Echognome

I was trying to think about this in a simpler way. Let's consider Law73C Suppose we consider two events: A - Player takes a "wild" or "unusual" action on a board (successful or not) B - Player's partner hesitates It may be the case that both of these events occur with reasonable frequency for a particular player. However, in order to follow law 73C, we should expect that: P(A | B ) < P(A) In layman's terms, that we would expect if a person's partner hesitates, then they should take wild actions less frequently than they might otherwise. An AC will only observe cases such as this when B occurs. Here is a case where A also occurs. My feeling of several arguments is that when we observe both A and B together, there is a view that B caused A ... which would be contra to 73C. However, we should want to know the P(A) before making such a determination. Thus, in my view, we should first consider what constitutes a wild or unusual action for a person based on their ability. I believe this second part is a large part of the counter argument in that players make bad bids all the time. My view is that we should not condemn alone on the fact that we observe both A and B. We should consider this as evidence that something may be amiss, but should try to gain a better understanding of P(A) before adjudicating on the matter. I can imagine very different circumstances surrounding a novice that often overbids good hands playing with another novice that doesn't know how to value good fitting hands without a lot of points versus two experts playing with each other. So on this case, I'm afraid I would need more information in order to make a judgment.

Happy Birthday!

Upon re-reading the thread I was thinking of ... I agree with this statement whole-heartedly!

I recall a reasonably old thread I created asking about whether an advance at the 1-level shows a 4- or 5-card suit. I believe the majority answer was 5-card suit is superior. Gwnn to the rescue in finding the thread?

One could argue for a slightly different change... "Play ceases after trick 12. Each player turns over their cards to trick 13 and the trick is won or lost as normal."

I would like to hear; if Law 53 should not apply to lead out of turn to trick 13, why not also to trick 12 (or even to trick 11, or to earlier tricks)? It's not without precedence. See the laws on revokes...

What exactly is 3D here? Looks like a splinter but that isn't clear (or even preferable). Not even sure you and I came to a clear consensus. Jump cue above the suit must be splinter. Below the suit I would say mixed raise (e.g. P - (1♣) - 1♦ - (P); 3♣...) My point being that a splinter is the easiest way to find the grand. Whether we are worth a splinter (and forcing to 3NT/4♣) is another issue with our hand. As a PH with 4-card support, I think we are.

The two main reasons to play 3C is GF are: 1) It is very likely when your partner opened 1M, and you have the other major, your LHO is about to bid a lot. If you play 3C is GF you have a forcing pass available. If you play 3C is LR+ then you can either choose to be in a less comfortable FP situation or not have a FP available. 2) You can just play 3H is constructive, and try to pass and come back in with a less than constructive hand. My point was that they seemed to have a broken range. 3♣ = GF with hearts 3♥ = competitive with hearts What do I do with an invitational hand* with hearts? *Edited - To change "LR" to "invitational hand", since we are not raising partner's suit Obviously if they mean competitive = LR, then it's a slightly different problem. I would GF on this particular hand, but you get my point.

I would think the easiest route there would be: P - (1♦) - 2♣ - (P); 3♦ - (P) - 4NT - (P); 5♥ - (P) - 7♣ - AP

Agree with Roger Lee. I can show my spade support later. What about this: 4C - minor splinter (4D asks); 4D - fit jump in hearts? I think most would take both 4♣ and 4♦ as splinters agreeing spades without discussion. Anyway, I would show my hearts first with 3♣ and spades later. I'm not sure I understand the system. You have competitive and you have GF. Why wouldn't you play 3♣ as LR+ rather than GF? With the GF, you can always bid on over a signoff or double if the opponents compete to show extra values. That's how you have your 3♦ structured. I understand that new suit at the 3-level is often played as GF. However, when it's a 2-under bid, it seems to make a lot more sense to play it as LR+.

Phil and I played this and liked it. We used the 1NT rebid for extra strength hands (leaving the jump shifts as pure) and also tightening up the 2♣ and 2♦ rebids. Then we played continuations were simple enough. 1♦ - 1M; 1NT - ? 2♣ ART GF, 8+hcp, then back to natural 2X (except reverse) 2-7hcp, NF (basically hands where you're trying to get out) Although we didn't include 5♦332 in the 11-13 range in our opener, we did include 5♦332 17-19 balanced hands in there (rebid 1NT then 2NT). Also, if we had a very pure 5♦332 hand, such as xx xxx AKJTx KQx, then we would open 1♦ and rebid 2♦ instead. I.e. we allowed some judgment.

http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/

There is a difference between being hung well and being well hung. I suspect that you were referring to the latter rather than the former. I preferred to leave it ambiguous.

With respect to the title of the thread, I prefer the latter.

