BunnyGo

Sounds like I owe you an entry at least. Does suck to lose out by that much.

I agree. There's more to it than just that. Since we expect a bunch of the field to be in NT, we're playing against that. If the finesse is offside, then we'll still beat everyone in 2 or 3 NT by going down less than they. There's little cost taking the finesse. We only lose to other people in 5D who think to play the drop and it works--and they had to have the spade lead too.

I was wondering if winning in dummy to conceal the A, cross to diamond A, and hook the club gives the hardest time for the defense.

A link to a number of publications by the VBID center: http://www.sph.umich.edu/vbidcenter/research/center_publications.html Yes, most of the examples I gave were prescription, but the studies have also applied to doctors visits. And yes, over 50% of people fail to adhere to prescribed courses of treatments (I gave just a couple examples). These are largely because of financial or implementation hardships (e.g. a pensioner trying to make a dose last longer, a single mother who can't afford to travel weekly to a center for treatment etc.) As for mammograms and prostate tests under 50, they aren't free--they cost somebody money (usually insurance, sometimes a center like Planned Parenthood). This is a lot of money, and it's for a procedure that has been shown time and again to be a useless experiment. For example, if you're a 45 year old woman who receives a positive mammogram result--meaning you're told you have a growth--it's a lot more likely to be a false positive than an actual problem. These false positives then cost money, and physical pain and suffering due to side effects of treatments and biopsies. They cost not just money, but time and physical suffering. They should NOT be free (monetarily for the patient)...the massive amounts of monies devoted to these tests should instead be put to make proven preventative treatments free/more affordable. Prostate exams are considered even more frivolous, as most cases are again false positives and the actual disease usually (not in extreme cases) takes 15 years to kill you with minimal to no symptoms till the end--treatment usually has side effects more unpleasant than the disease itself, and many older men (60+) die from other causes before the cancer kills them. Personally, I don't care too much about having my copays reduced. I have low enough copays, and enough spare income to cover any needed treatments without breaking the bank. What the major studies have shown is that these preventative reductions would raise quality of care for a majority of people to a point where they'd be sick less. It's predicted to be a "break even" prospect on the cost of medical care, but save people suffering and save the economy from lost productivity. With (nearly) everyone getting insurance in the next couple years, the question is how to do it in a way that will bring people benefit without breaking the bank. People like you and me are already well enough off that it can be hard to see the large population that doesn't find it easy to go see an doctor on a Wednesday morning (like I will tomorrow) because it's a financial hardship to take off of work in addition to the copays and cost of medicine. Removing what financial incentives can be removed helps these people actually take advantage of the health care they'll have before it's expensive for the insurance companies to cover them. FWIW, the VBID center is largely funded by insurance companies, is consulting with several states on implementation on Obamacare, and is run by one of the most liberal doctors I've ever spoken with on the subject.

Lukewarm, the latest economic, sociological, and practical implementation studies actually show that high deductible for regular medicine actually worsens the effects all around. A major implementation against this at the moment is something called Value Based Insurance Design (VBID). It's been shown that over 50% of patients do not adhere to simple and cheap methods (such as taking insulin as needed, or staying on a course of antibiotics) for maintaining health. It's also been shown that small financial incentives (removing copays for annual visits, and basic daily medicines) are much more effective uses of monies to maintain country-wide health. Paying big bucks for psa tests and mammograms is largely money misspent (on average--in fact there's never been a medical study done which advocates for mammograms under 50; it's not a rational decision to get one or pay for one, it's emotional). Likewise treating catastrophic non-accidental injuries is usually something that can be caught early on and treated more efficiently and cheaply--especially when removing financial disincentives from patients towards treating them. Health Savings Accounts (HSA) are the exact opposite in reality of what many people need (on their own--they do work well in conjunction with other coverage). There are numerous studies done (both in theory and in practice) which show that high deductible is only good for major treatments, while lowering deductibles for preventative care tends to save money and have better health all around.

Speaking from the players POV, I don't really care at all about wireless scoring. It gets me the scores faster at the end of the night, but that's not worth the cost. I really like having hand records--a lot. I also like having cards well shuffled. It's a pet peeve of mine when people half heartedly cut the cards twice and then deal. If you're going to do either, I think the players would much rather have a dealer than wireless scoring--not least because many of the older players at my club still cannot operate the score pads and find them more an annoyance than a benefit.

