Trinidad

In the BBO main room, on the first board to bid with my partner, I would have bid the hand exactly the same. Anything else is for unlucky experts. Rik

The name Michaels is used for any two-suiter in much of Europe. I wouldn't go that far that Michaels shows "any twosuiter", but in some European countries there is a great deal of confusion about Michaels. Some people play it the way it is played in the USA: 1m-2m: Both M's 1M-2M: Other M and an unknown m Others play a top and bottom cue bid: 1m-2m: other m + ♠ 1M-2M: other M +♣ And other play "highest two unbid": 1m-2m: Both M's 1M-2M: Other M + ♦ All these players might refer to their convention as "Michaels". I remember that shortly after I moved from the USA to The Netherlands, I heard two pairs arguing at the table next to ours about misinformation. The auction was 1M-2M and 2M was explained as "Michaels". Everyone agreed that it promised the other major, but one pair was sure that clubs was the second suit and the other was sure that it had to be diamonds. I was just shaking my head, since I was sure that it promised "a minor", but not which one. When we were done playing, I made a casual remark to our opponents that I wondered how these two pairs could both have it wrong. The response: "What do you mean? NS are right." Moral of the story: If in Europe someone bids "Michaels", ask which suits it shows. Rik

That is part of the reason. But I think there are two reasons that are more important: - Lack of efficiency: The system is complicated. It's not obvious who should bill whom for what and this needs to be sorted out. At the same time, it is not clear whether a billed treatment or diagnostic service was actually necessary. Doctors have interests in diagnostic services and the other way around. - The private insurances. If I start an insurance company, I want to make money with it. With private insurance companies, money flows from the health care system to share holders. When the government is the insurance company, there is no need to pay share holders. So, the difference between the USA and countries like Finland and Sweden is that in Finland and Sweden a larger fraction of the money is actually used for the medical treatment. If people are interested in making money, they can invest in Nokia or Ikea, but not in health insurer's. Rik

With restrictions: 2♣: 5♥+4m, weak 2♦: weak 2 in a major 2♥: weak with both majors 2♠: 5♠+4m, weak Without restrictions: 2♣ inverted Rainbow: 5(+)m+4M, weak 2♦ weak 2 in a red suit 2♥ weak with both majors 2♠ weak 2 in spades or 5♥+5(+)m, weak Rik

No. The simple criterion works like this: Try to think of a hand that you would pass. Now change the hand so that you change one card into a weaker card (a J to a T, or an 8 to a 7) in the same suit. You are playing a HUM if by using this procedure, you could find two hands where you would open the weaker one, but would pass with the stronger one. ("Opening" means "opening at the one level".) In your case, the distributions are different, therefore you are not playing a HUM. The reason, of course, is that it is impossible (and unnatural) to force every one to evaluate distribution and ranking of the suits in a preset, standardized way. Rik

I remember a long time ago, when I was playing in the ACBL and had amassed approximately 10 masterpoints, I read the "Ruling the game" column in the Bridge bulletin. There was a case of flagrant use of UI, that a beginner could understand. I went to my bridge teacher (and TD) and I asked if I had missed something. Was there something in the auction that I misunderstood? Wasn't this absolutely obvious that this was blatant use of UI? My bridge teacher smiled and replied: "Yes, this is clearly blatant use of UI." My next question was: "If I, with my total of 10 masterpoints, can see that from a mile, then why was this guy with 8000 masterpoints so inexperienced that he did not get a PP?" He just answered that that was a very good question and smiled again. I was upset and told him: "If I ever pull something like this, you'd better give me a PP. If you would ever consider me this inexperienced, I would feel insulted!" Rik

I am with the crowd that says 5♠ asks for a heart control. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean that I know what to bid now. :( Flip....... (I am actually flipping a coin.) I pass. Rik

So, what is the difference with health care? Is getting an ambulance when you call 911 a right or a privilige? And what should it be? If it is a privilige, then it should be possible to mandate health insurance, in a similar way that you can mandate car insurance. If it is a right, then everyone should be able to get an ambulance, regardless of their financial situation or whether they have health care. This means that, since someone will have to pay for it in the end, everyone who does have health care insurance picks up the bill for those who don't. Rik

