TimG

WOW, and I thought the moral of your story was going to be "I realized how the language has changed and evolved, and how things that were taboo 100 years ago when I was a kid no longer have the same meaning/impact." I thought the moral of the story was that if he wanted to impress her, he should have tried articulating his thoughts in a better way than "stupid *****ing *****" over and over again.

Either way, figuratively or literally, brave or masculine, there is a sexist implication. Would you think it should be removed if I just typed "men are braver than women"? That alone would be ridiculous. Now what if I typed something else that implies that but that was clearly not what I meant, should that be removed? It is beyond ridiculous. I don't think I have offered any opinion about whether the original subject line should have been changed. I don't think intent is the only criteria. For that, see my reference to the use of "gay" or "ghay". I do agree it can be taken to absurd extremes. I live in Maine where "squaw" has recently been removed from all place names. Turns out that, to the natives, "squaw" is the rough equivalent of "whore". That's not what it meant to those who named the places decades or centuries ago. Nor, I suspect, did a vast majority of those who told their friends they had skied at Big Squaw Mountain know what a member of the Penobscot Nation might have thought had they overheard. But, well, "squaw" has disappeared from all signs and maps.

It would just be a patch to a system that will never really work unless it is completely overhauled. For instance, there are black and silver point requirements for becoming a Life Master, yet these are simply attendance points, nobody even pretends that they measure significant achievement in the way that gold points do (or used to do). If you are going to patch things, I think you use something more along the lines of Blue Ribbon Qualifications, though even these are watered down these days. I just checked my Blue Ribbon Qualifications and I can't recall where nearly half of them came from (not because my Flight A wins are so numerous, but rather because they probably came from things like winning the 2nd bracket of a KO that just aren't that memorable). Anyway, I think there ought to be some measure of real success in open (or top bracket, top flight, etc.) competition, not just section awards or low overalls. And, no need to require anybody to attend an NABC to achieve that success (as platinum points require). Platinum points sort of measure attendance just like any other points; I have some platinum points and I've never finished in the overalls of an NABC event.

Not everyone has the means to send e-mail while attending a bridge tournament. I know that unless there are free internet terminals in the hotel lobby, I seldom have internet access when I travel.

I think you have to go back a little bit further than that. I became a life master in ~1990 and then, as now, you could win all the gold points you needed in Flight B events. You could even do it in Flight C events (if you stuck to the GNT and NAP) though it would take a bit longer. In my opinion, a meaningful life master title would include a requirement of success against open competition.

I did not experience a thrill when I became a life master. I did not even know when it happened. When I got my point confirmation card, I did figure out what points put me over -- turns out I won the points in the consolation of a regional Swiss (yes, there used to be a finals and a consolation in many regional Swisses).

I wonder if this is true. Isn't part of the idea behind a preemptive raise that it confuses things? A weak 2S opening bid wouldn't be as effective if it was known to always conform to a very narrow range of hands, would it? Can't the same be said for a preemptive raise? Maybe the hand in question is so far wide of a typical preemptive raise to require a different call. But, in general, don't we want our preemptive raises to be sort of wide range as far as high cards go?

I meant vulgar in the sense of offensive in language. I believe something can be vulgar without being sexist or sexist without being vulgar. If I say "Oh *****!" that language may be considered offensive to some. But, you'll have a hard time convincing me that it is in any way sexist. Likewise, if I say "you bid like a girl" there is no offensive language involved, yet the statement is sexist.

Either way, figuratively or literally, brave or masculine, there is a sexist implication. The fact that it has become so common to have dulled our perception of it, should not matter. One of my pet peeves is the use of "gay" to describe something that is lame or stupid. Urban-dictionary defines it as "often used to describe something stupid or unfortunate. originating from homophobia. quite preferable among many teenage males in order to buff up their 'masculinity'." I hope we can all agree that even though this usage has crept into the vernacular, it is undesirable and even offensive. When I have seen this usage and brought it to someone's attention, the typical reaction has been along the lines of: "yeah, but they don't mean anything by it, it's just the way it's used these days." Pretty much the same reaction most of us have to "grow some balls". "Gay" has been taken a step further and been transformed to "ghay". Urban-dictionary says of ghay: "Should be implemented whenever you use the word gay, but are not refering [sic] to anything homosexual. The extra 'h' makes it less offensive." Anyway, I don't think that the urban-dictionary saying something is "less offensive" makes it so. Nor do I think that urban-dictionary featuring "brave" over "masculine" makes it less sexist. The intent of the OP was undoubtedly not sexist. But, upon reflection, you have to see that the phrase is sexist. I didn't give the subject line a second thought until I read jilly's reaction. And, I am surprised that the problem she had with it was one of vulgarity rather than sexism.

"Have you got the balls?" isn't that much different from "You bid like a girl". It's easy to see how reference to these particular body parts in this way could be considered dissing a gender. Oddly, it doesn't seem that jelly's problem with the reference had anything to do with possible sexism, but rather she simply didn't want to read reference to testicles. I don't think the water cooler is the right place to discuss this if the discussion is going to have much influence on policy. Those that read the water cooler are likely to have more tolerance for statements that might offend some readers.

