Siegmund

I can see where that's a possible interpretation. We do need to wait for clarification. For the followup re natural leads, I got confused who LHO was, which didn't help. Heh. (I was forcing CKQJ to the left of the 18 pointer, not in the 18 point hand.) If you're both forcing side honours in AND forcing spade honours out you are putting an awful lot of contraints on the 18 pointer hand, yes, and would expect a goodsized shift in the odds.

This line looks like an error to me: If that means what I think it does, it means you have forced E-W to hold the SJ AND to NOT hold the SQ,SK, or SA. It doesn't look to me like you should impose any restrictions on their honours except to reject the cases where they don't have the key card. My code (for the Thomas Andrews dealer): sdev na sdev sa sdev nk sdev sk sdev nq sdev sq sdev nj sdev sj source format/none main { reject unless {[balanced south]} reject unless {[spades south] == 2} set h [hcp south] reject if {$h<18} {$h>19} reject unless {[spades north] == 5} set h [hcp north] reject if {$h<6} {$h>7} set w [whogets as] if {$w == "south"} {sa add 1} if {$w == "north"} {na add 1} set w [whogets ks] if {$w == "south"} {sk add 1} if {$w == "north"} {nk add 1} set w [whogets qs] if {$w == "south"} {sq add 1} if {$w == "north"} {nq add 1} set w [whogets js] if {$w == "south"} {sj add 1} if {$w == "north"} {nj add 1} accept } deal_finished { set an [na count] set as [sa count] set kn [nk count] set ks [sk count] set qn [nq count] set qs [sq count] set jn [nj count] set js [sj count] puts "$an $as; $kn $ks; $qn $qs; $jn $js" }

I'd be interested in hearing where, if you or he happens to recall it. The basic question somebody needs to ask is "what is a datum supposed to represent?", from which the correct type of datum to use usually will follow directly. (To my mind, as soon as you decide your event isn't going to be scored by total points, methods based on mean total-point score are automatically off the list of candidates.) I did think that - back before the internet introduced cross-imps to everybody - median was fairly widely accepted to be better than mean, but it's never been a popular format in my part of the world, so I can only judge by internet forum traffic. You have seen bluejak's old article on the subject?

Yes, it's mostly the not doubling 1NT that feels strange. It feels red to me - and its just about the ONLY red psych I've ever seen posted in one of these EBU threads, in which all sorts of ordinary regular psychs get punished.

We can keep trying, every time another old conventionphobic fogey keels over, I guess... Who knows, if people learn to cope with multi 2D over 1NT, maybe in another 10 years we can learn to cope with multi 2D openings too. Wow.

Very little difference. For 1000 hands I got a 64-36 split on the queen after forcing CKQJ. My intuition was that all of them would be closer to 50% too (you would like to think you could take 3:1 points, 2:5 cards, and multiply to get 6:5 in favor of the strong hand as a good rule of thumb -- but that kind of shortcut only works when all the missing cards are of equal value, e.g., "East has 2 cover cards of the six possible ones I havent seen yet.")

I find it A) mildly strange that you want to IMP against a datum rather than use cross-imps, and B ) considerably stranger to use either of these two methods to find a datum. The three most obvious ones that come to my mind are double-dummy par, the score which minimizes squared imp differences (what a mean does in total-points scoring - but this would have some very odd behaviours in a few cases), and the median (has a vaguely matchpoint-like feel to it, but it's easy to calculate and takes care of outliers.) I would want to hear a REALLY good reason for your rather drastically trimmed mean proposal before I'd consider it as anything other than a bizarre outlier of a method :)

It'd sure be nice to have a rule of thumb for these, wouldnt it? Odd how humans handle these choices so well when they depend only on suit lengths but we lack a good way to cope with conflicting high-card and suit-length evidence. Maybe if I am bored this summer.... Anyway, a quick sim - 10,000 deals -> ~6k cases where their side holds a key card: Ace: Strong hand: 4366 (67.2±1.1%) Long hand: 2131 (32.8±1.1%) King: Strong hand: 3015 (50.8±1.3%) Long hand: 2924 (49.2±1.3%) Queen: Strong hand: 2062 (36.2±1.2%) Long hand: 3629 (63.8±1.2%) Jack: Strong hand: 1529 (28.7±1.3%) Long hand:3794 (71.3±1.3%) Not that surprisingly, for the card worth the most HCP, the ratio isn't far from the 3:1 ratio of HCP-strengths, and for the card worth the least, it isn't far from the 2:5 ratio of suit-lengths ... but I'd have to stare at it a lot longer, with more other cases, to find a pattern. Edited to add - this is the type of statistic that will change a LOT if AQxxx xx xx xxxx and xxxxx Ax Qx xxxx are not bid the same way - so it is going to be a bit hard to generalize to other auctions.

