Mbodell

2♣ for me when it is 2=3=3=5 and Txx in their suit so no 1NT. Even with only two spades when they are KQ I might be tempted to X some of the time, but the 5 card minor is so good that I don't have to distort with the X. On the OP hand I bid 1NT, but X is fine. I used to bid 2♣ routinely here on OP too, but not anymore.

Some possible other things (Maybe some of these aren't style and are just convention choice? Not sure where to draw the line) picture jumps vs fast arrival vs something else serious, non-serious, or no special 3nt cue bid styles last train fsf 1r or to game and the (1♣-1♦-1♥-(either 1♠ or 2♠) auctions) imbergmen, lebensohl, or something else over reverses what system over 1x-1y-2nt XYZ versus 2-way nmf versus 1-way nmf versus natural or others nt ranges (variable or not, 15-17, 14-16, 12-14, etc.) support doubles 1430 versus 3014 versus regular blackwood - all with or without kickback

Yes, but it means quite a bit more programming than you might prefer (I.e., not just simple cc fill out). There is dealing functionality built in to bbo where you can control the dealer. There are also software that deal hands (like deal and dealer) so you can prepare your rules and create hands. You can then have robots like GIB or Jack or Bridge Barron bid the other hands, or you can write into your bridge programs which hands bid what. But for anything past the most simple, it isn't easy to do. For playing with a partner, partnership bidding on BBO is pretty good. You can make easy adjustments like your side has 23+ points or something so you get good hands to bid. You can also import deals (either that you've programmed in a different program, or that someone else has made for you). I.e., maybe you are practicing your system over 1m-1M-2nt so someone makes a bunch of hands where 95% or 100% of them start like that and then let you practice your continuations.

If opener has 5 hearts do you really want to explore a 5m-3m fit? I could see 6m4♠ I guess. And I guess maybe you were something like 3145 or the like looking for the 5-3 spade fit. So maybe it is worthwhile after all. I would think over 3nt that one bid (say 4♦) is general last train slam try for hearts, while the other bid (4♣ in this proposal) shows an attempted slam in one of the two minors. Over 4♣ responder could bid 4♦ to accept the slam try in clubs and 4♥ to reject clubs but accept diamonds (over this 4nt is to play and other bids are key card responses for diamonds), and 4nt to reject either. Over 2nt-3♣-3nt-4♣-4♦ then if the responder had diamonds, not clubs, they could bid 4♥, if they had clubs all along they could answer keycards (spades, nt, clubs, diamonds, hope 2+Q is not too high). If the auction goes 2nt-3♣-3nt-4♣-4♦-4♥ (so 2nt;puppet;5H;minor slam try, 4♠ implied;I'd accept clubs; I had diamonds) now if you reject diamonds you can bid 4nt to play. If you accept diamonds you can give key card answers with spades, clubs, diamonds, hearts, and again hope 2+Q does not take you too far. I'm certainly not sure this is ideal, and seems very low probability of coming up, but does seem to work overall. You make the minor slam tries, that try puppet and get hearts answer, slightly worse to preserve the general heart slam try. If you have both minors available for minors that would be better.

4NT for the minors.

I generally assume that 4333, 4432, 5332 (including 5M), 5m422 (I.e., not when the 5 is a major), and 6m322 are all possible 1nt shapes (before the rest of the auction comes about). If it is 5M332 and a max, (17 hcp), then I disallow it assuming players would open 1M and upgrade. It is true that not everyone opens all these shapes (In my experience I think the frequency is open 1nt on 5M332 > 5m422 > 6m332 > 5M422 > 5431 > 4441. I didn't include the last 3 at all, but did include the first 3.) Obviously, for many folks it depends on the quality of the suits and fragments as well. I admit I'm biased a bit to include the hands I'd open on (which include nearly all the 5m422 hands as well as the majority of the 6m322 hands) because I sometimes sim auctions I was in. Of course on this auction when we bid 2♠, we have 4 or 5 spades, so the 6m322 can't happen, but 4=2=2=5 and 4=2=5=2 can happen. 5=3=3=2, 5=3=2=3, 5=2=3=3, 4=3=3=3, 4=3=4=2, 4=3=2=4. 4=2=5=2, 4=2=2=5, 4=2=4=3, 4=2=3=4 are the 1nt shapes possible given the auction here (not 4=4=3=2 or 4=4=2=3 because I assumed BWS of 2♥ with both majors). In terms of HCP, with the last 7 shapes opener has 16-17. With the 5(332) opener has 15 or 16 (I assumed 17 would have opened 1♠ and that even with only 15, you'd accept with 5 card spades - double dummy you certainly should opposite my invite range below - even with the invite occasionally having 7 hcp). For the 7 point hands, I only had those if you had 4 hearts and 5 spades and 7 points for the invite opposite 1nt (I agree not everyone would do that, but some would be able to try to improve the part score and upgrade to the invite when they hit the 9+ card trump fit). For the 8 hcp invites I had you accept any time you had 4+ spades (and a shape that uses stayman) except exactly 4=3=3=3. Invites also include 9 hcp hands, but not 10 (since 10 would game force). I would invite anyone else to use the assumptions that make sense to them, I expect the DD results will be fairly similar in their ordering of the leads, but perhaps not. It is true that DD gets certain things wrong about guessable suits and the like. I don't think this hand is especially bad for DD analysis, though.

