TimG

If a heart and a spade both result in 5 tricks for the defense (and diamonds and clubs produce fewer tricks for the defense) then both the heart and the spade get a point. I think it is just a coincidence that the sum is 3 x 116. The table could read: spade jack: 51 spade nine: 60 spade eight: 60 spade six: 60 spade four: 60 etc. and have the same meaning, if I understand correctly.

In case 1, you also can't pickup Jxxx/A (once you've played the K or Q on the first round), you can in case 2.

What program are you using?

After the first few posts in this thread, I thought for sure that OP was going to explain that this was his opponents' auction and he was wondering if they might have had a wire on the hand. In my opinion, just more evidence that strange bidding is seldom the result of illicit behavior.

I suspect you can get statistical significance with fewer than 10,000 deals. Then again, computer time is cheap. The double dummy solvers that I have used (Double Dummy Solver, Deep Finesse and GIB on BBO) all highlight the cards that will produce the double dummy result, so it seems to me that a table should be able to be produced with Option 1 which would list all 13 possible leads and how often each produced the double dummy result, how many tricks on average the lead results in and how often the lead beats the contract. With Option 2, you'd want to use the same random seed for each trial, which really makes things identical to Option 1. Doesn't it?

Charlie Coon once told me that when both defenders duck the first trick, you should play the better player to hold the Ace. It seems that suitplay and Roudinesco disagree about this holding. I'm not going to embarrass myself by taking sides.

I think this would be an interesting hand for a double dummy lead analysis. I don't think Dealer (what I use for double dummy sims) does anything with leads. Please tell me if I am wrong about that. What do people use for their double dummy lead sims?

Try the Windows "maximize"/"restore down" box in the upper right hand corner of BBO (in the Windows bar). Miximizing should restore the chat lines -- at least it did for me after a recent update/reinstall.

In that case, I suspect 7♣ would be better.

Why not a strong pass? I don't disagree with the idea that a strong club is wonderful in bidding contests, but as you and mikeh have pointed out, and as I said in my post, interference is a factor in real life.

I don't think this is quite true (though it may have something to do with the problem of interference that you also mention). I think the big clubbers have their advantage in the limited opening bids rather than the all-purpose strong artificial opening -- 1♣ is a cost of doing the limited opening business.

I pass.

You can't help what doesn't exist. Doesn't the refusal to play against an Israeli team have to do with not recognizing the legitimacy of the Israeli state?

Sorry, I guess I did already ask this question, perhaps a private reply to effervesce would have been in order if I felt it necessary to repeat.

...

Would it have been ridiculous if he had said 5/9 instead of 55.555%?

It seems strange to me that north would voluntarily go past 3NT with at least one wasted major suit honor and xxx in diamonds. How about: P-1♦ 1♥-3♣ 3♦- for starters? Now, opener could bid 3♠ and pull responder's 3N to 4♦ (over which responder will surely bid 5♣). Or, opener could bid 4♦ (and again, responder will bid 5♣).

I agree, the club fit makes this a GF. I wonder what a direct 4♠ shows and how it differs from the cue-bid route.

In my town, the grocery store was open, but the hardware store was closed.

I am not a religious person, but I live in a religious society. My personal beliefs would not change if it is proven that Jesus is a myth, but I expect society would change and this would affect my life.

He did bid clubs, after all.

Would you have a complaint if he had said "5 out of 9" or some such?

Why would you want to stay in the office and work all day?

This one?

Does that 2.5 million include the approximately 500,000 slaves in the Colonies? This really did mean "men", not "all humans"; and didn't really mean "all", but rather certain white men.