GreenMan

Thanks.

This sounds like an extension of that well-known convention where jump cuebid of a 1M opener showing a stopper in the suit and asking partner to bid 3NT if they have a long running suit, and should be equally as useful.

I dumped this because it seemed as if we were getting too many auctions of 2♣-2♦; 3♦, with no good options for responder to show the second negative. I've played 2♥ double negative as well as control steps, and each seems playable. If I had more time for the game these days I'd give Codo's suggestion a try. Lots of good players use Kokish over 2♣, so I'd look into that as well.

I had not heard of "pre-accepted transfer overcalls" but have added it to my repertoire. :)

You're not exactly providing a model of reading comprehension yourself. I never said rogerclee gave anything a -2 rating, but he took issue with my interpretation of it, and I took issue with his taking issue. I don't care what you think, really, but please restrict your criticism to things I actually said or wrote. You also take issue with my interpretation of the -2 rating, which is fine, and feel a need to shout that it's my interpretation only, which I already knew. I'm not sure why you describe "horrible" or a number off the low end of the scale (we're still talking about -2 here) as "(semi)negative". I believe they are much stronger than that. If you disagree, then we have no common ground for discussion. That said, I appreciate your analysis of the hand, which is more constructive than anything rogerclee did say.

I'm trying to figure out what people mean when they say the lead is the worst possible ever. Every lead could succeed on a freak layout. Does a lead that can and does succeed on a non-freak layout really deserve such approbation? Everyone here seem so sure of themselves and their analysis, I was wondering what the relationship was between such certitude and the actual hand. Does "minus 2" just mean "probably won't work"? That doesn't seem sensible to me. So someone explain to me what "minus 2 out of 10" means, then. Does it mean "This lead is so bad it'll cost you tricks on the next hand too"? If it just means "Probably won't work", then what score would mean "Absolutely would never work"?

Two people in the thread scored the diamond lead at MINUS 2 on a 1-10 scale. You may consider that -2 falls between 1 and 10, but I believe you are being dense/stupid on purpose.

I'll go slower, then. From previous posts, we have asserted, in effect: 1) The ♦10 lead could only work if the deal were a freak of nature. 2) The ♦10 lead worked. So we conclude: 3) The deal was a freak of nature. I simply want to know: Is the conclusion in fact a true statement? If it is, then assertion 1 is not disproved. If it is not, then assertion 1 IS disproved.

Given that the diamond lead worked in practice, it's worth asking: How unusual or freakish were the opps' actual hands? Put another way, if the diamond is so much worse than the ♥Q, then with the actual result we should see some highly unexpected layout when we look at the whole deal. So: Do we?

"Posts: 1"? :rolleyes:

This is the sort of thing I was thinking of when I mentioned LCDs -- how many of this sort of user there are vs. the more tech-friendly ones, and the relative merits of catering to one level over another. Information is always appreciated. :)

Thanks, Uday, for the thoughtful and helpful response. I guess my priorities would be 4, 1, 2, 3.

Not sure what's best on this hand (I'd probably take some sort of action), but I'm amused that threads called "First board of the match" and "Last board of the match" were posted by Phil and Lesh, respectively. :)

The problem with the non-independent "windows" is that they're a lot less useful. I've got popup blockers all over the place and never had a problem with the old windows. At what point do you decide the least common denominator is too low and start expecting people to have some minimal level of competence at configuring their browsers? Frankly, I'm less likely to enter tournaments now because the new popup window is more annoying than helpful, and if it's a close decision I'll just say the hell with it.

:lol: Well, I got you to shut up, so that's a job well done. :)

<off-topic stuff about nitrate fertilizer snipped> So you're saying that people are planting crops on this land instead of ranching it? If not, what does this have to do with cropland? You must be talking about some other planet. If what you say were true, then this entire planet was desert until the large herbivores came. So, where did they come from? Did they spontaneously combust? Don't try to change the subject. You were just saying that the introduction of ruminants is always beneficial. I pointed out that the introduction of ruminants in the Amazon requires its ecological devastation as a precondition. Cattle introduction accounts for more than two-thirds of Amazon deforestation. Talking about lumber is just distraction. But I guess that's all you have to work with.

This is largely a matter of till vs. no-till agricultural practices, not crops vs. cattle. There are tons of things wrong with how land is farmed today, but a lack of large ruminants is not one of them. And you can't talk about the effects of cattle on ecosystems without recognizing that the deforestation in the Amazon is being primarily driven by ranchers burning the rainforest for pasture. There, the cattle are the reason for the ongoing devastation.

There's that. The funny thing is that this was the first of two boards against an expert pair, so I was suitably embarrassed. The next board we somehow made 9 tricks in 2♥ when the room was making 8, for an average round. :P

I once played a 7-6 fit in a different suit. :unsure: (Partner bid Michaels over their 1M opening, and I looked at my 2137 hand and ...)

This is a good point that hasn't AFAIK been mentioned before: Our hosts prefer strong competition. And since they are the hosts, I am now persuaded, we should make their preference a priority.

But the director would have come, and North would have had to make his bid sufficient at 3♣, which eats up even more space. :rolleyes:

You're lucky. I wasted 20 because I also had to read your post. :P :rolleyes:

That's not a statistical conclusion, that's a value conclusion. The statistical conclusion, which is reasonable IMHO, is that team quality is not correlated with winning or losing. It follows from this that we can give other factors a higher priority without affecting our winning percentage. FWIW I agree with cherdano that "regular partnerships" should be an important factor. As for the rest, I'm agnostic.

Even so ...

Horsepucky. Either you believe someone in this forum was privy to the decision making at the Pentagon and in the field, and is at liberty to discuss details, or you believe the military would normally have taken some different action but chose not to in this case. The chance of the first is vanishingly small, so we have to go with the second.