I think it will be close, but not quite the same. I'd certainly rather have hand 1 than the suits and spots of hand 2, but with the 55 in the minors (so the spots are less important to me than the 55 being the majors). For a simulation, what contract are you evaluating? 1nt? 4M if there is a 4 card 1nt and 3nt if not (stayman then 3nt if no fit)? 4M if there is a fit and 2nt (opposite min) or 3nt (opposite max) if no fit? 4M or 3M or 3nt depending on a bid like 3♥ over 1nt showing 55 major invite? And what hands by opponents do you want to rule out?

There are also models that are based on characteristics of the faults that talk about the maximum size of an earthquake (or other phenomenon). Which is why the biggest Earthquake near Seattle (over, say, a couple thousand years) will be bigger than the biggest Earthquake near San Francisco (over the same time period). Or at least that's what the models say.

For some results, here was how the panel in MSC voted/rated: At the time of this posts the bbf voting is scattered with multiple votes for both spades, diamond 3, and club A and single votes for others. Based on my simulation (code here, you can check my assumptions on this auction restrictions) I got this result for simulation (imp score is compared to the ♣A lead): That is, the DD best lead is the ♣A (unsurprisingly since DD favors the A always knowing the exact right continuation). The second best choice was the ♦3/4. Leading a trump was about as good as leading the ♦J, and both were better than a heart or low club. The really horrible lead was the ♥K, and the ♣T was also pretty bad. I added the "second best choice" to the version of the MSC poll I did last month, partially because I knew the A was going to be the DD favorite this month, and wanted to do the "second best choice" this month without making that 100% obvious that the A was going to be DD best. I'm still trying to figure out how to sim next months MSC, since the auction is very messy, and much of the problem's purpose, I think, is to figure out what people think the various sequence means.

1♠ is very reasonable. X is reasonable if the pair plays equal level conversion. Pass is ok too. If N were a passed hand I'd think 1♠ was standout. As is, I think it is a toss up between pass and 1♠ (assuming not ELC, with ELC X is better I think). After 1♠: If you play fit jumps in competition, 3♣ by N seems right. I'm not sure how it would go after that, is 3 red a probe for 3nt despite the major fit? Would S just bid 3nt trying to avoid the possible 4-3 or club misfit? Seems like 3nt or 4♠ are likely ending places. Assuming no fit jumps, then 2♣ followed by 3♠ over 2♦ is reasonable. I assume again despite the 4 card suit, S would accept the invite given the 13 hcp 6 loser hand, possibly again trying 3nt. After pass: N bids 2♣. They end up in 3nt through various sequences.

But have "the Greek" really gotten that, or have others: Gotta love crony capitalism all throughout the world. See original guardian article for the source of the quotes.

It was a very good article. The quote: is also an important one to see. Makes one happier to be in central/southern California rather than the cascadia region.

IMP all red [hv=pc=n&s=st4hk83dj43cat843&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=1np2cp2sp3sp4sppp]133|200[/hv] 5 different cards chosen by panelists, close to even 4 way split among both panelists and solvers for the top lead.

If you have 4+ trumps and would be sick if you made a limit raise and were passed, then Jacoby 2nt is fine. You may have other bids you could make (like splinters if you have shortness, or like forcing 2/1 bids if you have a good outside suit), but Jacoby 2nt on 4+ trumps and an 11 or 12 count isn't wrong, so long as you evaluate it as a hand you want to be in game opposite the sort of hands where your partner would pass your limit raise.

Maybe, but it is obviously a better treatment. The lower your bidding, the more flexible you can be. And invites that can get out at the 2 level can be made more easily than invites that force to the 3 level.

