EricK

This post is nothing to do with Drury, but I (many years ago) read a bridge column which quoted an apparent theory of "Meckwell" that if partner makes a free raise of 1M to 2M then you should bid game if you have a six card suit. I suppose this sort of hand shows the plus side of that!

Question 4 has too many solutions! The ones I thought of were "Christmas Eve, Christmas Day and Boxing day" (and you can do something similar with days around Easter), or "Long weekend!"

1 is pretty obvious I think. 2 I've heard before 3 I've not got yet 4 I've thought of a couple of answers. 5 I've seen before

Joke or an example of Merphy's Law?

That doesn't necessarily follow since on the slower auction you have emphasised a suit. That is true, but since 1♠ 3NT can only show a single range, it seems perverse that for that range you have two ways to get there, one of which emphasises a suit, but for other ranges you only have one way of getting there and that way mentions a suit you may not want to emphasise! Of course, if you play 1NT as absolutely forcing then you can send one range via ...1NT...3NT (13-15?) and another by a direct 3NT(16-18?) without emphasising a suit. If you were playing something like that, then going via 2♣ emphasises the ♣ suit. Referring back to the OP, I would say that after 1♠ 2♣ 2♥ 3NT says "I want to play in 3NT I am not interested to hear anything more about your hand" (so probably not many extras, not 3♥, but well stocked in the minors) and 2NT shows any hand which wants to hear more.

Whether a pre-empt shouldn't or can contain defensive values depends on how important you rate: 1. allowing our side to find a sacrifice if the opponents reach the correct contract. vs. 2. simply taking away space to make it more likely that our opponents misbid. If we are more concerned with the latter, then having a wide variety of hands, including those with defensive values will become more appealing (the wide variety of hands also make it more likely they misplay their contract as well - not knowing whether to place us or our partner with the missing Quacks) - but of course partner must be on the same wavelength and not look to sacrifice just because opps have got to game over our pre-empt. Assuming that partner has something like his fair share of goodies, and isn't going to raise us willy-nilly, then it is quite likely that at least some of those outside values will be useful if we are left to play in 2♥.

The answer to the OP might depend on what 1♠ 3NT shows. if this shows some balanced range then it seems wasteful to have 1♠ 2♣ 3NT (or 2NT) show the same range.

The blame for missing a slam must go to West. After all, East overbid his hand! One mistake which beginners often make - and I think it is based on a fear of getting the blame - is to look for excuses not to bid a game or slam. Here, the West hand is easily strong enough for slam opposite a 2NT rebid (he is obviously not aware at this point that East doesn't have a 2NT rebid!). Perhaps he doesn't see a way to find out if slam is laydown, but that is no excuse to not bid the slam but pass the buck to partner!

How long should a not-dumb partner take to work out whether you have led a singleton or a doubleton?

That's not really what he said though.

Lol, I first read it as if Tim and I were sociopaths but fortunately that was not what you meant. Anyway, don't see the relevance of this. Many non-sociopaths put up a fake smile once in a while, I think, at least I do it (oh well what does that prove ....). Obviously not everybody who ever does a fake smile is a sociopath. It's just that a sociopath's outward emotional responses are so often fake. And not being able to spot the fakes will mean that that sort of person will take advantage of your better nature. Clearly they can be difficult to spot because so many of them manage to rise to positions of power and responsibility which they do not merit on talent.

17 out of 20. I missed 1 fake and 2 genuine. Should have got 18 really, but I changed my mind on one of the genuine ones for no good reason. It constantly surprises me in real life how many people fail to spot what, to me, are obvious sociopaths (superficial charm, total lack of sincerity and so on).

Some play that it is forcing to NT or suit agreement (so that all NT bids by either side are limit bids).

I am prepared to accept that the people on committees are motivated by what they believe the membership want. But there are two things which are generally true about people - they don't like change, but they cope with change much better than they think they will. So the committees can tell themselves they are acting in the interest of the membership by protecting them from change - and the membership, for the most part, might very well agree with them. But if they did loosen up the rules (maybe only a bit at a time) the membership would, in very short order, get used to the new situation and actually enjoy it.

I don't like the second X. South has no more than he promised the first time, and he's got to assume that partner heard him the first time. North is unlikely to have 4♥ as he had a chance to bid them, and even if he has 3♥ it is not at all certain we will find that fit. So I don't think there's much of an upside and a fair chance that we will land in a 7 card fit (not to mention the disaster which actually happened).

Aren't there as many (if not more) inferences to be possibly gleaned from a non-sorted hand? How likely is it that this represents the order the tricks were played

What is meant to be the conclusion one can draw from finding one's hand sorted? I always assume the previous people were discussing the hand afterwards and one person had sorted their hand the better to show it to another.

1NT 3NT WTP

That's unlucky. 6♥ looks to be a make opposite either of the NS hands.

You are questioning the wrong player's calls. Double is wrong with great support for ♦ and <4 ♥. 3NT is wrong without a ♠ stopper and with undisclosed support. And the final pass is not that likely to work out well (on the bidding partner is pretty much marke with only 4 ♥ and short ♣ so he is likley to get forced).

Really? You don't like "changing your system" just because you now have more flexibility to show a variety of hands? Why not? Are you keeping X for penalty or something? Is this some sort of dry humor that I'm not getting? I imagine he uses X to show hands which he now can't bid because of the intervention. So not strong hands with ♦ and/or 4 card ♣ support and no ♥ stopper.

Looks like a misunderstanding of 3♥ to me. South meant it as asking for a half-stopper in a possible false preference auction, and North took it as a cue bid with ♦ agreed.

I lead ♠8. I hope it doesn't cost, but it lets partner know that what little strength I have isn't in ♠

Isn't that normally told about management consultants?

Do you think Tyson foods should be doing more to stop the terrorist threat? Or perhaps, in your mind, they should be looking into the problems with the banking system?