GreenMan

Some players also benefit from raising their professional profile, which helps them find clients. I certainly would not recognize the name Bathurst, for instance, without the U.S. trials and BB on vugraph. And as gnasher suggested, the same may go for some commentators. But I don't want the job of putting a number to this benefit, and in general it will accrue only to a small number of the top players who aren't already well known. My hunch is that there's simply no economic model for non-volunteer vugraph operation. In today's media environment we get accustomed to having any competition available to watch, e.g. every game in major American pro sports and most college games are viewable somewhere, often without paying more than we already do for our TV service. But it doesn't extend to niche endeavors such as bridge, sad to say.

I thought about making that argument, but I don't trust myself not to be resulting. I'm fine with taking the blame for this one.

Indeed. I like to count my points something like 4.5 - 3 - 1.5 - 0.75, so my evaluation doesn't always correlate with Walrus points. So far no one's made a stink about any small discrepancies, but it may be just a matter of time before someone tells me I have to disclose that I downgrade hands full of quacks. :blink:

Guilty. My excuse, such as it is, is that 2NT shows 16-18 in our system -- we play mini NT in 1st and 2nd seats -- so I had a failure of nerve. (We play a Walsh style, so my plan was to say 3♦ over a 1NT rebid to show this hand, but over 2NT it would have shown a different hand.) But that's no excuse, really. I'm going to go sit in the corner for a while.

Agreed that E would do better to bid, though 2NT would be natural in our methods. Which would also be OK, come to think of it.

For that matter how often are you going to have 29 HCP in any 5-5 hand? You'd need AKQJx AKQJx AKQ just to get to 29. (The max for any 5-5 hand is 31 HCP, and I'm a bit amused that there might be a different bid to show that. :P )

Being an editor by trade (and a pretty competent one by all accounts), I used to peeve like that on grammar mistakes and so forth. Somewhere along the way I saw the same light your columnist saw. Now my biggest peeve is other peevers. :angry: Especially, as often happens, when the peever is wrong and the target has made no mistake.

I was wary of playing into declarer's side suit, but I should have cowpersoned up and done it. Thanks.

:) That's the day of our unit NAP qualifier or I would be there from Board 1. Good luck!

True, it turns out only an overtrick is at stake here, but even so I wondered if I should have worked out to make the club switch instead of going passive. Thanks.

[hv=pc=n&w=sq4h87532d4ckq542&n=sj985haq94d852ct8&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=p1n(10-12)2s(4s%2C%20longer%20minor)p3sppp]266|200[/hv] ♣K; 8, 3*, 9 *UDCA Continue or switch?

[hv=pc=n&n=s876hkdakt652cat8&e=sk93haj543d97cq65&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=p1d1h1s4h4sppp]266|200[/hv] ♥8 led: K, A, 6. Next?

Well, I hope that was as entertaining as it was fun. :) We held the margin under 100. Nice surprise to have Garozzo in the mix!

16-card suits really mess with our LoTT calculations. :P

I've never bought the idea that an exact duplicate with my memories etc. will also be me. I view my own consciousness as a continuous progression tied to my physical self, and I don't believe it will make the jump to a new self; that other one will act the same as me, but it will be some other me, not the me that makes the decision, as StevenG also said. I don't believe one has to be a narcissist to believe that having a second one of oneself would be a good thing; maybe we could finally get caught up on housework and so forth, take turns staying home and going to school, etc., or choose both sides of a major life decision. But that's a different question. The Star Trek franchise touched on this question in the novel Spock Must Die! way back when. The movie The Prestige went at it from another direction; in both cases the teleportation process did not destroy the original, and the story is about the ramifications of that. It's a worthwhile question.

Good point, I wasn't thinking right.

Heh. Many (most?) familiar quotations get attributed to people who didn't originate them (or say them at all). Or to quote Yogi Berra, "I didn't say half the things I said."

It seems to be three separate stories so far: The CIA, Carrie, the Brodie family. I hope they start coming together real soon or it's just a soap opera.

I understand 3♣; that's the only suit where pard's holding matters, so throw it into the mix and see if he raises or something. Heck, if pard has ♠-- ♥any ♦any ♣KQxxx the last making contract could be 6♣, or 7 if he also has the ♥A. That's a bit of a long shot, of course. My strategy would probably be to just keep bidding spades till it goes all pass. EDIT: Never mind, PhilKing pointed out the flaw.

Your faith that opps will never ask unnecessary questions is charming. Insane, but charming. If that's a real principle, "2♣ shows all hands that would not pass or transfer or raise directly" is a sufficient answer for most pairs playing Stayman.

West apparently *thought* the double required an alert and didn't get one, then was disappointed when he learned otherwise, and claimed he was damaged. This is the reverse of the usual "should protect himself" situation, but it still applies IMHO.

Do you have agreements for upgrading 14-counts to 1NT? If not, you're definitely resulting. Move the ♠K to the other defender's hand and 4NT makes. (And as barmar points out, the hearts could also come in.) Also, it seems a bit strange to me for the player with ♣AQJxx to be berating the player with ♣KTxxx for not introducing the suit. Seems to me that 5♣ over 4NT would have shown the hand you hold.

By saying to the ACBL, "We'd like to offer ACBL entries," and the ACBL saying, "OK."

The term these days is "artisanal data".

Varying system by seat or vul is not rare. I recently started playing 5cM/weak NT 1-2 and 4cM/strong NT 3-4 with one partner and 4cM/strong NT 1-3 with another. 4cM in general is lots of fun to play.