The only thing I see favorable for declarer is the diamond king. Pumping in spades should work fine as long as you untangle them--that's hard. But it seems hard not to get A♠♥♦, Q9♣ and (probably) another diamond. He can't ruff the diamond loser in dummy without partner overruffing. Best case for declarer is he gets 3 heart tricks, but that's only good for 1 pitch (presumably a diamond unless you let the spade go). It seems that to let this through you need to cash AK♠. Then what can declarer do? AK♣ and K♥ to your A? I guess leading another spade here lets it make...it's a pretty big blunder though, IMO. You don't want to set up dummy's spades when he still has an entry.

Sadly getting it only 1 isn't good enough compared to everyone who overcalls 1S and gets to play in spades. Letting them make is pretty bad.

I'm ok with this auction, and an easy pass now. I don't have any fit with (a passed hand) partner, and the opponents have bad things coming to them. In particular, I can count on 4-6 tricks in my own hand (5 most likely) on defense, plus whatever partner can bring. I'd think hard about bidding 1♠ instead of double, but all the aces and good suit would convince me to double.

Indeed. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/20/opinion/20Dubinsky.html

Knowing it's Ottlik and the shape of the general shape of the hand, I'm guessing there's a backwash squeeze :).

Get it. Don't ask...just get it; you'll love it. http://www.amazon.com/Adventures-Card-Play-Master-Bridge/dp/0304368075

Needs to have 10+ completed tourneys in the last 30 days (IIRC) to have a completed tournament percentage.

I think I have the best line, it's at least a pretty good one: Wow, two people posted the same line while I was typing this.

I pitch hearts from dummy, and 2 hearts and a spade from hand. I hope for 3-2 spades or the A of hearts onsides. There might be something better...but I don't see it.

Sorry simon, I only see 11 cards in the north hand, and 11 in the South. Am I missing something? Based on the play you describe, it sounds very reasonable as a safety play at IMPs--maybe even matchpoints too...but I'm less sure of that.

Yes, and no. When my partner hasn't had a chance to bid, then yes. When my partner has already passed, I either need strength or shape, but I bid an extra king or ace from my partners hand. I no longer count on her to balance, as she's told me what she hasn't got already.

I double on the first one, and I bid 2NT on the second one. I'm even more likely to push against bad opponents, they're less likely to double me for penalties, and more likely to compete to 3S.

You seem to be obsessed with "how long to figure this out", there are several opening leads a session where I take 30+ seconds to put a card on the table; I don't think this is unusual either.

2 off doubled is already enough for 0 matchpoints on the board. The general principle is to not lose the board in the bidding. I imagine that either, many people are opening 3S, or I'm getting sufficient punishment from his bad 3S bid (or it makes, and I'll take my 40%). I trust my partner to bid in any situation that I'd want to, and my goal is to not have any boards below 30%, I just try to have more 60-80% boards.

I would hope I could consider all this at the table, I certainly try to. As to the original question, I lead the diamond A. Following gnasher's line of thought, partner has 4+ hearts, 5+ spades, and I'm going to go for the diamond ruff. It's probably too aggressive, but I think there's a good reason behind it. 2nd choice is the heart. spade a distant third.

I'll pass. Partner could have made a move with enough that anything is making--I have a near max pass, and he's allowed to bid my hand with any reason.

Congratulations on the win, sounds well deserved.

I liked this a lot! Great use of the medium.

There are a few different squeeze possibilities here. Save your club 9, it's threatening the K/J. Pitch a heart on the diamonds. Cash the spades. Then cross with a heart. You now know who has the long spades. If spades split, you're home. If E has both majors guarded...you're hosed. If E guards spades, it's free to play for a H/C squeeze on W (in fact, you just have). I don't see anything else to do. As far as reading the lead, it's strange. Since he lead into your bid suit, and he had a longer suit to lead. If he doesn't have 5 clubs, it's weird. It's unfortunate though, as E has 8 cards in the major in that case. He may have led a 3 card suit (or falsecarded the lead), that's fine. We'll find out about the spades first and see where to go from there. If he made a GIB lead from a short suit, then the squeeze possibilities are many, but you'll find out when the Spades are tested if it's even possible.