jdeegan

:P Lap dogs have been a common habit of older women of the upper classes in almost every culture on earth for as far back as anyone can remember. Selling Masterpoints for real money is a tenuous affair. Older, upper class women are a key demographic market segment. Personally, I am very, very allergic to cats. Thankfully, there are no lap cats.

:P This is not a bridge hand. What ♣ did RHO play at trick one? What ♦ did RHO play back at trick two? What are the opponents' carding conventions?

:P Hmm... The ♥ finesse is just a slight favorite (roughly 3 to 2, I guess) in the absence of any inference from the fact that RHO did not shift to a ♥ when in with the ♦. Nor did LHO win the first ♦ trick. I probably have to lose a ♦, a ♠ and one ♥, so not losing 2♥ is the objective. If ♥ are 3-2, I see almost no way to lose 2♥ if I take the double hook. I guess they could take a ♠ ruff and uppercut me with a fourth round of ♦ - possible, but not worth sweating too much imho. Holding the deadly stiff ♥ Q (or J), LHO is marginally less likely to have popped on the first ♦ - assuming he had a diamond honor. This whole hand is a problem in Bayesian (conditional probability) statistics that looks very close to 50-50 to me. Who is at the other table(s)? What might they do? What is the state of the match? Did the opponents know enough about the hand at trick two to be leading me down the garden path? So, maybe banging the ♥ from the top is best, by a little. Or not. Very nice problem hand, imho. P.S. RHO's club shift (what spot was that???) might look logical from his as yet totally unknown hand.

:P Hesitation or not, the bidding makes perfect sense to me. 6♠ might go down, but South can count a decent play for 12 tricks with one possible loser opposite any number of minimum hands: AKxxxx xx Qxx Qxx After RKC, bidding six seems clear. Good hand for serious 3NT.

:P YES. The last paragraph was meant to illustrate the agency problem seen from an outsider's perspective. I did suffer through one in person, though. Our CEO had painted himself into a long-term accounting situation. His personal solution was to play bet-your-company with someone else's company ie. the company I worked for and he was hired to manage. The CEO/Board Chairman authorized the full development of a 26mmbbl deepwater offshore field at a time when the major oil companies with all the latest technology considered 200mmbbl the lower economic limit. A horrendous gamble, but one that bought him an extra four or five years before its almost inevitable failure. The idiot ultimately managed to bankrupt a natural gas utility company.

:P The Agency Problem. For the past 50+ years absentee corporate owners have allowed their corporate overseers to hire their in-house accountants and outside auditors. If the Audit Committee reports directly to the Board (best practice), the CEO may have to bribe or bamboozle enough of the Board to get a majority. As a result, you would be amazed, possibly dismayed, at what can be done these days with the timing of recognizing revenues, expenses and capital outlays without risking hard time in the Big House. Eventually, it all has to come out, but by that time it will be someone else's problem. In this circumstance, obvious and necessary change to survive inevitable future adversity appears to make no sense. Recent cases in point: Chrysler and GM bankruptcy versus Ford's survival with founder's family members still in the business and looking after things.

:P I would like to add another dimension to this Goldilocks debate. Is the porridge too hot or too cold or just right? Properly done government regulation of food service health and safety makes it much easier for new potential entrants to the business. Otherwise, only local restaurants with long term community ties and the big fast food chains with well-established internal health measure controls will have a chance to break into a market.

:P One car song that I like because I have a Celtic ear, and minor key tunes appeal to me: the 1930's version of Wreck on the Highway. The best renditions imo. are by Roy Acuff and the Louvin Brothers. In the 1930's auto safety was a huge problem because the cars were getting faster and most people didn't know how to drive very well.

:P You didn't overcall 1♦? Or even 2♦? Wtf do you think is going to happen if you leave partner in the dark?

:P Queen was in many ways THE BEST EVER. IMHO. this one of their lesser songs. No passion, no longing, no love for the machine. Sad, but nobody cares about the automobile anymore except people who make them or work on them.

:P For the record: "Oh Lord won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz." "My friends all drive Porsches, I must make amends." "Worked hard all my life, no help from my friends." "Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz." Oft times greatness is brief.

:P I love ZZ Top. Their lead singer and I both passed Math 100 at dear old Rice Institute. It was very hard. I hate to disrespect their drummer, but no matter how good you are, there is likely somebody even better. Even Jake admitted there was a better actuary (not bridge player) in Dallas.

:P I once had a transformational experience driving across Louisiana. I finished a ZZ Top tape and put in an old Chuck Berry tape. It was astounding how much better Chuck Berry's drummer was than his counterpart on ZZ Top.

:P Early love songs like my merry Oldsmobile? Later tributes like "My Little Deuce Coupe". And a hundred others. I sorta like "Mercury Blues". What's your choice?

:D Life is not fair. This is why you are a LOSER.

:P 2/1 gained popularity because it is better for IMP scoring (slam bidding) than ACOL or SAYC, et. al. Originally, the adaptation to competitive auctions was to continue to play the old system, eg. SAYC. This made sense because relatively few competitive auctions end up in slam, and you can handle most of these with the older methods. In the ensuing years different innovations have been tried by various pairs such as light two level responses (negative free bids) or various riffs on the negative double. My advice for newer players is to use the original approach - 1 level bids just ignore the interference (6+HCP), and 2 level bids advertise 10+ HCP and promise one more bid.

:P Sry my version has no explanation of the bidding. Then 3♦.

:P You are entitled to get an explanation if RHO takes 2♣ as delayed Michaels. Sounds to me more like clubs - LHO passed over 1♣. Pulling seems OK. A 20-20 HCP hand with an 8+ card ♥ fit for the opps. Why not pull to 2♠?

:P Support doubles in that auction are imo. a good idea. They give up very little and can be very useful. Since you have not given an actual bridge hand, I can't comment on whether it would have helped here - with 6 very good clubs and three small ♥ and 2-2 in the minors, you might want to bid 2♣ anyway. PhilKing makes a proper argument that a takeout double with only one unbid suit is ridiculous unless it initiates a prearranged system of coded responses. This, imo. is making the game much harder than it should be. I know that playing Walsh can make you paranoid that pard may have an undisclosed ♦ six-bagger. Solution: quit worrying or, my choice, quit playing Walsh. As far as your being crazy, I have had similar thoughts about myself. My wife is adamant. If you think you might be crazy, you are.

:P If pard is 6-5 or 5-6 you probably will do better in the 5-5 fit. You can't find out anything about that, but you can prevent an opening lead thru the ♦ KJ. Best to bid 4♠. Later, you may want to bid 5♥, if opps compete.

:P For many in academia, studying climate change is their rice bowl. No danger, no funding. Even a smart guy like Jared Diamond gradually fell victim to this syndrome. That said, the polar ice caps ARE melting. The problem is whether it is cheaper to adjust to rising sea levels and work to solve the human-caused part of the problem gradually or to jump in with drastic and expensive action. Verdict is still out.

:P Well, I don't see any libertarians or anti-abortionists on the program. At least there is Rubio who might have a clue as to how to get some Hispanic votes. There will be lots of talk but no decisions made at this conference. How to expand the Republican vote? Hispanic friendly immigration reform? Support a state and local option for legalizing pot? Downplay the anti-abortionists in order to appeal to women? Pray and hope something good happens for their side in the next three years.

:P Thanks all, and I'm serious about that.

:P I am trying to learn the serious or non-serious 3NT. Which one is better?