TimG

I don't know about you, but if he has that hand I want to be in slam after the auction I would have, I expect it to make the vast majority of the time opening leader doesn't have AK of hearts. I don't know, if you're on lead against your auction (expecting that the opponents are off one keycard) with xx Kxx xxxxx xxx, what do you lead? It seems to me that if we don't take the first two tricks, they likely have 12 tricks. 11 black suit tricks plus a red suit ace wouldn't be a surprise. 10 black suit tricks plus the AK of diamonds, or 10 black suit tricks plus ♥A plus a forced trick from ♦KQ, wouldn't be a surprise, either. I think I'd lead a heart. I'd be less likely to get it right holding xx Axx Qxxxx xxx, but even then, not taking the first two tricks is probably a disaster, so I might get it right and lead a heart. Perhaps I am giving too much credit to the opponents' auction and am wrong to assume their suits are running.

The 2008 NCAA Softball rules can be found here. The relevant section (on page 105): Under the rules, the pinch runner would have scored.

See below.

How about AJx xx Kx KJTxxx?

Isn't the nine equivalent to guessing that you've led small from QJTxx? While if the lead is 4th best from a non-sequence it would be better not to play the nine?

Nope, a couple of years ago this happened in MLB. A player hit a home run, got hurt rounding second base, and could not complete the trip to home. A pinch hitter was called upon to finish for the injured player. The article was a bit confusing to me, but it seemed there were three options: 1) A pinch runner replaces the player who hit the ball, who then would get credit for only a single, but the runs still count for the team; 2) The runner's teammates help her around the bases, the runner would get credit for a HR, but she would be called out because her teammates assisted her and her run would not count; or 3) The opposing team helps her around the bases in which case the player who hit the ball gets credit for the HR and the run counts. Bottom line: the runs would have counted in options 1 and 3 and the player would not have let the team/coach pick option 2. It was nice of the opposing team to help out so that the hitter could get credit for her HR, but it really made no difference to the outcome of the game (as the article seems to imply).

I can't make it even if they lead a diamond. At the table, I would draw trumps and hope for a lucky club layout.

In the example provided, the 14 HCP hand is in 2nd seat.

I would not have opened the hand!

The ♦Q gets played at trick one.

I've voted in a Board of Director election, at least once, maybe twice. Also, don't imagine that a few dozen votes on a BBO forum is representative of the membership.

That was really my point: don't get distracted. Whether it be by trying to adjust your game, worrying about seating rights, or any of a host of other things. Just concentrate on playing your game and playing consistently and solidly. I was speaking from the perspective of players who don't have consistent or solid games to begin with, so any extra effort is better spent on that than trying to adjust for client specific situations. (Lest there be any doubt, I put myself in this category -- I'm not pretending to speak down to players in this class.)

I would have been thinking: "I hope I get a chance to play against Helgemo/Helness."

Inflation?

When we played Meckwell last year in the Spingold, they cared about the seating. My memory might be fading, but I think they won... My sample size is small. But, I think the point is still valid. And, Meckwell might be an exception to players able to cope with ancillary matters and still play 100% (not that they needed to play 100% against you to survive!).

Isn't it important to know whether opener denied a four-card major with his 1N rebid or with his 3♦ bid? If opener denied a four-card major with his 1NT rebid, then responder's sequence (2♥ then 3NT over 3♦) would show some doubt about 3NT, wouldn't it? If the 1NT rebid did not deny a major, then responder's sequence could just be checking on a 4-4 heart fit and it would be rare for opener to remove 3N even with something like xxx in spades.

I've never lost a match after the other team made an issue of seating. Now, maybe this is because players only make an issue of seating when they are behind or when they think they are a weaker team. But, I have to think that some part of it is that they are worrying about ancillary matters.

Now as south you encourage diamonds in case partner has 4 since you can't ruff a club? Oops? I agree with jdonn about the carding issue and do not mean this post to suggest otherwise. But, I think it's already curtains on this hand when north wins the club lead and plays the ace of diamonds. Though the diamond continuation will certainly make it easier on declarer.

I know you didn't really want to hear this, but I wouldn't attempt to adjust my game to take advantage of the weaker player. For one reason: it is a distraction. Another: if you're taking unusual actions (opening lighter, interfering more aggressively) your partner is not going to be well placed. I think you are better off putting the thinking energy that you would put into adjustments into concentrating on playing solid bridge. If you say that you can play solid bridge and still put forth effort into adjustments, I say you under-estimate your chances in the second half (and thus don't want to take unnecessary risks in the first half).

Couldn't your raise be made with five? Yes, I know that this cannot be the case from partner's point of view once she sees declarer show up with a diamond. But, how did you know your partner didn't have four diamonds and want to know whether you had 4 or 5? I think you presented partner with a tough choice: either play you for strange carding (showing an odd number when you held an even) or strange bidding (raising on three small).

In the old days, didn't they open 1♠ and rebid 2♥?

One method to consider is "two-way transfers" (perhaps better termed "puppets"): 1N-2H shows either a weak hand with spades or an invitational plus hand with hearts. One plus for this method is that it makes opener declarer when responder is weak and responder declarer when responder is strong.

Not everyone can add their name on the left. If you put your name in your signature, some of us don't see it (because we don't view signatures). Some long signatures prompted me to turn that option off a while ago. That's your choice and your problem, then... My choice about the signatures. But, not my choice about the name on the left.

Not everyone can add their name on the left. If you put your name in your signature, some of us don't see it (because we don't view signatures). Some long signatures prompted me to turn that option off a while ago.

Especially if the 1♦ opening is somewhat amorphous as in standard 5-card major systems.