TimG

Well, give partner the ♥K and declarer ♥A42 (making declarer's hand look more like a weak two-bid) and there are more safe options for him at trick 2, but a heart isn't one of them (it blows a non-setting trick). And, a discouraging club could easily convince partner that we have something in hearts (even without a double of 3♥).

Make the deal something like this: [hv=n=sk32hqjdaqt654ct9&w=s9ht9864d82cak753&e=sa74h753dk97c8642&s=sqjt865hak2dj3cqj]399|300|[/hv]and, isn't it important to cash the other high club at trick 2?

OK, for some reason I need to know how you figured this out....I can see the total # of posts in the board statistics section, but how do you find out which post was which number?

If this is count, I give honest count: the deuce. If this is attitude, I encourage since I don't want partner to think I have a heart card: the deuce. So, either way: the deuce.

I did a double dummy simulation with codo's example hand: predeal south S632, HAK9876, DAT, CQ4 predeal north S4, HQ54, DK8543, CK765 west_shape_ok=shape(west, any 6331 + any 6322 + any 6421) && spades(west)==6 west_hcp_ok=hcp(west)>5 && hcp(west)<11 west_ok=west_hcp_ok && west_shape_ok east_shape_ok=spades(east)==3 && (hearts(east)==3 or hearts(east)==1) && !shape(east, any 4333 + any 5332 + any 4432) east_ok=east_shape_ok In a 1000 deal sample, NS made exactly 10 tricks in hearts 1000 times. (Which suggests there might be something wrong with the code.) EW made 9 tricks in spades 765 and less than that 235.

This isn't so great on a trump lead, is it? Although you're right, 5♥ could turn out to be a good sac when partner has this hand.

I would guess that the question being asked is something like this: Pard opens 1S and I raise to 2S. He now makes a natural game try in hearts. Which do I prefer: 8 HCP with Jxx in hearts, or 8 HCP with xxx in hearts? Which should you be thinking: I have 8 HCP and my Jack is helping; or I have 8 HCP and my Jack is likely not pulling full weight? But, then there were comments about a Moysian so clearly others are thinking of a different question.

Doesn't it mean: "I want to be dummy in 3N. Who cares whether partner or the opponents know what I have?"

I didn't know this was about playing in a 43 trump fit with Jxx. But, here is what I have done. Declarer = 4432 or 4333 with 4 spades and 14-16 HCP Dummy = 3334 with 3 spades and 9-11 HCP With 25 partnership HCP including J74 in spades: 8.561 tricks in NT. With 25 partnership HCP including 874 in spades: 8.654 tricks in NT. With 24 partnership HCP including 874 in spades: 8.164 tricks in NT. [edit: each was done with a 1000 deal sample.] This suggests to me that, given a hand with 874 opposite a 4-card suit, it is more valuable to add a point in another suit than to change the 874 to J74. But, remember that the point added elsewhere could, in effect, be changing a Jack to a Queen, a Queen to a King or a King to an Ace. So, the point being added elsewhere is not the same as the point being added when we change 874 to J74 -- not all points are created equal no matter how ingrained the 4321 count has become. Rather than conclude that the point is more useful elsewhere, one might just as easily conclude that the simulation suggests the Jack is overvalued in the 4321 evaluation method. I think it is going to take a much more detailed simulation to get an idea whether Jxx is "good" opposite partner's 4-card suit.

Doesn't this just tell us that the point is more useful in another suit, not necessarily how useful it is in the 43 spade fit?

Both vul, IMPs, you hold ♠Kxx ♥A ♦KJ98x ♣9xxx and see: (2♥)-3♣-(4♥) to you. If this were a poll, I'm guessing that nearly everyone would simply bid 5♣ and comment that they'd like to make a slam try, but have no way to safely do that below 5♣ -- sometimes preempts work. But, it also occurs to me that 4N might be a way to make a slam try, a sort of last train bid. I'm wondering if established partnerships commonly have something available here that the rest of us might not know about (or bother to spend time on because of the low frequency). Tim

What does it matter how "species" is defined? What is important is that living things evolve through natural selection. I think the example of a horse and a donkey misses the point by quite a bit. The evolution of species is not usually the result of inter-species breeding, but rather slow change through intra-species breeding. I also think that our conception of time is such that it is very hard for people to understand what millions of years mean.

