jdeegan

:P Let me give you the old-fashioned view. Distribution "points" are plastic. "Points", in general, are useful mainly in telling you in what sort of realm you live, and what level of aspirations you strive for - part score, game or slam. The late Charles Goren, an admired friend, advised an initial count of one point for a doubleton, two points for a singleton, and three points for a void. Once a good trump fit is established, then singletons are worth three, and voids worth five. I still find that an excellent point of departure. So, what do you do when you have honor cards in your short suits? Modern theorists demonstrate with clarity that such things are BAD, esp. in contested auctions. It's not so much that you will get a trick with your card, but that the opps are bidding in spite of lacking it. If you are just getting into the game, I wish you luck.

:P Passing is so crazy that I'm starting to think this (except for Justin) and some other BBO threads are completely hopeless.

:P 2♦. All other calls zero. Don't tell me, you bid 2♦ and went for 1100. That's how the game goes.

:P I have not seen a situation like this in a lifetime of bridge, but selling out for 2♦ doesn't seem right. The majors are unaccounted for, so I'm bidding 2♠.

:P I am with this guy. For what it's worth, I am 100% with pro tips. Makes sense to me.

:P Are you tired of the opponents getting good results because they relied on your bidding? A cautionary tale. [hv=pc=n&s=skq32h952d753ct64&w=s9654hkj8dkt962c3&n=sj7h63dj4cakqj952&e=sat8haqt74daq8c87&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=1hp3h4c4h5cdppp]399|300[/hv] After a routine -800, North (Dano deFalco) remarked that West (John Stewart) had thrown off South (Jimmy Cayne) by making a limit raise with only three trumps. John replied that he had bid something with his hand, and 3♥ seemed best. Imho. bidding (in pairs games) is getting too mannered and predictable. At the top level of bridge, players can still innovate. In pairs games, though, you can't expect players to learn a new system just to play two boards. Playing systems that are too mannered and predictable makes it way too easy for players to blissfully balance and/or play certain non-penalty doubles.

:P My bidding style is SO reactionary that imho 1♠ is the best call with the north hand. Imho it should show a 'biddable' 4-bagger or a longer ♠ suit. Unhappily, here in the colonies during my 20 year hiatus from bridge, someone convinced most of the duplicate players to double with ANY four card ♠ suit and to forget about their club holding (you see an example of this with this very hand). It is a terrible idea, but these wussies are afraid to play a 4-3 spade fit at the 2 level even with a decent spade suit. I do retain a stubborn insistence not to give up my ace asking bids. When you need them, lots of points are at stake. There are so many different ways it can come up. Finally, I'm not contending that the 7-1 fit is better than the 4-5 fit, just that to try to find it, you give up too much. Indeed, what will pard do with AQxx, xxx, xx, Qxxx? As far as you know, you will end up in a 4-4 fit with (given the bidding) about a 50-50 chance of a 4-1 or 5-0 rail and no way for you ever to tell if your club fit is 4-4 or 4-5 until the dummy comes down. The 7-1 fit is far from perfect, but these kind of 7-4 and 7-5 hands are a special breed because of the taps.

:P (1) Your assertion about frequency of occurrence is pure B.S., and you know it. (2) With no suit agreed, control asking reverts to regular blackwood (3) I want to play in my 7 bagger, almost always, so I can take the taps. The 7-1 ♦ fit should be as good as the rare and obscure 5-4 ♣ fit.

:P I can see how it works great when you bid 1♠ showing a balanced limit bid. What happens after 1NT which, presumably, is spades, but unlimited and not necessarily even semi-balanced?

:P South 110%. Imho this is a 4♥ bid over pards 2♥ raise. For more detailed analysis, see MrAce's comment.

:P This isn't much of a panel with you asking the question, and Justin and most of his pals off somewhere else. North's double is, quite possibly, the stupidist bid I have ever seen. You don't normally show at or above the 4 spade level; there is so little bidding room left that you usually must determine the contract. The ♠ king is presumably in the slot, and this is not a good sign. Even so, imho 5♥ is normal with four to the king in support. Passing might work, but it is taking a view. A double could show 'cards', but only in the sense that don't know what to do and you have to protect your equity in the hand.

:P North made a routine negative double, then (presumably) answered aces. No blame for North. South (100% blame) guessed right and (presumably) asked for aces, got what he wanted and then passed. Taxi! As far as 4NT showing a 6 or 7-4 hand in the minors, this is a poor use of the bid. It might come up once a year if you play a lot. When you have a 7-4 hand, it is almost never right to play in your 4-bagger when your 7-bagger is so strong. Do not stop and zink, just bid zee hand.

