TimG

It's 3.

I got a 404 error when I tried to follow the link. What makes you think first hand reports won't be biased?

So long as you and partner are on the same page, you can bid 3♣ after (1♥)-1♠-(P)-P; (2♥); advancer will not fail to support spades and then take preference when clubs are better. Perhaps this hand is not quite good enough for that, but it is not that much different from (1♥)-2♣-(P)-P; (2♥)-2♠. Here, if we have "hit" partner he would very likely have raised a 1♠ overcall.

Transpose the hearts and clubs and there is a strong case to be made for pass over a 1♥ opening. I would bid 1♠ in the actual case, but don't think of it as a mastermind bid, so I abstain. (Perhaps that is a true sign of a mastermind.)

I love it. So many people play irresponsible doubles these days. Really, the slip of the fingers seems quite appropriate.

I would sooner guess that splinters were not available, this being the beginner/intermediate forum.

I don't think the issue is whether we belong in diamonds or hearts, but rather whether we belong in slam. Give partner x AKxxx KJxxx xx and slam looks good, xx AKxxx KJxxx x and not so good. I don't think there is any way to find out now, so I pass. I prefer to go plus in game than guess on slam, especially when the field (or other team) could easily miss a slam, too.

I don't know what "we" you are speaking for, but it doesn't include me. This discussion reminds me of old OKbridge group discussions where Carl Huducek argued that resticted choice does not exist. I am sure he understood and believed in restricted choice, but he had a lot of fun arguing that it didn't exist. Thing is, I think Cascade really believes in his position here. It would be much more amusing if he was just waving the carrot in front of jdonn.

I don't see a zillion tricks opposite Axxx x Jxx AKJxx, a fairly normal opening bid which seems consistent with the auction.

I thought this was going to be 10 best posts of the year, or 10 best threads of the year...

How do you show GF 4153? Or, do you respond 2♦ instead of 1♠ with this hand? What about 4x5x invitational? 5x5x GF? Do you have agreements about the follow-ups to 1♣-1♠; 1N-2♥; 2♠?

Because it has a non-standard meaning in the world of bridge.

That's only 12 tricks, isn't it? When I posted, I had overlooked that the 41 split would most often also sink small slams.

Only in your mind. You "had" to do no such thing. Again, only serious in your mind. JoAnne was using that as an example of "gossip" that people wouldn't approve of. I've gone back through the thread, though admittedly I did not read every word, and can find no such speculation.

Gossip: "Gossip is idle talk or rumor, especially about the personal or private affairs of others. It forms one of the oldest and most common means of sharing facts and views, but also has a reputation for the introduction of errors and other variations into the information thus transmitted. The term also carries implications that the news so transmitted (usually) has a personal or trivial nature." I don't know how the talk of cheating and affairs of the bedroom type relates to my statement that professional engagement seems more like news than gossip. Your definition of gossip includes "the introduction of errors and other variations" which to a great degree separates gossip from news. Not all news turns out to be true, but it isn't idle speculation. Anyway, I see no problem with saying that the Rosenberg team is anonymously sponsored. That seems to be a fact. I will not enter into speculation about who the sponsor might be or what their motivation might be. Hamman is playing with Zia; Berkowitz is reportedly going to play with Sontag. As far as I know, the latter has yet to pass, but it doesn't seem to be mere speculation. You are the one who rehashed the incident at the world championships complete with your opinion added in and has now brought cheating into the discussion (apparently out of the blue). Thanks for letting us all know what it means to have confidential or privileged information. Broadcasting the information would break the confidence and that would be bad, right? I'm glad you cleared that up.

True, but (as you say) the GCC does disallow: "1. Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the opponents’ methods." I don't think it is a leap to suggest this refers to "destructive" methods.

The 4th problem in the October 1998 Challenge the Champs set is:[hv=d=w&v=b&w=sakj9653hq7dca964&e=sqha5djt9642ckq73]266|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]The scores are: 7♣ 10; 6♠ 7; 6♣ 6; etc. I wonder though, does 7C really deserve that high a score? I had thought that you didn't really want to bid grands that depended upon a 32 trump split. Tim

Gossip would be speculating about who the anonymous sponsor is.

Who is getting what professional engagement seems more like news than gossip. Same as finding out who Hamman and Berkowitz's new partners would be.

I can't read either attached file and I generally have no trouble with .pdf files.

I don't think the card that was stuck to another card was "played". Putting it face down with the quitted cards while not showing it to anyone is no different from putting it in your pocket or holding it in your hand. So, as far as revokes go, I would rule just as it had been in his hand all along. It is most definitely not a penalty card.

This is an interesting idea. I wonder if Q's are found to be overvalued due to DD analysis: opposite ATx, KJx is just as good as KQx (well unless there is an entry issue). Yes, it would be fascinating to see the analysis done on a large set of deals from BBO play, both on a DD and an actual result basis. Then compare the results.

Helene, I wonder why you precluded a major suit fit, but not a minor suit fit. Presumably your are counting tricks and it shouldn't matter, for evaluation purposes, whether those tricks are won by minor suit cards or major suit cards. I'd love to see how this breaks down by honor combination. Tim

Do we really need a rule to allow s.th. that everybody at the table would agree with? Well, suppose I am trying out a new system and I sit down against a pair that really makes me nervous. I'm sure I'll be more prone to forgets this match, can we revert to the older, more familiar, methods for a single match. I was just trying to give an example of a non-system reason for switching systems. I wasn't trying to make a rule for a situation where a rule wasn't needed. Maybe my second example is no better. But, I hope you get the idea.

I think you are correct. But, suppose I play a complicated system and find myself at the table against a couple of novices. Could I change to Standard American for this match so as not to overly frustrate my opponents? That is: what if the system change is not based upon the opponents' system?