I could be mistaken, but it seems to me the legal basis of a man's suit against the ACBL for this kind of thing would not be that there was no other event available for him to enter, but rather that he is prohibited, on the basis of sex, from entering the Women's event. In that case, it is the existence of the restriction on the basis of sex in the event in question that is discriminatory, and the existence or non-existence of alternative events not so restricted is irrelevant. I'm not an attorney, but consider the example of restrooms. If a men's room and a women's room are provided, the men and women have no right to demand access to the opposite sex restroom. But, if only a women's restroom were available, men could then demand access.

My guess is that there are more females members of the ACBL than male members. I believe NABC level women's events survive for two basic reasons: the WBF has Women's events and the Women's NABC events help with selection of teams for the WBF events; and two there are some females pros that would take a financial hit should the events go away. Perhaps that second reason is not particularly good, but if there is demand for the services, what harm does it do for ACBL to provide the events? I imagine it does the same "harm" that was done by the men-only events that were eliminated as a consequence of the anti-discrimination suit some 20-25 years ago. AFAIK, nobody has filed a similar lawsuit aimed at women-only events, so the ACBL continues to discriminate by offering those events...ironically taken advantage of by, among others, one of the plaintiffs. There are Open events opposite all of the Women's event, I believe. Both men and women can enter the "real" event. When the lawsuit was brought, there were Men's events opposite the Women's events, so that a male-female partnership had no event to enter (and women could not enter the "real" event). Upon what basis would a man file suit against the ACBL regarding the Women-only events? Now, if there is a Mixed event with no Open event concurrent, that would seem a basis for a lawsuit. But, the BOD would not be silly enough to even propose such a situation.

Partner could have ♠Kxxx ♥AKx ♦Kxx ♣AKx or ♠xxxx ♥AKx ♦Kx ♣AKJx, right? So, sure slam is possible. What are your methods here? Is 3♦ forcing?

My guess is that there are more females members of the ACBL than male members. I believe NABC level women's events survive for two basic reasons: the WBF has Women's events and the Women's NABC events help with selection of teams for the WBF events; and two there are some females pros that would take a financial hit should the events go away. Perhaps that second reason is not particularly good, but if there is demand for the services, what harm does it do for ACBL to provide the events?

You don't count jacks, even when they are in partner's suit? And, the long hearts are worth nothing?

Objection: Stayman asks for a four-card major, the proper answer is 2♦. This must be a better than average 1NT as far as playing strength goes. I accept the invitation and bid 3N.

I'll take a stab. Many play that splinters are used to uncover slams based upon a perfect fit. If your splinters are too wide range, neither opener nor responder will know when it is right to make a slam move. There is a range of splinter that is too good to need a perfect fit for slam, too weak to unilaterally move past 4M.

You'd bid the same way with: ♠QJ72 ♥9 ♦A762 ♣AK43 or does the 4th x in diamonds really make that much of a difference?

Darwin's theory, or breakthrough, is really natural selection, not evolution, isn't it?

Can you explain some more about your methods? Right now, the way I play, I have no bid other than 2♦ to respond. I could bid 2NT, but I'm a few points short for a Jacoby 2NT response. ♠QJ72 ♥9 ♦A7632 ♣AK4 is a few points short of a Jacoby 2NT response? Or, did I miss a switch of hands under discussion?

What would 2N instead of 3♣ show?

I think it is more like "what makes you want to collect a NV penalty instead of try for game?" I'd prefer taking the sure thing.

Wouldn't a jump to 3♠ at this point show good diamonds and spades? Else why go about raising indirectly. Even if I didn't have an immediate forcing raise available, there must be some distinction between 2♠ and 3♠ now. I think the jump should show quality.