When you are strong it often means you will feel comfortable bidding your length naturally. You bid 3♣ because you are strong enough (likely) to bid 4♥ next if opponents compete to 3♠. This assuming his hand is really good, which 6-5 and 17 hcp probably is (unless your 17 was already counting points for length/shortness). Something like A KQxxx x AKJxxx is a 17 hcp 6-5 hand. If you have as little as xxx xxx xxxx xxx (that is a flat 0 count), partner still has play for 4♥ or 5♣.

An interesting interview to read.

The important system is that you video capture the match and post to youtube, no? :)

But companies aren't always interested in providing the better treatment. For instance, if you make more money on an inferior treatment, sometimes it can take a long time to adopt a superior treatment when the superior treatment doesn't involve high monopoly pricing. (see canonical ulcer example - it took more than 10 years to "market" correct that one, around 20 to get the Nobel prize).

I agree that it is rarely right to play in 3m if you can play 1nt instead. A hand with a long minor and no strength like xxx Jxx x Jxxxxx might be one example. As for 2nt, there is always natural invitational (a good 11 count).

Because support across the country is substantially, but not overwhelmingly, in favor of same-sex marriage. But that doesn't mean every state (and most of the US is broken and noncompetitive in general elections, so legislators worry more about primaries than general elections). Before the Obergefell v. Hodges case 35 of the states had full same-sex marriage rights (about 69% of population in these states plus then a few others recognized marriages from other states). Of those, 13 involved legislatures passing laws or direct referendums (or both) - twice the legislature was in response to a judicial ruling). But note that 50% of the US being in favor of full same-sex marriage happened around 2011. But of course some states will be backwards. Compare to interracial marriage. In the mid/late 1960s nearly 1/3 of US citizens lived in states that had interracial marriage as illegal (so very similar to the 15 out for 50 states and the 31% of the country for same-sex before Obergefell). Then there was Loving versus Virginia in 1967 and interracial marriage was legal through out the US. Note that it was not until 1995 that a majority of US people were in favor of interracial marriage being fully legal. And note it took a special court ruling in 1970 to enforce this in Alabama, and Alabama didn't take the state constitutional banning of interracial marriage out until 2000! Some states will be far behind others. So in terms of popular opinion, the same-sex marriage ruling is more conservative than the interracial marriage. In terms of where the states were at, the supreme court acted at about the same point in time as they had with interracial marriage. It is all well and good to say it would be better through the ballot box than through the courts; however, injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere and it doesn't make sense to wait. As others have pointed out, we need to protect minority rights from the possible tyranny of the majority. Or you might say: "Law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress" or "Throughout history, it has been the inaction of those who could have acted; the indifference of those who should have known better; the silence of the voice of justice when it mattered most; that has made it possible for evil to triumph" or "Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe". I'd paraphrase as you should prioritize stopping injustice over the exact perfect path. Any path that gets you to justice is better than any path that continues the injustice.

Well presumably the foreign debt holders will be mostly screwed, but the domestic debt holders will be made whole (at least the pensioner types). But countries defaulting on debt aren't exactly unprecedented. And if the domestic debt (and any other) is converted to Greek currency, and the currency sinks the way it should to balance trade, then it will be much easier to pay off too.

Well, for instance, image a West who credibly said over partner's 4♦ bid 4nt was clear. I.e., maybe they noticed the stop and diamonds and interpreted that as 4♦? Unlikely? Yes. But getting more information before a PP seems like a good idea.

There are lots and lots of Krugman (and other) articles about this. From the start of the Euro all the way to the start of the crisis and through recently. For instance from a week ago: Or from three years ago: Or from 5 years ago: Or in 1998 (as quoted from This summary european survey paper in 2009 on why all those american economists were wrong that the Euro was problematic in its construction, right before all the problems): So it really isn't hard for regular, or even some what regular readers (or even those who web search), to know what he means by the Euro (as constituted without other integration features) was a mistake. At the darkest, some of Krugman's writing worry that the economic collapses being forced by Germany/Troika could lead to right wing over reactions and fascism/Nazism rising up again in many parts of Europe as a direct result of these economic mistakes.

The mistake that Krugman references was to have the single currency without having the other stabilizers that can go through. In the US if Florida and Michigan are depressed and would have more easily adjusted by devaluing their currency, you have gov't transfers, social security, etc. that means that the well off folks in New York and California transfer money to Florida and Michigan to help offset the economic troubles. In Europe, the Germany people who are well off from the current currency regime don't have automatic transfers to the Euro states made worse by the current too low inflation and too high Euro exchange rate.