crazy4hoop

I went with spade, figuring they might sign off in 5 off a key and the queen. But those of you who mentioned jack fourth opened my eyes. A diamond is probably better. Neat hand.

I was lucky enough to play for USA2 in Mangaratiba, Brazil, in 2001. That year we had a teams format for the trials and we lost in the finals to USA1. We then played off the next day in a repechage to be USA2. We qualified as a 5-person team and wanted to remain as such (at least I did) but we had to augment a sixth person. If the rules indeed require a team to have 6 players, then I love Kevin Wilson's suggestion to have a fourth "developmental" pair available for the practices he proposes. This way, you have 4 highly motivated pairs working hard on their games, one of which will be all the more better off in subsequent years when it comes times to select a team or teams again. I find what Kevin Wilson has to say to be extremely insightful and hope it could work. I guess you would have to announce your "starting 6" by a certain time as you obviously cannot field an eight-person team but I think having a team where the practice sessions are competitive and grueling can only serve the final team members good when it comes time to play in international competition.

It's so wide open. I hate picking the chalk so I'm going with Washington over Gonzaga (no, I'm not from the Pacific Northwest).

PSYCHS BARRING PSYCHIC ARTIFICIAL OPENING BIDS All psychic openings of artificial bids are prohibited at ACBL sanctioned events. This also applies to the SuperChart. (Board of Directors - Summer 1992) Opening an artificial and forcing bid without an "abundance" of high card values is acceptable under the following circumstance: IF, IN THE VIEW OF THE BIDDER, THERE IS A REASONABLE CHANCE FOR GAME IN HAND WITH LITTLE HELP FROM PARTNER. The following hands would qualify: 1. S AKQJ109765 or 2. S AKQ1098 H 754 H J109876 D 2 D 4 C --- C --- These hands may be accepted as artificial 2 club openers IF THE OPENING BIDDER THINKS THEY ARE REASONABLE. On the first hand opener needs only one trick from partner. On the second hand, two small spades and a heart honor probably would be enough to produce game. What is NOT acceptable is the use of a strong, artificial, forcing 2C opener holding: S 6 H 2 D QJ109876542 C 5 There would be good reason for a director to conclude that the opening bidder's prime motive is to confuse the opponents rather than to reach the right contract constructively. It is clear that opener is psyching what is ordinarily a well defined bid in an attempt to intimidate the opponents. This is exactly what the rule is intended to prevent. If a pair thinks that Examples 1 and 2 are two club openers, then their convention card should have some notation about playing strength in the appropriate place. Also, if a pair marks their card with HCP limits for their two club openers, they should note if it only refers to balanced hands. (Directions - April 1992)

Bragodocious? Egomaniacal?

It's perfectly legal to write down the opening lead as it's being made. It's also legal to jot down the auction in your score card as you're writing the contract. It's just illegal to look at it after you've played to the first trick. The ACT of writing this stuff down is not a memory aid, REFERRING TO IT is the memory aid. I agree. If it's illegal to write down the opening lead before the play begins, wouldn't it also then be illegal to even just write down the contract before play begins? It is just the reference after playing to trick one that is prohibited (already stated, I know). More players, probably newer players, often look at their scorecards as a simple reminder of what the contract is and I don't often see the cops being called for this. As far as online bridge goes, how bad can refering to one's own methods to remember them be, considering that anyone can get a review of the auction well after trick one with the entire auction in the upper right hand corner?

When Gee plays with Chuck Norris, he automatically assumes the role of "crew."

The debacle of 2000 repeats itself and we won't know for a few days?

Similar to the previous post, I see merit in playing this bid as 10 to any hand that would not accept game opposite a limit raise (6 cards, of course).

1♠

I sorta like 2NT, planning to bid clubs if partner attempts to sign off. 2NT makes it a little bit more difficult for them to compete in spades. I must admit that all the 2♣ bidders all have very valid reasons (especially about clubs being the potential right strain, making 6 when 6♥ fails or making 7 when only 6♥ makes) for choosing it and I almost did myself. Maybe 2NT followed by a new suit when partner attempts to sign off should show this type of hand - better than a limit raise in terms of playing strength but not quite the traditional "textbook" game force on which strict point counters rely.