If we have no special agreements about this sequence, my stab at it is similar to Justin's, except that I'd expect minor honours in diamonds and aces-and-spaces outside, and think there's room for more variety in the other suits (5th diamond or only 3 of a black suit.) Conceivably they could have an agreement that this is a cuebid in support of diamonds, in which case the 2nd heart might also be missing.

I am a lot happier responding on this hand than I would be on a lot of misfitting 5s.

Aaaah! We have a Loki worshipper in our midst.

I voted small club but don't really care which size club it is. I hate leading from K-T into the strong balanced hand; even the heart rates to be better than that if you ask me (after the superaccept I don't expect there to be a heart loser to blow.) Of course I am used to the fact that the most aggressive lead in sight always wins in a lead-vs-slam poll even when it doesnt work at the table B) Edited to add: if 5♦ is a second suit rather than a cuebid, I'll change my vote to the spade; there may be a slew of pitches on a 2nd running suit.

It sounds to me like the tournament committee scheduled the finals for Wednesday, and if any one of the of 8 players involved objected for any reason to moving it, it should have remained at its original time on Wednesday. Maybe you were just too nice of a guy to insist on that :)

On a slight tangent, my only personal experience with 'playing team sports' was with quiz-bowl teams in high school and college (and I did win a state championship and go to nationals once for that.) The actual matches, around a half hour each, were four-on-four. Interestingly, in the context of selection... we had nine players to a team; at local- and state-level meets we could show up with up to 7 players, and for each match and at halftime of each match, we could rotate which 4 players were 'in'. BUT, for the nationals - we were required to submit only 5 names, and specify which 4 were in front and who was the alternate - in advance. The theory was that part of the coach's job was to try out different rotations in the pre-season to identify the strongest team, but in the end, he had to put forward one team. It may well be that that experience (from when I was only a kitchen-table bridge player, not playing serious tournaments yet) is a factor in my opinions now.

That's interesting about 3 sessions of regional bridge being less tiring than the Spingold. It is true that matches against stronger opposition are more work; I guess I just didn't think it was that much more work. (I did, in my mid-20s, play 3 sessions a day at regionals; I eventually started avoiding the morning session on days that I cared about the afternoon-evening main event, since I did play noticeably worse towards the end of my 3rd session of the day. But 2 sessions against strong opponents never left me as tired as 3 sessions against a random mix did.) If "everybody" agrees that the schedule is too tiring, perhaps that means the schedule needs adjusting, rather than meaning that the teams need made larger. But yes, it does come down to a matter of taste - and my taste is that I'd rather hear discussions about how the hands were played than about how if a different lineup had been chosen things might have worked out differently. As for 'large teams so the stars can rest' - in my view, the team selection for one championship is sort of like announcing the roster for one baseball game; sure, the same 4 people don't have to play every championship, and don't have to play a regional the week before the championship, but I wish they DID play one entire event.

My reg p and I use them both as mixed raises, but unlike aqua we jump in the suit we have the stronger holding in. Seems more likely to help us make an intelligent cooperative decision about whether to bid on or defend if the opps compete again; holding severe shortness, one can decide on one's own to compete one level higher in our suit. (Actually, we have this agreement primarily when 2nd hand overcalls: after (1♦)-1♥-(1♠), advancer's 2♦ is limit, while 2♠ and 3♦ are both mixed. The posted auction is a logical extension of the above.)

