MickyB

[hv=pc=n&s=sak97hkq2dak93ck4&w=sqjt83ha94d2cqt83&n=s642ht6dq87ca9762&e=s5hj8753djt654cj5]399|300[/hv] Sorry, I don't know how to put the play in a diagram. SQ ducked SJ, RHO pitching a diamond, won I cashed the AK of diamonds to see if they broke - no need to preserve a finesse position after the pitch. When they didn't, I played three rounds of clubs. If they are 3-3, I'm home. With four clubs with West, I can pitch my long diamond from hand. LHO can't play a spade, can't set up my clubs, so has to play a heart. If she has the jack I'm home. If she doesn't, I cross to the DQ and lead a heart to the queen, either it scores a trick or LHO is endplayed to lead a spade. [Thanks PhilKing, I initially said I would have to guess where the heart ace is at this point]. As it was, she pitched the HA hoping her partner had the queen. Edit: Damn, thought I was making if RHO had four clubs and HA, but when I throw him in to lead the second round of hearts for me he cashes out for one off! Not sure this was the right line, but it was prettier than leading upto the hearts twice :P

Deleted

Lots of bad players here will pass AAA, don't remember any 2 point downgrades though.

[hv=pc=n&s=s72haq93dqj873c43&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=p2cp2dp3cp3dp4cp5cppp]133|200|Your lead?[/hv]

My first few tricks:

The spade 5 didn't work at the table - pard had ATx sitting past Kxx and played the ten. The spade 8 might well work. The heart position was HT9xx with pard and Hxx with declarer. If declarer reads the position and plays low on both hearts through, you'll have a bit of a guess, although at IMPs you'll often be able to know what to play for to beat the contract. Has anyone discussed signalling here to distinguish between QT9xx and KT9xx?

Yes, I ducked the lead, I don't know if that was right - thoughts? The spade jack is continued, and RHO pitches a diamond. You win, and...?

[hv=pc=n&s=skqj4hat9dqj6c874&n=sa9653hdk752cq952&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=4hd(Joe%20Boo%20Double)p4s(Agree%3F)ppdp(Agree%3F)pp]266|200|Another hand from the English Premier League. HK lead[/hv]

[hv=pc=n&e=sq8652haj4dt96ct4&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=p1c1h2nppp]133|200|Your lead? You play attitude leads, so if leading a spade, you can lead the 2 [encouraging], the 8 [discouraging], or the 5, hoping to suggest you have an honour, but intending to follow up with the two to suggest a switch.[/hv]

[hv=pc=n&s=sak4hakjt8d987ck6&n=s87hq76daj642caj5&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=p1d3c3hp4hp4np5sp6hppp]266|200|C2 lead, consistent with a low doubleton[/hv]

[hv=pc=n&s=sak97hkq2dak83ck4&n=s642ht6dq97ca9762&d=e&v=ew&b=11&a=p2n(22-24)p3nppp]266|200|SQ lead[/hv]

Weak NT 4cM => not 2/1 GF 2H showed enough for game opposite 15-16 NT 3C would've been GF opposite that hand 3H was invitational I'd probably bid 3C over 2H, but having rebid 2S, I definitely wouldn't bid 3NT now. Stiff ace in pard's suit is horrible in NT, you'll have no chance of setting up his suit and cashing it, better to make it trumps.

This means I'll win my bet on Obama, right?

@PhilK - 1C:1S, 2C must result in a loss of accuracy, but surely it's small compared to the gains of preemption and non-disclosure. @PhilS - 2C is allowed to outscore 1NT, even at MP. When you are unbal with a 5-3 or 5-4 fit you'll often take two more tricks with a trump suit. @adebisi - I agree the some versions of T-Walsh work best if you open 1D with 4D5C - indeed, for a while I played a method that opened 1D with 4D6C - but it's certainly an overbid to imply that it is necessary to open 1D playing T-Walsh. My two preferred methods handle 4D5C brilliantly well through the 1C opening. @neilkaz - Which of the many methods around would you like the book to contain? It doesn't help that the gains from T-Walsh tend to be small playing 15-17 NT and better minor. Various forms of short club get more out of it, usually in conjunction with a 14-16 NT.

PhilS - your 1C:1S doesn't look right to me. Just play it as ostensibly showing diamonds, opener rebids 1N with a balanced hand and 2C with an unbalanced hand. Worst case scenario is that responder is 3352 and you play the 5-2 club fit. I even have to rebid 2C with 4414 in my methods and it's fine. Now 1C:2C is free for something else. PhilK - Not a bad idea with the xfer reverses, but I suspect for those putting 11-13/17-19 NTs through 1C it's better to play 1C:1S, 2D as the 17-19 NT. Obviously you and I don't have that problem.

He gives two sets of data - a forecast and a "now-cast". If the election was held tomorrow, he thinks it 88.2% that Obama would win. The 79.7% prediction is a forecast for Nov 6th.

Follow-up question: On what sort of hand would I bid 3H over 3D?

Fairly sure it wasn't

No way is passing 2D out an LA. You haven't even shown your suit yet, ppl will basically never pass oppo out there when they can bid their suit at the level they always intended to, let alone with seven solid. I was also under the impression that it's incorrect to rule on the basis that N/S get the correct explanation but West still has UI, but I am happy to be proved wrong/be shouted down on this point.

The fudge would only be relevant on something like 3523 with xxx club, right? I'd say 2S shows four but can see the argument that it shouldn't. If you agree that 2S can be three cards, then I suggest 3S and 3N are raises without and with club stops respectively, thus you wouldn't really need 3N over 3S as a desire to play. Although I guess that still falls down when you have xxx opposite xxxx in clubs or something.

You can lay Obama on Betfair at 67.5%, I believe the fee on winning markets for low-volume customers is 5%, 0.675*0.95 = 64.1%, so a 3% gap. That doesn't include intrade fees which are flat rates, I believe. So yes, there is, but probably not enough to make it worthwhile.

That doesn't explain why Betfair has Obama at 68%. Whatever the "true odds", the 7% gap is bizarre.

Lol. It's auto to bid there if 2D is nat NF. I'd check with NS that they don't play system on over 2C and ask South what he'd do over 2D, then adjust to %ages of various contracts.

We seem to have slightly different ideas about what this auction shows...I'll add notes to OP

2S was GF, and maybe half-a-point stronger than you might expect [occasionally 19s rebid 1S]. 2N was natural [by our meta-agreements, 3N would have shown extras confident about playing NT, but that's probably not that useful here].