It is not an unreasonable agreement to play that in competitive auctions, you can only splinter in an opponent's suit. In fact, it is my understanding that this is the standard expert agreement in many geographies. But why the skip bid? (Just a waste of auction room?) Besides, how should South then be able to show a void (or singleton) in spades together with solid heart support and solid control in diamonds? Who cares? Are we here to instruct South on how to bid or what agreements to have?

It is not an unreasonable agreement to play that in competitive auctions, you can only splinter in an opponent's suit. In fact, it is my understanding that this is the standard expert agreement in many geographies.

Playing 2♣/1M shows GF Balanced or Clubs (so that 2♦ shows 5+) I bid 3♦. Playing a version of 2/1 where 2♦ shows 4+ and a 2M rebid is catch-all, I bid 2♠. Playing a version of 2/1 where 2♦ shows 4+ and a 2M rebid shows 6+, I bid 3♣. There are so many different flavors of 2/1, I think it's difficult to answer the question without being more constrained by your particular system.

I believe it's announceable and you have to add whether it's forcing or non-forcing. However, it's been a few years, so I'll digress to those that are current.

No matchpoint considerations?

As long as we are going with hypotheticals, how about these? ♠AKQx ♥xxxxx ♦x ♣Axx 1. Your call over opponent's 1♦ opening? 2. Your call over opponent's 1♣ opening? Feel free to indicate any changes due to vulnerability over form of scoring.

We know spades are 3-2-7-1 around the table. We also know that declarer should have 10+ cards in the minors for his calls. That leaves declarer with 0-2 hearts. If 2 hearts, potential hands for declarer are: x Ax AKQJx Jxxxx OR x xx AKQJx KJxxx OR x Ax AQJxx KJxxx I wouldn't personally call 5♣ on the auction with any of those hands as we rule out 3NT too easily. So let's refine declarer to having 0-1 hearts. If 1 heart, the only shape consistent with the auction is 1=1=6=5. I rule out 1=1=7=4, since I don't see why declarer would offer up clubs with a 3-card discrepancy and clubs headed by at best the KJ. Potential hands for declarer are: x A AKQJxx Jxxxx OR x x AKQJxx KJxxx OR x A AQJxxx KJxxx In the first example, we must cash our ♣A and our ♣K now or else declarer can win (clear the ♥A if necessary), draw trumps ending in dummy and discard club losers on dummy's good hearts and the ♠Q. If declarer has the second hand, then we must cash our heart trick now or else declarer will win, draw trumps ending in dummy and discard his heart loser on the ♠Q. If declarer has hand three, then we just need to cash our ♣A and partner will make a trump trick. True that declarer isn't home even on a ♥ switch right away, but when partner wins his trump trick, he has to play a club, lest they be thrown on dummy's good ♥'s and the ♠Q. Thus, it seems that we should cash our ♣A and then guess whether to play a club or heart at trick 3. Finally, if declarer happens to be 1=0=6=6 (partner having Jxx Axxxxxx xx x), then to set we need to play ♣A and another club giving partner a ruff. Although, in this case, perhaps partner would have lead the ♥A or his stiff club. So it seems right to me to start with ♣A and try to guess from there. If partner has xx in clubs, perhaps he has a clear enough spot for us to find the heart switch. The only reason I can see for the club underlead is that it's MP's, so a 2-trick set (partner having Kx of clubs) will give us a big score. At IMP's the ♣A seems standout.

The return on the house (if $140k is the right amount now) is an annual increase of 5% a year. Inflation runs at approximately 3% a year. So in that sense, it may not seem like mutch. However, another way to look at it is that inflation would account for an increase from $14k to approximately $56k over that time period. The remaining $83k (or approximately 60% of the current value) is due to an increase in equity, or alternatively, an increase in housing prices as compared to an inflation index. Note that these two are not completely independent as the Consumer Price Index (arguably the most common measure of inflation) has the price of housing as part of the bucket of goods that comprises the measure.

Not to throw a spanner in the works, but "non-forcing" doesn't quite work as a criteria. Consider a limited hcp transfer opening, e.g. 1♦ shows 4+♥ and 10-15 hcp. This bid is non-forcing as responder may pass with, e.g. xxx x xxxxxxx xx. Yet I don't think you would find anyone wanting to play double as "takeout of diamonds."

Maybe a 1st favorable 2♠ showing 5♠ and a 4+ card minor?

My first thought was 1N. Then I realized that we are content enough to get out in 2♦, thus we are only left with one problem bid... 2♥. Against that, if partner was about to bid 1NT over our 1♠ bid, then we have lost the ability to play in clubs by bidding 1NT ourselves. However, change the hand to xxxx x xx KQxxxx and now we have problems over both 2♦ and 2♥. Then I would bid 1NT.