TimG

I'm not sure what other sort of evidence you think is missing. I have seen it work badly (and well) a number of times to preempt with a four card major. Personally, for me this major is too good and I would pass. 1♦ is not horrible to me. 4♦ is the right preempt on playing strength, but I don't think this is right for a preempt at all. I wondered if anyone has taken the time to note hands where they have preempted with a side four-card major and determined through a bunch of results that it is a losing action. Or, sifted through a database of hands and results to come to some sort of conclusion regarding the merits.

If 4♥ does not establish a forcing situation over the opponents' 5♦, then the 5♥ bid shows extras does it not? South might see a slam with this bit of information.

Is there other than anecdotal evidence that preempting with a side four-card major leads to bad results? (This hand may well be too strong for a 3♦ opening bid, but to me that argues in favor of 1♦ rather than pass.)

For every time the field fails to protect your result, you'll get 9-10 excellent MP results because the field isn't able to duplicate your result. The "good" player should simply recognize that the game does not hinge upon a single board and that there is a fair amount of luck involved in a short MP event in a weak field -- the "good" players won't win every time.

I've heard of the five and six year college plans. But, the million year plan?

Isn't 6♠ off one on a (not unlikely) diamond lead? Yes, but why would you expect a diamond lead? As a defender, I would not be at all confident that my ♣A is cashing and would want to look elsewhere to establish a trick. It would seem that the most likely road to defeating 6♠ would be to establish a trick that we could cash when in with a potential major suit trick. That leaves diamonds.

Isn't 6♠ off one on a (not unlikely) diamond lead? 5♠ seems a bid timid with this hand.

Won't some natural bidders start: P-1♠ or P-1NT? What is the point of this post? The point is that many in North America misuse "natural" to mean "standard" or "normal for this region" when the methods they describing are not necessarily natural. Nor are they necessarily superior to more natural methods. I think this misuse of "natural" also highlights the one-way-to-do-things, homogenized thinking of many in ACBL-land. I don't think this one way of looking at things is a good thing for bridge. Anyway, sorry to have raised your ire. I meant to be constructive in the don't-get-caught-inside-the-box sort of way.

So, Huckabee says that everyone would pay less but the total raised by the government would be the same. Interesting concept. When did 1+1 stop being equal to 2? Tourists from other countries don't pay any American income tax, but they do pay consumption taxes. So in theory, every American group could pay a smidge less and the rest would be covered by foreigners. Whether we'd still get any foreign tourists after we raised the price of everything by 23% is a different question. I suppose the dollar will continue to drop until they come back. They have similar taxes in Canada, and though it may reduce the number of tourists that go to Canada, it hasn't dried up the tourist industry. Last I heard, many Americans travel to Europe every year, too. (Yes, some of the VAT is refundable, but not all of it, and I expect many tourists aren't bothered to make full use of the refund options, either.)

Thank you. I would have guessed that would have made the window "full screen"; it never occurred to me to try that button. In fact when I read your note, I went to the options window and hunted for a "full screen" option to click in the top right of that window. Thanks again.

You're never dealt 2254? Or, do you always rebid 2N regardless of stopper in the 4th suit? (When you want to move over 2♦.)

Won't some natural bidders start: P-1♠ or P-1NT?

Nobody knows?

For some reason, doesn't seem you ever run into these auctions in a real game; I wouldn't waste any time worrying about the right action.

I would prefer 3♠: I've got a pretty good holding there. But, I don't think 3♠ promises 3154 (or 3055).

You mean something like a daily recitation that includes: "one nation under God"?

I don't like 3♣, 3♥ or 4♦, with 4♦ probably the worst because 4♠ seems so obvious in that auction, but it really never should have gotten to that point. I don't think this is a case of players not understanding jump shift auctions. Shift a few HCP and the auction might wel have started: 1♦-1♠ 2♣-2♦ 2♥-2♠ 3♦-4♣ with the same sort of confusion. I think it is preference bidding that players do not understand.

I used to have an extended chat window that could handle many lines of text even when using the bigger chat font and displaying lobby names at the top of the chat box. It disappeared -- I don't know when, maybe a software update, maybe I was playing with something -- and I can't get it back. I've gone through all the option tabs, but can't find anything that would seem to extend the chat box. Can someone point me to this option?

It does not seem unreasonable to me to have different schedules based upon different numbers of entries. But, schedules for all possibilities should be published in advance of a registration deadline. If this is an invitational event, there is no excuse for not knowing how many entries there will be and providing a schedule for that eventuality. Surely if 8 teams are invited and one of them declines, another can be invited to take its place.

I see two problems right off: 1) There is incentive to shift income from one spouse to the other: your A and B pay $4000 in taxes; couple C & D who make $35k and $20k pay $3000 in taxes. 2) You're only making 50 cents on the dollar at the low end of the scale. Oh, and babies are worth $5k/year.

I would argue that they are not both making the same income. Sure, they are both making $X, but the true measure is what they can buy with those $X. I might also suggest that the guy who is making $50k per year and spending $24K per year in rent may be spending his money a bit on the reckless side. But, perhaps I am out of touch with the realities of responsible spending.

But, $100K in Lincoln is a higher salary than $100K in LA.

Doesn't the "fairtax" replace an income tax? So, individuals will have more money available for purchases. In theory, this should cancel out the reduced spending because of higher prices.

I think you're coming at this with the wrong attitude. Your "behind opponents' backs" is my "with discretion". Your "whining" is my "informing". If the player who goes to the director really is whining, all the better that he has left me out of it. Why would I want to be witness?

That's not proper handling of the situation by the director.