:P [hv=pc=n&s=sajt84haj5dkqj5c8&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=pp4h]133|200[/hv] Your bid. Partner is competent. Opponents of unknown quality. IMP pairs.

:P 5♠. Pard may not have more than a good fitting minimum, but with all the first round controls and a seven-bagger in trumps, I have to give him at least a chance to drive the hand to the diamond grand. Most of the time I expect to play 6♦. 5♠ says we are going to bid at least 6♦, but 7♦ is not out of the question. If he bids 5NT I plan to cue 6♣. He can't bid 6♣ unless he is void (almost impossible), but he can bid 5NT as a sort of 'last train' saying he is still interested in seven. If he does, I will bid 6♣ saying I too am still interested and have the club ace. After that it's pretty much up to him. I pass his 6♦. If the putz bids 6♥ or 6♠ or 6NT, I'll bid 7♦. Another possibility is if he bids 6♥ over my 5♠. I that case, I guess I have to go to 7♦ as well. I am not going to hazard playing 6NT because there is a fairly good chance I might get an extra trick or two by ruffing out pard's heart suit. All that said, either 6 or 7 ♦ may well hinge on a club finesse.

:P delete

:P The San Onofre nuclear plant is located just north of San Diego on a fault line and partially in the ocean. It is one of five or six U.S. nukes that really ought to be shut down ASAP simply because of its location.

:P Many moons ago I was teaching at a backwoods college in Arkansas. I found a reasonable partner who introduced me to the 'local' duplicate at various surrounding towns including a weekly 4 or 5 table game at Paragould run by a nice older gent. When the 'big' tournament came along, a regional at Jackson, Mississippi, my pard volunteered me to play with the nice older gent. As we sat down for the first of four sessions together, the 'nice older gent' mentioned that he needed 5.2 red masterpoints to make life master. Red masterpoints were, at that time, available only at regional and national tournaments. I mumbled some kind of encouraging remark that we had a shot to make it this tournament. He then looked me straight in the eye and said: 'I hope so, the doc says my emphysema is getting worse, this is probably my last red point (bridge) tournament.'

:P What if you simply swapped the meaning of 4♣ and 4NT? Even I can remember that. That way you start your RKC asking bid sequence at 4♣ when appropriate, and you can show your club control (or support, if that is what 4♣ would have meant) with 4NT. The main thing you lose is the ability to play exactly 4♣. You also have to remember 4NT bypasses the other suits when cue bidding to show clubs, so there are some negative inferences about your holding in the other suits.

:P Thanks for the intelligent and common sense observations. However, if one simply defines ANY 4♣ bid as a control asking bid (gerber), then it becomes possible to find out about controls and stop at four of a major when necessary due to lack of controls. One only has to find a suitable artificial replacement for 4♣ as a cue bid or 4♣ as natural, a bid which in my experience doesn't come up very often. You might, for example, abandon minorwood or kickback as control asking or even the serious/non-serious 3NT and use that bid to show the natural club bid.

:P It has always been true that most scientific researchers in the field do have a bit of 'Chicken Little' bias. After all, looking for trouble is how they make their living. They are no more inclined to break their own rice bowl than anyone else. Does it surprise you that the world's second largest oil company has been funding climate research at prestigious universities for almost half a century? They want to be the first to know because they have so much to lose, potentially. How will it all turn out? O.K. I guess. Most serious disaster scenarios are either very low probability (the Gulf Stream suddenly quits working), or assume that adverse long-term trends do not self-correct or respond to technological progress.

:P OMG. Another silly gold bug scam? Sounds like it. More or less a staple offering in the investment world. Best advice: "Never buy gold on the end of the world."

:P WTF is this?

:P This is good advice. What happens is that it gets easier over time. Eventually, you will be able to count with almost no apparent effort. It's kind of like an analog computer. You watch the cards as they fall, and then recall the info as you need it. For me, at least, this ability deteriorates if I don't play for a couple of weeks. The necessary mental conditioning, I find, is almost the same as physical conditioning in a sport.

:P Ta dah! and obama's actions would be???????????????????????

:P My wife, who is on the far side of 60, drives a Porsche Carrera rag top with a rear spoiler that deploys when you get over 70 mph. But, I would love a spin in your hi rev Honda.