vuroth

Sorry, I guess that largely answers my question. Last week, I passed out the opponents balance (weak field?), and it got me a 0. I *think* I was short in their suit, though I may have had an extra bit of length in our suit - can't recall. Twice at the club yesterday, the balance was IMMEDIATELY bid over, raising to 3 of the agreed suit. I was starting to wonder if this was automatic or semi-automatic. I'll try again, though. Is this more or less a LOTT question? For example, what would you do with? 1♠ P 2♠ P P 3♥ P P ? xxxxx x xxx xxx Clear pass because partner has 3 spades (didn't LOTT and bid 3♠) and decent hearts (implied), or clear 3♠ in case 3♥ makes. (Does vuln matter?)

Thanks. Glad I'm trying to filter unsolicited advice. :)

The bidding: 1♠ P 2♠ P P 3♥ ? or 1♠ P 2♠ P P 3♥ P P ? When do you compete to 3♠? Pretty much always?

The bidding goes: 1♠ P 2♠ P P ? What's the weakest hand you would bid on with: ♠ ? ♥ ???? ♦ ???? ♣ ???? or ♠ ?? ♥ ??? ♦ ??? ♣ ????? At the club yesterday, I pushed a pair to 4♠ by bidding once at the 3 level (!). It was unmakeable, so all was good, but I'm not convinced my bid was correct.

[hv=d=e&v=e&s=sa643ht84dakt4c73]133|100|Scoring: IMP P P 1♥ 1♠ 2♥ ?[/hv] 1. What do you bid here? 2. As part of the thought process, does 3♥ mean spade support, stopper show/ask for NT, or just general strength? What's the general rule, in answering an overcall, both as a passed hand and an unpassed hand. Oops that was 3 questions. :)

Thanks guys. One of the wrinkles of fsf I'd never thought through before.

1♣ 1♥ 1♠ ?

1. 1♣ 1♥ 1♠ 3♥ 2. 1♣ 1♥ 1♠ 2♦* 2NT 3♥ * FSF

I got told to be fruitful and multiply by a lady in the supermarket the other night. She might have used coarser language than that, though.

I think I'm starting to figure this game out. When I finally learn to use the red card properly, I'll graduate to ADVANCED. When I then learn to use the green card properly, I'll graduate to EXPERT. How does that sound? :)

I thought inverted minors were off in competition. I would have said with limit raise or better I would bid 2♥. Right? (Just checking.)

[hv=d=s&v=e&s=s962hq97dkqjcq974]133|100|Scoring: MP 1♣ 1♥ 2♣ P 2♠ 3♥ P P X P ?[/hv] What should I expect partner to have from the bidding, and what, if anything, should I do?

Actually, I kind of expected that. How will you ever convince partner your hand is THAT GOOD after 2♠? V

Maybe this question is better asked in the Full Disclosure area? I'd consider myself fairly technically savvy, and I'm really struggling trying to quickly put together a basic 2/1 card.

I think I would find 3NT tough to find at the table. Partner has to have the A♣, as well as either the Q♣ or a major suit king for his bid. Thinking about it a bit more, partner should probably have at least a jack more, and a major suit jack is certainly a big help. That said, 3NT doesn't seem quite cold. Certainly, if parnter has something like xxx xxx Jx AQxxx their hand isn't too much help for me at all in 3NT. I would be so much more comfortable bidding 3NT with Kx in clubs. Granted, a lot of hands partner could hold will help a lot, but I've spent more time picturing likely hands for partner than I would have at the table. At the table, my knee-jerk reaction to the option of bidding 3NT would have been fear of blocking clubs/lack of entries to dummy.

East plays the T♦. Any thoughts?

I now have inside information that I ruffed the opening lead at the table. In my analysis this morning, the first thing I realized was that ruffing the opening trick was very likely to be wrong. Guess I moved too quickly at the time. My line, at the table (I think!), was to concede the first diamond trick, draw trump, hope diamonds were 3-3 and claim. When I played this, I was really hoping that my opponents weren't as good as I feared they were. Like I said earlier, I was wrong. That's what you get for making weak plays against weak players I guess. Sometimes they work, but you don't really learn anything. If opponents reliably rise with the ace at first opportunity, my approach at least has a chance, and a faint chance was all I felt the hand had when I first saw it. I think that, as a developing player, i sometimes get a "faint hope" hand, fine one line that might work, and run with it. This can't be the right approach. W

Clarify, please. I'm looking at singleton Q opposite AKT8, with 5 trump to the J outstanding, right?

Gah I was just going to say that. I've thought it through a few different lines, and while my analysis is always suspect, a trump return by west does seem best. (West does have the ace of spades)

I think that this may be the single most important realization I've taken so far from this hand. At the table, I played for the ace to fall on the first round of diamonds, which isn't uncommon in some games I play. Alas, I was playing against much better opponents than usual, and this did not work. While I hadn't pulled trumps yet, I was nonetheless in trouble. V

I think it makes sense, as a general rule, that any popup triggered by an event outside the user's control (i.e. that they would not expect) should not accept keyboard input (or, at very least, should prompt for confirmation before keyboard input is accepted). V

I agree with Fred. To an extent, I thought that CTV's "In the Cards" with Gavin Wolpert et al did a serviceable job of meeting the criteria - young people, exotic locations, etc. Then again, it's entirely possible that young people are going to be MORE strongly influenced by youtube/facebook than television. Someday soon, we may find that television is starting to go the way of the radio. V

From memory, I got this wrong at the table. I may still have it wrong, but it was suggested that this would be a good hand to share. [hv=d=s&v=b&n=sha65432dkqj84cq2&s=skj765hd65cakt873]133|200|Scoring: IMP Opponents silent: 1♣ 1♥ 1♠ 3♦ 3♠ 4♣ 5♣ all pass Lead: 2♠[/hv]

That's the voiceover. If you actually read his lips at this point in the movie, you'll see he's saying "You shall not play bridge with me again!"

Occam's Razor. A supreme being requires a large number of unlikely things to be assumed. Spontaneous generation of life just requires the right chemicals and energy sources to be around, and it only has to happen once. peculiar... i'd think occam's razor more easily fits in with a creator rather than no creator... another peculiarity to me is how non-believers can see the same things believers see yet can not see intelligent design in them As to the appliation of Occam's razor, it really depends, doesn't it? Scientists are trying to build a chain from the big band to the existence of all life on earth as we know it (as well as all physical phenomenon observable and reproducable via experiment in the universe). If you take the time to really try to read the theories, you'll find they have build some VERY impressive chains. But yes, there are still some gaps. And really, if you're interested in applying Occam's razor to the divine intervention question, then really, you need to reevaluate every time the biggest gap in the scientist's chain gets smaller. Of course, the gap size may reduce to zero, and it may not. It may also depend on whether a particular gap is bridged with solid scientific theory, or merely a "reasonable" hypothesis. 200 years ago, the gaps were vast. Now, the chains are vast, and the gaps are starting to be the exceptions. Whichever side of the coin you're on, I think, the endgame is going to be very interesting. Closing the chain would be amazing, but so would scientific proof that the chain can not be closed. V