), but I thought it would be interesting to see what the computer would play.

What does it even mean to say Jesus was a real person? How much of the biographical detail attributed to Jesus needs to be true before we should say that Jesus was a real person? Suppose that none of the miracles attested to in the bible actually occurred but that every saying attrbuted to Jesus was said by a single person then I think it would be reasonable to say that Jesus was a real figure. But suppose that only some of the sayings were said by one person, some by another, some by yet a third some only attributed to him centuries later and so on, then, even if one of those people was called "Jesus" (or the hebrew equivalent), could we say that the Jesus of the bible really existed?

I'd have bid 3NT on the second round with the south hand. Partner is unlikley to have 4 ♥ (he could have bid 2♥ on previous round if he had), and if 3NT is the best contract, partner mightn't be able to bid it after 3♥.

The pronouns in the OP are a bit confusing. I think it means what do you do holding this hand (the weak 2♦ hand) after partner has made a penalty double of 3♣, because when his opponent held that hand, he didn't pass the penalty double. I don't think Phil was the one holding the weak 2♦ hand.

Can they tell you the answer for every country? June 15 1702 was during the period when various countries were switching from the Julian to the Gregorain calendar. For instance, Shakespeare and Cervantes both died on April 23 1616. But Cervantes died ten days before Shakespeare because Spain was using the Gregorian calendar but England was still using the Julian calendar.

Because people do not base their behaviour on rationality most of the time. There is a powerful "will to live" evolved into us, which is near impossible to overcome. You might as well ask "if having a relationship is a choice, why do so many people seek out or stay in relationships which are clearly bad for them?"

I know how many days are in each month. But then my work involves a lot of calculations involving dates and I like to keep my brain active by not doing everything on a spreadsheet. The knuckle trick is much more useful than the song. After all, since a lot of the month names rhyme, you can easily get the song wrong. Thirty days hath September That is all that I remember.

I admit that I am not very good at constructing hands (another admission for the "why you suck at bridge" thread), but I still don't get what sort of hand, opposite a pre-emptive raise, is: 1. safe at the 5 level 2. keen on playing slam if partner shows the right singleton or void 3. not interested in what high card controls partner might have And even if they exist, are they common enough (as a proportion of hands which are slam interested on this auction) to justify using the cheapest bid for them?

Almost whatever system is being played, this looks like a 3♥ bid.

Shortness ask is not sensible IMO. Why? I'll tell you why! There are two sorts of hands where shortness opposite will help - hands with a weak suit or hands with a suit headed by the Ace. If you have the former, then going to the five level opposite a pre-emptive raise is very risky - partner might have a weak suit there as well. But if you have the latter then any second round control (K or singleton) that partner has in the suit will be helpful but a void will be less helpful. The difference between this and 1M 3M 3M+1 is that with a weak suit opposite a weak suit, you can still bail out at the 4 level if both hands have matching weak suits, so extrapolating from this to the next level up is not logically sound.

Part of Ken's analysis is the assumption that responder has something because he is opposite a 3rd seat opener. But if I have read the OP correctly, this was a 4th seat opener.

They have a huge law school debt because they make so much money. i.e Lawyers make a lot of money, therefore people are prepared to pay more to become lawyers, therfore law schools can afford to raise their prices.

I too have seen this in a few books. But that does not at all detract from the play. As the thread title implies, it is a hard one to spot (which I suppose is why it appears in lots of books!). We are so used to cashing just enough winners and then trumping losers to set up the suit that it is easy to forget about the possibility of ducking. I think because of the presence of the Q, this one is even harder to spot than the example Justin gave.

The "ignoring extra undertricks or the possibility of being doubled" seems like too much of a simplification to me. Especially if you consider that it is preceisely those hands which are near to the cut off point on which have the greatest chance of going more off or of being doubled.

Always bid 5♥. I can't help you with 3 over 3. Funny you say that. Today I had such a decision (well ok it was pass 5♦ or bid 5♥), I bid 5♥, got doubled and partner played it well to go down 1, with 5♦ off 3. Too bad I had not read your post yet, or I could have blamed you. But everybody knows "The 5 level belongs the oposition".