3♠ for me, but I like to play this as more of a mixed raise than a purely preemptive raise.

Early on, don't we learn not to preempt a preempt?

KJx Ax Kxxx Jxxx or something :( So, it was a borderline opening bid! :-)

Partner was 3253?

And, you're probably playing those weak NTs.

You must open some weird hands if, when opener has Jx or worse in spades, you often hold a wide-open suit on the side :) Of course, if the idea is blasting 3N, that will happen more often, because you will miss some 9 and 10 (and even 11) card fits... but if you transfer and bid 3N, you should almost never be off an entire suit... and that was true in my simulations.. I think there was one hand on which 3N failed because the opps ran 5 tricks in one suit on opening lead: declarer had Qxx opposite xx. I was talking about after blasting to 3NT, otherwise you lose some of the advantage, defenders will lead better after 1N-2H-2S-3N (or 1N-4H-4S) than after 1N-3N -- and meant to be referring to times that 3NT failed while 4S made (double dummy). Yes, many of these hands would choose 4S if given a choice. Then again, there is a hand like J6 AKJ3 AJ43 JT9 that would likely choose 3N, but was down on a normal club lead while making on any other lead, including a spade. (Yes, I realize this is a very small sample size of one hand.) But anyway, in browsing through hands it seems to me that a spade lead against 3N helps more often than the "normal" lead.

You can turn off signatures.

I think it is not surprising that double dummy, 4♠ is better. One big factor of bidding 3NT is that we will get a bad lead very, very frequently. In fact, if I bid 3N, the one thing I do not really want led is spades. Often 3NT fails because there is a wide open suit. I'd be happy if they always led a spade and never managed to run their suit before I got a chance to take my tricks. I admit I will not always have nine runners.

One thing that I have not seen factored in is second hand's pass. Some of the time that 3NT is going down it is because a suit is wide open. Sometimes when opener's LHO holds a running suit, they will be able to act over 1NT. When I started looking just at hands that made in 3NT or 4S and failed in the other, the first hand that I saw was one where 2nd hand was 0715 with AK of hearts and KJ of clubs. Surely that hand was going to act over 1NT! So, I think second hand passing is a factor in favor of 3NT. Not only are the chances of there being a wide open suit reduced, but when 4th hand holds the long, strong suit, opening leader won't always find it.

I think this highlights the small sample size issue. After 32 deals, you found 1 where 4S made and 3NT did not and 7 where 3NT made and 4S did not. Over the next 70+ deals, you found 5 where 4S made and 3NT did not and 3 where 3N made and 4S did not. I don't think that the neighborhood of 100 deals is significant when you're taking about only 15% of the deals matching the criteria (of one contract failing while the other makes) and the score is 10 to 6 on those deals. I want to emphasize that I am not claiming that the double dummy approach gives a definitive answer here. I'm simply saying that a sample size of 16 hands isn't nearly enough to draw any firm conclusions.

Correct. But the book lead is often the best lead on a double dummy basis (or at least equally as good as others). So, this will not affect all hands, or even a majority, I would guess. (Would be something worth studying, though.)

Your simulation generates hands and then uses a deep finesse or similar double double analysis to predict the outcome?Yes, my simulation used a double dummy analysis. They won't "always" get these wrong in real life. A 32 hand sample is likely statistically insignificant. I think that if you understand the limitations of a double dummy simulation, they can be useful (and fast and convenient). I also suspect that a double dummy simulation can produce very accurate results in some cases. For instance, in the case at hand, we can get a good idea of how the presence of the Jack of Spades changes things. Even if we don't believe in the exact number of tricks predicted by the double dummy analysis, the difference in tricks with and without the Jack should be pretty reliable. Note that in my post I mentioned the blind opening lead in an auction like 1N-3N and suggested searching actual results. I did not mean to suggest that the double dummy simulation was definitive. I have compared double dummy results to table results for tens of thousands of hands. Declarer's Advantage does exist. And, it does change depending on the information passed in the auction and the level of the contract. You are right that Declarer's Advantage would better be referred to as Opening Leader's Disadvantage. When I looked into the matter, I found that after the opening lead, the defense held the advantage (relative to double dummy).

My simulation suggests there is approximately one extra trick in spades and that 3N fails more often than 4S (269 to 197 in 1000 hands). Adding the Jack of Spades improved the chances of both contracts, 3N failed 174 and 4S failed 79 times out of 1000, but seems to further support 4S. In my opinion, a not insignificant factor is the blind opening lead if responder does not show spades -- it should be easier to defend against 1N-4H-4S than 1N-3N. Double dummy simulation might not be best here. Searching actual results with Bridge Browser and comparing those results to the double dummy results could be quite useful.

No consideration for 2♦?

Isn't there some danger that partner with 1=3 in the majors and one or other minor unstopped will raise to 4♥? NO NO NO. Statistically, he won't have that hand. And even if he does, he should still bid 3NT because opener, who has a strong hand, probably has a stop anyway. I believe the correct call with 1-3 in the majors and a hand unsuitable to bid 3N is 3S.