There is a thread in the offline forum right now about how national teams are selected. It reminded me of something that has bothered me for a very long time. In the casual Sunday Swiss, I can understand allowing 5- and 6-person teams; you collect more entry fees if you accommodate the people who can only play half the day, and nobody expects it to be a serious event anyway. (It's still quite rare - maybe one team in 10 or 20 actually has more than four people on it in a Swiss. In regional KOs, it's virtually unknown in the low and middle brackets, but common in the top brackets. Heh.) In a more serious event I feel very strongly that teams of more than 4 should be forbidden - I can understand having an alternate available in case of an illness, but not deliberately forming teams of 6 and rotating them so that they only play 2/3 of the time. I asked such a question once before, and got answers like "these events can be many days long; don't you know how hard it would be to have the stamina to play the whole thing?" In many other types of competitions, not having the stamina to make it to the finish line is pretty much the definition of not being good enough to be on the team. A big part of the skill in e.g. marathons and cross-country ski races is pacing oneself to avoid burning out halfway through. Baseball was played for many years with the expectation of the starting pitcher pitching 9 innings, but somehow that became a rarity once exceptions were allowed. I don't think I believe that whole stamina argument at all, actually -- they aren't usually asked to play more than 2 sessions a day, and my bridge gets better, not worse, if I go to a regional and get to play all day every day for a week, as I get used to tuning out distractions, get acquainted with the playing site, learn who play opponents are, and so on. IS there any defensible reason for teams of 6 being standard for a 4-player game?

Hm. I am happy with forcing to game here, with a strong expectation of good values fitting with my Qxx. I would find 3H to be a substantial underbid, though if I were 1-6-3-3 I'd settle for it.

Pass is certainly my 2nd choice behind 2D, with double 3rd and anything else not on the radar. Funny this hand got posted today. Tuesday night at the club, my most-of-the-time-pretty-good partner came up with 2NT, then pulled my penalty double of 3H to 3NT, and then 5D after I ran to 4D) on a 4-1-4-4 18-count. (I had xx KQxxxx xxx xx). 1600 point swings don't hurt quite as much at MP as at IMP, at least.

Forgive our ACBL bias: over here, 2♠-without-an-alert is weak, 2♠-with-an-alert is fit, and OP didn't include any alerts or footnotes, so we assumed accordingly. It would also be an overbid to think 90% of your opponents have even heard of fit-jumps unless this is a top-level event, I think. (Perhaps the next revision of the ACBL convention card, they will put a checkbox for "fit" on the "jump shift after double" line instead of the invitational or forcing blanks...)

Responsive, but with the expectation that initial doubler will often leave it in with 4 quality spades (=fourth hand shouldn't be void in spades), is what I'd assume without discussion. Sort of a "fourth hand can't have a penalty double unless there are 14 or 15 spades in the deck" type of logic. On the posted cards I don't think Axx spades is good enough, and I bid 3C.

Rushing in like a fool as usual... Our goal is to play for 1 spade loser against as many breaks as we can. The ace works against single K or J; winning, crossing to DQ, and running SQ always works against single J, and only against small singletons and 4-0 breaks if we have a second entry (=if RHO puts up HQ); winning, crossing to DQ and leading toward the SAT works against singletons other than the J, and gains additional chances if there may be a reentry. I feel like winning high, crossing to DQ, and leading small toward my hand is the winner against either heart play, and that East ought to be playing small on general principle. I'm sure jlall will tell us where we are wrong soon enough. (Editing to add that I didn't pay much attention to the 2-2 breaks where a ruff is possible; yes, ace-first gains against some of them too.) (Editing again to add that I missed the "you put in the jack" part, so I always have the two entries if I need them. But I think that strengthens the conclusion, not weakens it, re leading the small spade - though it makes RHO's play more or less irrelevant.)

Having created a force you can't un-create it. If you play as in Root and Pavlicek, 3D would be NF but very encouranging; if you play as most of the rest of the world does, the 10-pointer jumps to 3D immediately and the stronger hand bids this way. (If 2D is NMF at all, that is - and as others have said, if you are going to make both 2C and 2D artificial, usually people use 2C for all the weak hands and 2D for all the strong hands.) Maybe somebody else who plays 2D as simple-NMF rather than 2-way-NMF in this auction might.... It's reasonably common to use a jump to 3C as weak with 6 clubs if 2C artificial (but you need three ways to get to 3C, one weak, one invitational, and one forcing, and that's hard to do unless you play 2-way NMF or you use an additional artificial rebid somewhere.)

I know I like my openings a little lighter than most (and my responses correspondingly better - no random 4-counts!) but I didn't expect to be quite this alone.

Out of your 4 choices, I think D is the standout. That's not to say I am particularly happy about it. But opening 1NT is too rich for my blood.