It seems pessimistic to expect a heart lead to cost two tricks. Can you show us the sort of layout you have in mind? I agree that this is pessimistic by making partner lead the wrong suit, but it can easily happen. How about partner with ♥Kxxx? Dummy has AQxx, declarer has a void. Declarer takes the free finesse and can dump two diamond losers. With a non heart lead, we would have gotten ♦AKQ, ♣A and partner's trump tricks. Now, we get:♦A, ♣A and partner's trump tricks. A difference of two tricks. If partner has exactly two trump tricks, we get to the situation where they make 3♠ at our table and our team mates go down in 2♠ at the other table. Another situation: Partner has a singleton ♣. Without the overcall, he would have lead his singleton, for my ace, his ruff, a diamond to me and another ruff, a diamond to me and a third club ruff. Down one in 2♠ already, and I still have a top diamond. After the heart lead that I indicated, declarer wins, pulls trumps, partner gets 0 ruffs and a trick blown in the heart suit when partner leads away from his king: a difference of 4 tricks. Rik

I would certainly think that 5♦ and 5♠ are LA's. If South has UI indicating that her explanation of 3♣ was incorrect, the pass that South chose was suggested by the UI. In that case, I would rule based on a 5♠ contract, weighing in some doubled scores. Rik

Count me in. Rik We might be over-doing the fining bit here. If I thought we had agreed spades but were clearly not going to slam, and my partner bid 5NT, I would try not to look it, but I would certainly _be_ surprised and puzzled. In particular, it would take me a long time to call over the double. Not because I am trying to 'wake partner up' but because I am trying to work out what on earth 5NT meant. I agree with you that it will take South some time to understand the 5NT bid. I also agree that South' face may (will!) be expressions of surprise. I don't have any problem with a player who tries to work out what 5NT means. That is all natural, sincere and without the intention to wake up partner. But the way I read the original post is that South was actively trying to draw North' attention and my reply is given in that context. From the original post: This description leaves the possibility that South was just thinking what 5NT meant. But I don't think that I am "seeing things that aren't there" when I read this as "South was acting with the intent to wake up North.". -------- Assuming that South indeed tried to wake up his partner, I have a lot more sympathy for a South player who simply asks: "Did you mean to bid that?". This would just show that the player doesn't know better. But a player who uses "Antics at the table" knows that he is not supposed to wake up partner, and then tries to do it anyway. He only does it in such a way that he thinks that he has deniability. Rik

Interestingly, in the bible belt of The Netherlands, there is a protestant congregation that is 100% behind a minister who denies the existence of God. This minister's philosophy is roughly: "God doesn't exist in any concrete way: There was no Creator or anything like that. God is a state of mind, a way of living, a sense. This sense stands for things like love, how we deal with ourselves and others." (I do not claim that my understanding of his ideas is accurate.) This minister got into trouble with the "higher powers" (not capitalized :() in his church. I didn't follow the story, but he seemed to be fully backed by his congregation in an area that is known as very conservative when it comes to religion. (The Netherlands may be known for euthanasia and gay marriages, but the religious spectrum in The Netherlands is very wide. The South is Roman Catholic, and the West (with Amsterdam) may be referred to as 'Sodom and Gomorra combined', but there are other areas in the country that are dominated by conservative protestantism.) Rik

To me this is a pass. If I overcall 1♥, I can foresee that LHO will bid spades and will end up declaring a spade contract. Partner will be on lead and he will blow a trick in hearts. (.) If I don't overcall 1♥, LHO will play in spades and at least I didn't tell partner to make the wrong lead. Possible scenario's: - They could end up in 4♠ off 4 tricks in the minors. But after the heart lead, they pull trump and discard minor losers on the hearts, ending with an overtrick in a contract that was doomed from the start. One game swing away. - We push the opponents to 3♠ by competing in hearts. Without the overcall, they will play a peaceful 2♠. But when they are playing 3♠, we will give them the extra trick that they need on the opening lead. We might easily give up 140 here, whereas at the other table 2♠ is set a trick on a non heart lead. Half a game swing away. Rik