Lol, this post is so spot on it's awesome. Well done. "Since 3C would show real diamond support to go with my clubs, I'll just raise to 3D." hahahaha. 3♣ is more positive going than 3♦, and encourages partner to bid more in competition if double fit is found. A 3♦ raise can be (and fairly often actually) made on doubleton honor and is more likely "competitive". Thus, a FNJ promises MORE cards in the two suits than I have, the direct raise does not promise anything more than Hx in the minor, although three card support is more common. The true advantage of 3♦ is it will more often than not get partner off to the right lead against ♥ contract (or even 3NT). A non-fit 3♣ may get you into a 5-1 ♣ fit when a 6-2 ♦ fit exist. OK I see what you are saying. But is that the best way to play the bid? Partner will sometimes compete further even if you raise to 3♦. Surely he will make a better decision if he knows about your ♣. Also, you don't know what the best lead is, but partner might be in a better position to decide if a ♣ or ♦ is better if he knows about your ♣ suit. I understand the reasoning as to why you think a FNJ is better than a NFNJ, but I don't follow why it is better to have agreement that the fit bid shows better support than direct support shows.

This isn't another one of those grand conspiracies is it? The "scientific establishment" is holding back The Truth for their own nefarious ends. Meanwhile some struglling young self-taught "scientist" has proof of The Truth but can't get published in any reputable scientific journal so has to create a website and publish a book in order to get The Truth out to the masses.

Why does the FNJ necessarily show genuine support but the direct raise not?

When you have this sort of hand (balanced minimum without genuine support), you generally don't want partner to compete to the 3-level, so I'm not sure you should construct your bidding strategy around making it easy for him to do it. Now if you were 4-4 in the majors, then there is an obvious case for bidding the ♠ first. Because if the bidding comes back to you at 3♦, you can bid at the 3 level if you want and allow partner to choose his better suit.

I can't hold and manipulate the relevant data in my mind. I think all good bridge players can imagine where the hidden cards lie and play through the hand in their mind. I just can't do that. In fact I normally can't play through the hand in my mind even if I know where all the cards are. I used to play bridge at a local club with my father. The next day we would normally have a conversation which started something like this: Him: Do you remember the 5th hand last night where they made 3♥? Me: Vaguely. What did I have? Him: ♠KJxx ♥xx ♦xxxxx ♣Qx. You led a ♦ which was OK but when I got in with a trump I should have switched to a ♣ not a ♠. Me: What did dummy have? Him: [recites dummy's hand]. It was obvious really, because... And so it would go on. He could recall and accurately play through the hand in his mind but I would need an actual diagram and would have to cross out the cards as I go. As an aside, I think this kind of mental manipulation ability is more common in men than women (but not in me, unfortunately), which might be a reason why men excel at chess and bridge more often than women do (and why some women have to rotate a map as they are following directions, whereas most men don't).

My advice is to run naturally to the 2 level when very weak and with a long suit (i.e. don't run just because you have a balanced 2 count - partner may have it beat in his own hand, and you have no great chances of ending up in a good spot if he hasn't).

Unless it was a systemic agreement, what exactly is the point of this thread? If it was a mistake - a slip of the hand/tongue/brain - it is obviously irrelevant. If it was just a flight of fancy ("let's see what happens if I open this at the one level, instead of the normal 2♣"), then we can comment on how unlucky he was to try it on this hand; but I don't think we can say that trying an experiment is either right or wrong (as long as partner accepts that you sometimes do it, or the game you are playing in is purely for fun).

Because if it wasn't, why would he have done it?

Presumably this was systemic for the pair in question, and presumably they do also use 2♣ for some strong hands. So it is not enough to consider just the chances of languishing in the wrong contract on this hand type, but also the potential benefits their more restrictive approach enjoys when one of the hands they would open 2♣ turns up.

I thought the answer to this was well known from the movies: 1. be excellent to each other And 2. party on, dudes