jonottawa

You mean this thread? http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=32098&st=30

Cayugaguy went back and edited the original post.

It's already been established that on this hand no defense will succeed unless we trick declarer into believing that things are not as they actually are. If you routinely engage in posts that have no sense, then the experts who frequent this forum really don't have to put much thought into your posts, now do they? Just my .02 ... Now please cut to the chase and prove me wrong.

So anyway, I think the upshot is that you're supposed to give your partner a ♦ ruff after he revokes on the 3rd round of ♠ and pitches a ♦ and then pitches his last ♦ when you continue ♠. That's how you beat the hand CAYUGA-STYLE.

No he doesn't know that I have the ♠Q. A hand has already been posted in which I'd defend like that without it. If I have: 96532 / A3 / 3 / AJ532 I am winning the first ♣ and switching to a ♦ and if declarer has A / JT987 / KQJ2 / 974 Down he goes ... and if he's Ax / JT987 / KQJ2 / xx He's got to find the ♠Q

Why can't east, with the ♥A and singleton diamond, be planning to put pard in with the Club Queen to get a ♦ ruff? Even so, it must be better to play A-K-J of spades planning to discard the club on the third round. It's the same 50% shot if a ruff is being threatened, and it goes down a trick less when it loses. The one thing that declarer knows when they don't cash the second club is that the HA is not in the same hand as the long diamonds. Either diamonds are 2-2 and the contract is cold, or they are 3-1 and he needs to find the SQ in the right place. Hole, digging, etc.

Good answer! This also works if he was 1-4-6-2 and was playing canape.

I don't think E had any left when he got in with the ♥A. Edit: Sorry, was only half paying attention to what I was doing, someone already clarified this.

I think you played it normally up until the ♦Q was returned and from there you've got to take a view. I don't see a 100% single-dummy line from there. Your line is 100% if W had started with a doubleton ♦ (which seems likely from the ♦Q return.) I'd chalk this one up to good defense (and a lucky lead from a marginally weaker ♠ suit instead of a marginally stronger ♥ suit.)

I guess Anna Nicole Smith's hubby was 'classy' too. I find mega-tips creepy/goofy. You want to be classy, make a charitable donation or whatever. 'Nicest I heard of' deserves 'Ever heard of ... nicer' Touchy, touchy.

Nothing else doesn't make sence to me either. I think they're in a great spot and we're probably hosed no matter what we do. Less than 25% of the field will be in 3NT. In real life I'd return a ♥ without much pause for thought.

2♦

I don't mind 5♦. I'm not 'almost sure' that pard will sign off, though I am 'almost sure' that if he does sign off he will have ♦ cards (since I asked him about ♣.) Might still go down, but probably not at trick 2. If I blast 6♥ over 3♠ and pard has stiff ♦A and both black K's or a black KQ (and nothing else) I will be sick.

I will endplay opponents at trick 1 and open 1NT even though the hand isn't quite worth it valuewise. Rightsiding>bean counting. I'm indifferent between the actual hand and this one: kj2 / kj2 / kj7 / qj65

I didn't realize that Rumsfeld was a religious kook too. I'm all for people having insane beliefs but not if they want to lead the military or hold elected office. I wish we'd get on with the war crimes investigations and trials so we can put this ugly chapter behind us.

Didn't Zia play 2N showing 12-14 balanced in the Cavendish? Oops ... discussed already. http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=31973

If I'm bidding 6♥ here, I should probably just bid 6♥ over 3♠ (albeit missing the grand if pard has ♦ void.) I don't get all the mocking, while I decided to bid before reading any comments, I didn't consider it a wtp at all. Do you blast, do you bid your cards honestly, do you bid 5♦, do you pass since the 5-level isn't even safe. I think it's a good problem. Especially since some 'somethings' might well be worse than doing nothing.

I think watching this movie would forever rid you of the notion that Star Wars, The Fellowship of the Ring, or the Aristocats are violent movies. Unfortunately, it would probably make your head explode. If watching Saving Private Ryan made you uncomfortable, this isn't the movie for you. The editor said that they sent what they thought would be the NC-17 (x-rated) version 'director's cut' to the censors and the censors gave it an R rating. Maybe the Bush administration was pushing a move to (further) desensitize Americans to violence, who knows. America's censors have always had a far more liberal attitude toward glorifying violence and a far more puritanical attitude toward showing sex than the rest of the world.

Double shows ♣ (yes, I know, not ideal to double splinter for lead.)

I played variable 10-12/15-17. I'm getting old though, shrug.

I like to bid games at IMPs so I would like bid 3NT or something. Pard usually has a doubleton ♠ on this auction. Maybe that's a stopper.

I pass, pard is broke and stuff so we don't have game. He's a big favorite to hold 4 ♠ and didn't make a negative double or something. LHO might even get greedy and bid 3NT and I'll take my +250.

5-count

You didn't like First Blood? It wasn't world-rocking or anything, but much better than most of what Hollywood turns out. I didn't have high expectations for the geriatric Rambo movie, but it exceeded what expectations I had. The dialogue and acting is stilted at times, but the story is okay. The violence is the most brutal and graphic I've ever seen.

Saw the newest Rambo movie on DVD last night. Holy crap that's violent. Anybody else seen it? It's set in Burma/Myanmar, where apparently the regime is pretty brutal.