BunnyGo

perhaps he meant "towards the Q" confusing "hand" with "South" (which in this case is the dummy).

My partner (who was a passed hand) did correctly pass a support double and won a tasty 200 at matchpoints.

You hold: KQ9xxxx, Q, Kx, Q8x in fourth seat. The opponents don't bid and the auction starts: 1♥-1♠ 2♣-?? I bid 2♦ (4th suit game force). I considered 3♠, 4♠, but couldn't make up my mind. The auction continued: 1♥-1♠ 2♣-2♦* 2♥-2♠ 3♥-3♠ 4♣-4♥ AP Partner was 1-6-1-5, down 2. I don't remember his cards, but he had opened pretty light. Comments?

On a grid with no leftovers?

I agree, it's a very tricky problem. Part if it is that the teachers don't understand the abstraction usually. That said, shapes are pretty concrete and contain a lot of the abstractness (this also requires a teacher who really "gets it" so maybe it wouldn't be that applicable). But you could give a child a grid and 9 checkers and ask them to make a square. Count the sides of the square, etc. Then with 16 checkers. What about 17? Huh...can't do it? How about 12? Still no? Can you make a rectangle with 12 pieces? How long are it's edges. In the end, you can really develop numbers from geometry...but it takes a bit of work. Would be interesting to try though.

[hv=pc=n&s=s9hkt3dakj843cqt4&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1d1hdp2d2h3dp]133|200[/hv] Playing a IMP game with other good players. What do you expect partner to have? Do you want to try 3NT? How about if you are vulnerable? Do you consider pushing for 5♦? Thanks for your thoughts.

Where does the name "swan" come from?

You suggest that the axioms are not "reasonable" (something which can be "reasoned out") in that you have been mentioning them in contrast to each other. Isn't it the case that a student does (or can if given the chance) reason out these "rules" (in fact, isn't that how people found them in the first place?). The axioms of arithmetic are simply what many people have found reasonable and "discovered" and so wrote them down. Likewise the "laws" of physics are simple patterns and mathematics that people have found reasonable. One reasons out that 2+3 = 3+2 or that 2*3 = 3*2. After enough examples where this pattern emerges, one may find their own reason for it: My favorite is that 2+2+2 = 3+3 by taking one from each 2 for the first 3, and one from each 2 for the second 3. At the end of the day, I think any explanation which makes sense to you is just as valid and reasoned out as another. I also think wyman usually explains these things better than I do...

Do the factorization wrong? I think you meant (4 - 9/2)^2 and (5 - 9/2)^2. But the essential flaw is very cute. I hadn't seen this one presented this way before.

That's great! You take care of the "not having the lead" issue that cherdano mentioned by having 2 high honors in each hand. Very cute!

Or both? Maybe North should bid 1♥?

Yes, I know it was just a "pseudo" squeeze (see OP). I don't know if this is always called Suicide, or Fratricide, or if they are the same thing. My question is whether it is possible to have a criss-cross squeeze in a suicide situation. This one is such a squeeze, but is only "pseudo", and it strikes me that if such a non-pseudo squeeze position existed, it would be interesting.

On this hand I had a pseudo-fratricidal-criss cross squeeze. It struck me while playing the hand that this couldn't be a sure thing since the opponent decided which suit to lead (in general) and so it should never be more than just "pseudo". But I was wondering if the squeeze fiends had thought about this or considered the possibility. [hv=pc=n&s=s6432hq32da5cj432&w=st8hj5dkjt84ckq98&n=sak97hat8d976ca75&e=sqj5hk9764dq32ct6&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=pp1nppp&p=h6h2hjhas7sjs2s8h7h3h5h8sas5s3stsksqs4d4s9c6s6d8c5ctc2c8hkhqdthth9c3c9d6h4d5cqd7d2dadjd9c4ckcad3c7dqcj]399|300[/hv]

We were playing the following system if there had not been a 2♦ bid (for better or worse): X: MM or m 2m: M and the bid m 2M: natural 2NT: unusual (mm) What would you bid here? Edit: Thanks to wyman for providing a better view of the problem below.

For those who are not complaining about their difficulty with mathematics but instead how they were taught: it's been said many times before. This article is a very well written description of everything wrong with primary school mathematics (written by a mathematician turned primary school teacher). http://www.maa.org/devlin/LockhartsLament.pdf

I generally agree with this, but also find that if we have extra values (and especially if our values are Queens and kings) 3NT will play better.

I think it would be an easy rule (and useful rule) to program that after a double has been left in (by either partner) for penalty, then all future doubles are penalty. The hand isn't stored yet (or I can't find it), but after sitting for my double of 3NT it pulled my double of 4 diamonds (despite having 4 diamonds itself and only 2 lousy trump support). Just a thought, thank you for your time and effort. -Ben Thanks to Bbradley for posting the hand (yes...my doubles were very pushy).

Actually, I was wondering why we didn't just lead a third spade at trick 3 (or at this new decision point). It seems like that's the best way to get some information and rectify the count for a squeeze...but I'm not really sure where to go from there.

I think 3♣ is also reasonable...

Yes, indeed, I didn't post the whole hand yet because when I reconstructed it from my memory West didn't have a double (in my opinion). But remember this was an informal game among friends.

Too bad. Thanks anyways, but if the chance does come to add even a toggle, it'd be appreciated. By the way, any points for the title?

I'd like to request that there be an option (or maybe a default) that the cards be displayed as a "T" not a "10". I don't know if this is a common request, but I'd like to add my voice to any who have said it before. Thank you.

As usual, I agree with Han.

This hand came up in a university bridge club (low key game with a mix of players from beginners to advanced). [hv=pc=n&n=s84haj7djt53c9854&e=saq652hk853d6ca62&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1s1np2cp2dp2np3nXppp]266|200[/hv] The North player was a beginner (first time playing) to explain the bidding. The South and West players were advanced players. The lead was the ten of spades, and East won the trick with the Ace (do you agree with this play?). If you do take the Ace, what do you lead next?

you can put the followups already in "spoilers".