Badmonster

I'm encountering it more and more. What are the benefits? What are you giving up?

I called ctv and asked how to get a copy of this film. They said,"huh?" But the very nice woman I spoke to will try to hunt it down and get some information. I'll let you all know what transpires.

Sadly I find that I usually fall back to CNRT (Card nearest the right thumb.) I was recently told that's the world's most popular method, which is by turns both scary and comforting.

Last year I agonized about this for a few months. I asked a lot of excellent players what they thought. Many great players advocated 2h negative. I am willing to believe them. A few excellent players thought a second negative was better, and what the heck, I'm willing to believe them too. What everyone agreed on was this: That a bad agreement is better than no agreement and that you have to have a way to show a total bust. Hope that's of some use.

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=skjha9xxxxdjxxcxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] And the bidding goes You Pass- Pass - 1♠ - 2♣ What do you do here? Why?

I voted pass, as p could have a nothing hand, that's worth less now that I've shown h shortness. However, I wonder am I failing to see how little I need for slam? Am I too timid? What Frances says however makes sense to me, why ask your p a question then disregard the response. I don't think I do like 4nt there. Maybe I cue in clubs.

Am I missing something? Aren't they both flat and minimum and... somewhat lacking in charm?

I've been thinking a lot about the what to lead from three small issue. I have a theory. If I lead low p knows I have an odd number. P is more likely to be able to place the honors from the bidding than the distribution in a side suit. Therefore low is more informative. I'd love some feedback on a) my theory and :P the religious issue of what to lead from this holding. If possible I'd like to know why people like top of nothing, why people like mud and why smarter people than I like the bottom of three lead.

Ok, I'm an intermediate so please do not give the following undo weight. When p does something odd and inprobable, it's important to stop and think. Don't pass p in an unplayable hand. 3h cannot be to play as you were holding more trump than the 3h bidder. West's bid was strange. Strange bids are usually forcing. Cue bids are forcing. Here, I believe most people would play the cue as asking for a heart stopper for nt. Seeing the hand, I think west was saying, I have a huge hand.

The thing is his p was a passed hand. Isn't there a huge difference between this bid in third seat and this bid in first or second?

This is such a great thought. I wish more of the partners I encountered would pay attention to count. Not that I wouldn't still screw it up, mind you, but I'd like the oppotunity to screw it up and learn from that.

Thanks everyone for the thoughts and insights. I often find great out of print bridge books cheap at addall.com, I'll look there. Edited to add: Hah! $5, including shipping and the shipping costs more than the book!

Yeah, there's optimistic and their unrealistic. I agree the second adjective better applies to my handling of that hand. It's a good point.

Peter, I suspect you're right on all accounts. Thanks.

I held this hand : [hv=d=e&v=n&s=sakq95hq74dkqt6c3]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] The bidding went P 1♠ p 1NT p 2♦ p 3♠ p 3nt p 4♠ My logic (and you're all free to point out how faulty it is) was that if p didn't hold points in clubs we might have a slam. Now, I'm certainly open to comments and criticism on the thought proccess and my bidding here, but I would also like to know this: How do we, in an auction like this, explore the quality of side suits? (I thought of my 3nt as serious, my p thought is was confusing as we hadn't agreed to play serious nt. And I suspect that even with agreement I didn't have a good enough hand for serious 3nt.)

Thanks guys. It was a nice birthday.

I'd definitely play. (And I have no doubt lose badly)

Go sounds really interesting. I'm afraid it might be too visual for me. I'd like to learn to play majong. I love board games. My favorite is Illuminati.

Thank you for the link, Roland.

I have heard that checkback gives the opps too much information. But this is simplistic. I cannot really explain the arguments for either, because I don't understand it well enough yet. Really, I'm hoping someone can explain it to me.

I've heard many players that I respect discuss why they prefer nmf. For one thing I've heard that checkback reveals too much to the opps. (Not completely sure I understand why) and that you can't get back to the original minor. Meanwhile a lot of very good players that I also respect and admire prefer checkback. I guess I'd just like to better understand the pros and cons of each treatment.

Warren Zevon at the Beacon Second was Steve Miller at the Beacon Disclaimer, I haven[t been to that many shows. I almost saw Junior Wells on his last tour. Went with two friends, they'd just started dating and were an hour late and we couldn't get in. I wonder if they're still together.

Yes! Yes to both. I love Joe Cocker.

Who? What?

Very Happy Bday Matt