vuroth

I think I actually get this one. Declarer pulls spades and strips diamonds. Declarer leads a low club, won by north. North MUST exit in clubs, or give up a heart trick. When north exits in clubs, south MUST cover, or else dummy discards a heart and now clubs are stripped, and north must lead up to Kx or offer ruff-and-discard. So south covers the club, and dummy ruffs, and returns - a low heart. If north wins, dummy will get a heart or ruff and sluff, so northhas to duck. South must win with the 10, and return a heart. Down 1 on best defense? V

At the bridge table, willfully chosing to receive less than the optimum result is irrational. On a math test, I'd be computing the estimated value for each choice and maximizing my options. Life isn't about maximizing your estimated value. My personal values, history and financial situation would all factor into my decision. V

You could also try here: http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showforum=12 Sounds like a tough time zone. Good luck in your search! V

There are undoubtably odds for which I would gamble. And I'm sure if the odds of going bankrupt were sufficiently small that I would get greedy. I'm only human, after all. I think the way that I look at it, winning $1000 would make me fairly happy. Would winning double the money make me twice as happy? Of course not, nowhere near. From that perspective, I'd be gambling a whole lot of happiness at having $1000 fall into my lap on very little return (happiness-wise). For the stated cases, the chances of improving my winnings from "I won some extra cash" to "I won a life-altering amount of cash" are not very good. Ergo, I choose not to press on. V

If I had a 100% chance to walk away with free money and a 20% chance to lose it all, you bet I'd take the free money. I would MUCH rather walk way with the knowledge that I could probably have won more money than walk away having lost what I had. I certainly don't expect my choice to be a popular one, but then, I've never grokked the common fascination with gambling. V

I only open 1 box either way. The power of gambling is the lure to risk your winnings against the possibility of future winnings. Sure, if it's a mathematics exam, I calculate EV and work out risk vs potential earnings. But if it's real life, I do my darndest to NOT hand back any free cash. V

Trap passer.

Fair enough.

5/3 fit in a major, at IMPs, why would you EVER prefer 3NT? I get bidding 3NT on the way if you're 4333, but once you have a 5/3 confirmed fit it just makes less sense to me. V

I've already stated that I'm far from convinced that I know how to handle these hands. That said, why do I want to get into the auction in B and especially C? Where is it going that I'm going to like?

A - X B and C I think I pass smoothly. I have no conviction that this is correct. V

Win in hand, sacrifice a diamond. If both follow, I collect 6♦ 2♠ 1♣, and probably a ♥ overtrick. If diamonds are 4-0 on my right, I think I'm cooked. If diamonds are 4-0 on my left, I can finesse the queen and collect as above (getting to my hand with the ace of clubs). I don't see a way to combine my chances in clubs and diamonds - there just aren't enough entries, especially to hand. V

My play sometimes involves sting keys. (Must be said aloud for maximum effect.) :D V

I was woefully unprepared when I went, having essentially lucked into a spot. We finished below 50%, but were hardly last place. I can't really speak for the upper half, but there will certainly be some fairly weak players (club level) at the lower end. V

This is my second go-around at mastering SAYC, and this is the approach I'm taking (THIS time). It's amazing how you can put aside all the conventions and STILL have lots and lots of questions. :P

Imo the trick to cue bidding for B/I, which may actually be a test for many of us, is understanding which auctions are forcing to what level. For example, I've heard that 2♣ - 2♦ is forcing to 3M, however by the way most people play it, it should be clear that 2♣ - 2M is a game forcing auction. If it isn't clear, then you'll wind up with an agonizing pass over 3♥. Cuebidding only becomes easy(er) once the partnership has a rock solid understanding on forcing auctions. All imo, of course. V

To me, this sounds like a better-than-average time to lead a singleton. When it works, the problem is usually finding a way BACK to partner's hand on trick 3. Since partner has overcalled, that part should be easier.

After Schumacher, it's hard to really dislike any F1 driver.

Definitely not just you making these bids, jb. :) I had a 6-4 last night, and opted to rebid the 4, and got criticized after the hand. Weak two-suiters always seem (to me) to be a bit of guesswork, because you can't truly bid your shape without overbidding. V

[hv=s=sakqjt98765432hdc]133|100|10 HCP, so perfect for a weak 2?[/hv] There's my comment. :)

The indy happenned in the middle of thanksgiving dinner, with a house full of family. I endorse the idea, though. I'd love to see some more of you in action!

Link to the original thread please? This topic holds considerable interest, especially as I'm struggling to concentrate on my reading.

As someone who is trying to play as few gadgets as possible, NMF is not in SAYC.

If it's a takeout double, partner needs to be showing a near-max pass, with 4414 or 4405. A takeout in this case is pretty much direction to either convert or bid 3C. Partner needs to have accounted for the possiblity that I'm 3352 and a minimum. I can live with that, and maybe it's more common than partner having a hand strong enough to want to penalize 2♦ but weak enough that 3NT holds no appeal. I'd certainly want to know partner was on the same page, though, either way. V

Sometimes, when I bid, I can foresee partner squeezing my head between their hands. Does that count? :)