EricK

Maybe this quote from War Games is apt:

I don't know about "expert standard", but how can this be pick a slam? What denominations are we being asked to choose between? What criteria are we meant to use to decide?

For this to work, partner is going to need at least one and probably two entries outside spades. But if that is the case, Ace followed by another will almost certainly defeat the contract anyway.

In the UK, Ed Giddins was banned for a year and half for taking cocaine (which isn't a performance enhancing drug as far as I am aware). That was back in the mid 90s.

Yes, this thread shows that womens' bridge tournaments still have a raison d'etre. That's right! I've heard what women talk about when they think there are no men around. And men do need to be protected from that.

And remember that for every hand your side doesn't get to practice its declarer skills you have a hand where you get to practice your defensive skills!

If someone were to suggest there was a conspiracy in the US to stop people playing these, then I would tend to agree with you.

1. I play this as forcing. 2. I do sometimes bypass a 4 card suit to rebid a 6 card major when weak. I would always bid second suit with just 5 in the first 3. Invitational. If you play an immediate 2NT as conventional (I play it as Inv+ with support) then you need a way to show the balanced invite. 4. This is NF, but partner will often bid on as there is clearly nearly enough for game, so missing game is rare in practice. With strong hands you can rebid NT or 4m or splinter. Not ideal at MP where 3N often outscores 5m. It may be best at MP if playing this method to agree that 4N always suggests a place to play once a minor is agreed (note that if 4N is going down but 5m is making then you don't mind playing in 5m even at MP) 5. This is NF. Either make a SJS on the first round or bid FSF to force.

I don't bid the grand. Maybe I set my sights too low, but I am happy to get to any making slam after opponent's open 4♠. BTW, I would have bid 6♦ instead of 5NT.

Is this some of that Aussy humor? :P If it was humour then it was English humour.

Did this hand come from real life or from an article describing the classic hand for a negative double?

If you are playing any sort of decent system, then this is a clear pass. Partner could have made a cue bid, or bid a serious (or frivolous) 3NT (or 3♠) but didn't. He is just not interested in slam opposited a 16-18 semi-balanced hand. If you are not playing a decent system, then you are basically guessing. I still pass though. So that if we do miss a slam I can use the hand as exhibit A in my case to change the system.

I've thought of a reasonable way that a computer can estimate (or at least rank) the strength of players: On a double dummy basis, how many tricks on average do they blow with their opening lead? Here is something which is perfectly measurable, does not depend very much on who one's partner is, is immune to the problem of people abandoning boards (as it can be measured after 1 card has been played even on abandoned boards) and will not discourage people from pairing up with weaker players for fear of lowering their rating. Obviously there is more to bridge than the opening lead, but there must surely be a good correlation there.

The trouble with using actual play to test this sort of bidding question is that whether a player chooses one bid or another might depend on his skill level. Another (which may not be so relevant to the 3NT/2♣ question) is that it doesn't take into account how a change to your bidding affects the rest of your system. A good way to test this sort of thing in practice would be to use a program like GIB or Jack with two different bidding modules and get each version to play a long match against the other. That way you remove any differences due to level of play and also manage to model how the system copes overall.

Suppose a multibillionnaire with a passion for bridge decided to create the best bridge playing program i.e. hiring a load of top programmers and/or top bridge players, allowing them to work full time on this project, money being no object. How good do you think they get a program to be within, say, a year? Better than any human player? Top ten? Not even close?

One merit of it is that opener knows the combined strength of the hand so that 4th hand intervention is easier to deal with. Another is that immediate weak take outs of 2♥/2♠ are, in principle, better than transfers on weak hands (for the same reason that natural pre-empts are better than transfer pre-empts).

Aren't you showing us pieces from two entirely different jigsaw puzzles? In the first (points 1-7), the US government and various of its agencies are entirely incompetent and fail to act against a terrorist plot they knew was going to happen. In the second (8 & 9), the US government and various of its agencies stage a hoax terrorist event. If the US government was behind the attacks (planting thermite etc) then what warnings were they ignoring? If the US government ignored warnings of terrorists hijacking planes to fly into WTC then who plated the thermite?

I would also have bid 2♣ with your hand but there is nothing wrong with 2♥. 2♣ works if partner has 5♣ or 4 cards in both ♦ and ♥, 2♥ works if partner has 5♥, they are about the same if partner has 4♥ and 4♣ or is 3433. So I fall back on my rule of thumb that if I have two equally good bids I make the cheaper one. Your partner, though, shouldn't have made a negative double. Either 1NT or 2♦ are much better. I don't understand his 3NT either.

Why does bridge need this though? Chess manages well enough without any "awards for longevity". What is it about so many bridge players that they don't seem to want to play just for the fun of it, or to see how well they can do in the event they are currently playing in?

You choose to pay for fire protection your neighbour (whose house is very close to yours) doesn't. His house catches fire. What do you expect your fire protection service to do? There is a child whose parents, for whatever reason, can not afford to pay for its education or healthcare. Should this child be allowed to go uneducated and untreated?

1. You can but it is quite a position to take. So I wouldn't recommend it. 2. I don't think it would be automatic to bid 4♥. Nor would it be automatic ti pass 3NT. It is a very close decision. The benefit of your 3♣ bid was that it helped partner to judge - he can see the double fit and the likely weakness in ♠. 3. I play 3♣ as a GF. For one thing, if partner doesn't have support for either of your suits you will be too high if you play it as invitational.

2♦ is a better bid from partner. If he thinks his hand is only worth one bid then he shp=ould bid his best suit. If he thinks his hand is worth two bids then he should bid ♦ first so he can show ♣ next time. I don't think you are strong enough for 3♠ (or 3♦). What has partner promised? 0 HCP! What have you promised? Not much less than what you have. Any redeeming features? You didn't have to play it doubled!

And I agree with everything Frances says.

What would have happened if the buildings hadn't fallen down? I.e. The top floors are destroyed and fall over the edge (or onto the floors below without causing the rest to fall). Precisely the same thing! the US could stilll have used it as a pretext for war. Since we know that some planes crashed into the buildings that is surely enough. From Al Qaeda's point of view, the complete collapse of the towers was just an unexpected bonus. If the US was behind it then rigging the towers to explode is just an entirely unnecessary extra, which would only further risk the possibility of their plot being exposed. One of the mistakes conspiracy theorists make is to assume that everything that occurred happened precisely as planned. So since Al Qaeda couldn't have known that flying planes into the buildings would cause their collapse, then what happened couldn't have been simply an Al Qaeda plot.

You should stick to a well-designed system. If your system uses light openers that's fine. If your system uses solid openers then that's also fine. But if you take a system which uses solid openers and try to use lighter openers than it was designed to handle then you will get into trouble, as it is unlikley that you will be skilled enough to make all the necessary adjustments.