Count me in. Rik

My take on this: North is allowed to change his unintended 5NT call to 5♠, since his partner has not bid yet and there was no pause for thought from the moment that North discovered his mechanical error. But that is part 1 only. South is getting a procedural penalty for a breach of Law 74C2 and/or 74C4. Rik

I have been thinking about this a little bit after the BB board. The situation was: We bid ♠, they went for a ♥ slam. They cuebid 5♦ and then bid 6♥. There are four possible situations: We pass both times We double 5♦ and pass We pass 5♦ and double We double both times Since there are four suits to lead, it seems like you can tell partner exactly which one it should be. But it isn't that easy, since you also need: "No opinion / I don't know". My conclusion was: - Passing both times means: "No opinion" ("lead trumps, or our suit, or whatever you think is best, partner") - Doubling 5♦ means: "Lead diamonds partner!" - Passing 5♦ and then doubling means: "Don't lead our suit or trumps and don't lead diamonds (otherwise I would have doubled 5♦). Therefore, lead clubs." (A true Lightner double) Then there is a difference between doubling 5♦ followed by pass and doubling 5♦ followed by a double. This difference is simple: You have already told partner what to lead. Why would the last double be a Lightner situation? Pass means: A diamond lead is our best chance to beat it, but that doesn't mean that I am sure that it will go down. Double means: "Lead a diamond, start writing the '+' and the '00' on the score sheet, leave enough room for two digits in between." (The possible alternative being: "I want to double for penalties since this is going down a lot, but I don't want you to lead clubs.") Rik

Both. North should have accepted the invite. South should have opened, failing that, he should have bid 3NT, the next round. Rik

I would say that in the vague and unclear world of bridge 98% is pretty clear cut. Rik

I am not the author of the OB, but "second best" seems to be a much better definition than "second worst". "Second worst" would mean that there exists only 1 distribution between the three remaining hands where you don't have the amount of CCTs in hand (e.g. 0-0-6). It would mean that you couldn't evaluate AKQJ987 as 7 CCTs since the suit might split 0-1-5. That seems incredibly rigid to me. Rik

I am with aquahombre on this one (but I must admit that I didn't read the ACBL alert regulations). This is not a 1NT bid by a passed hand. This 1NT could be a hand that warrants a 1NT overcall of 1♠, but can't take any action over 1♣ (e.g. ♠AQx ♥AQ ♦Axxx ♣xxxx). As to the question whether there was damage to the failure to alert, I feel strongly that there wasn't. You have an obvious 3♣ bid, whatever 1NT meant. Rik

When I lived in Sweden, I once played half a match against a mixed pair. The play was very friendly, with friendly opponents. They played a very unusual system and we had to ask a lot of questions of the form: "What has she shown now?" At half time, we were comparing scores with our team mates and told them that on board N, she led a club. The reaction: "She? What she?". Turned out that we had been playing against two MEN. :o Rik

I fully agree. BUT... There is a big difference between a drunk driver and a caller. When someone is waiting for a traffic light, calling or being drunk has little consequences. But when the light turns green, the caller can stop calling. The drunk driver cannot stop being drunk. To put it differently: Both men have decreased their ability to drive. But the caller can choose when this ability is decreased and the drunk cannot. In practice, many callers don't choose wisely. :D (But I know some who do. :)) Rik

I actually think that this is a fun idea. It might be something to do for a serious bridge club on a non serious occasion. Ideas like this can only come from Ken. Rik

What puzzles me is that most people seem to think that drunk driving that leads to a killing should be punished harder than drunk driving that happened not to kill anyone. Exactly my point. If you are lucky enough not to kill anyone, you get fined. When you're unlucky and kill someone, you end up in jail for the rest of your life. As if you still had any influence on what was going to happen after you decided to get behind the wheel when you were drunk. Simply put: You are drunk and start driving: Woman walks on the wrong sidewalk at the wrong time. --> You go to jail for life. Nobody around in a mile. --> You get a fine and can do it again, until (see above). Rik