Question 1: No, this is too strong to psych 1NT, not to mention the other reasons other posters have mentioned as to why this might not be such a sound action. Question 2: Pass

I really don't see how same-sex couples getting married threatens opposite-sex couples or anyone else for that matter. If straight couples feel that gays being allowed to marry makes their marriage less meaningful, then there is something wrong with that marriage to begin with. I get the feeling that the same people who are against this have little if any problem if a 23 year-old marries a 95 year-old for money as long as they are of different sexes, or the case of someone marrying for citizenship. Don't these things make the whole institute of marriage seem a little less sacred, at least more so than a same-sex couple deeply in love for years trying to marry would? I bet divorce lawyers actually would love to see gays be allowed to marry given the divorce rate in the U.S. as even more people could be potentially divorcing somewhere down the road...

I believe A.C. was pretty much a ghetto before the casinos arrived. Now, it's still a ghetto but with casinos surrounding it. It reminds me of Chris Rock commenting on how crack was ruining the ghetto: "Like the ghetto was so nice before crack!"

I'm a Dodger fan living in NY. My head says the Cubs win the series (I guess I'm pessimistic by nature) but my heart says the Dodgers win it. I think a freeway series would be kinda cool.

Wasn't McCain the ringleader among a bunch of senators who proposed a ban on college sports betting in Nevada a few years ago? Granted, this may have been a knee-jerk reaction to the Stevin "Headache" Smith scandal at Arizona State (obv his home state) where the Sun Devils were caught shaving points in several games and McCain felt he had to do something. It did seem rather hypocritical for him to take such a postion as he was known back then for gambling in Vegas casinos as well. Of course, if he weren't hypocritcial, he wouldn't be in politics. Maybe the real reason McCain seemed so cranky in the debate last Friday was that he unloaded his entire gambling bankroll on USC last Thursday night. Oh well, he can always go to a bank like WaMu if he needs a loan to place his next wager, or maybe not...

3♥. Doubling and bidding hearts ought to show a little bit (maybe more than a little bit?) less than this, maybe something like xx KQ10xxx xx Kxx?

I think bidding 7♥ puts too much faith in partner having the ♥J or seven of them so I guess I pass and pray for partner's forgiveness when plus 2140 isn't good enough.

So you still got your 4 tricks (that was your goal. right?) by cashing ♠Q and exiting ♣J or 9?

I just realized those three cases are hard to read: Case 1: Dummy has ♠A, ♥A, and ♣A Case 2: Dummy has ♠2, ♥A, and ♣A Case 3: Dummy has ♠Q, ♥A, and ♣A Hope that helps B)

This is from ACBLscore Tournament Mode Tech Files: CLAIMS MADE WITH AN OUTSTANDING TRUMP (LAW 70C) The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is an alternative normal line of play that would be less successful. With Spades as trumps, the lead is in the dummy and declarer says dummy's good". Dummy: CASE 1: Spades A CASE 2: Spades 2 CASE 3: Spades Q Hearts A Hearts A Hearts A Diamonds - Diamonds - Diamonds - Clubs A Clubs A Clubs A Defender holds: Spades K Hearts - Diamonds AK Clubs - In Case 1, no one should have any problem awarding exactly one trick to the defenders. Declarer may not play the ace of trumps to extract any trump of which he was likely unaware and the defender will be able to rough one of declarer's outside aces. In Case 2, should the Director require that declarer lead the deuce of spades first? The argument put forth to support this position says that since declarer is convinced that all of dummy's cards are good, the Director should shuffle them and randomly pick the deuce. This line of reasoning depends on the premise that all "good" cards are equal. However it must be clear that trumps are intrinsically different and any value that the deuce has as a trump would be wasted by leading it. Remember also that the Laws dealing with claims keep referring to "normal" lines of play, which embraces the careless and inferior play but not the irrational. The only rational purpose in playing the deuce is to execute some sort of squeeze, which clearly does not apply in example 2 above. The play of the deuce is not rational: it can do not good, and may be harmful. What then if dummy's trump is the 4? or the 6? or the 8? Where should one draw the line? LAWS.061 (PAGE 15) __________________ Consider the third case. Would it be normal for declarer to play the queen of spades? If declarer plays out the hand, confident that his outside cards are good, he might well play the queen as a "safety check" for any overlooked trump. It is certainly not abnormal for a declarer to play a "high" trump in these situations. Thus, the declarer in Case 3 should be forced to play the queen since it is a normal play consistent with his statement of claim. This is true even though we would NOT ALLOW declarer to play the queen if it were to his advantage to do so. Obviously, Directors will seldom be faced with the extremes presented in 1 and 2 above; most situations will fall somewhere in between. However, this principle can be applied whenever the Director rules that declarer's card is such that it would be normal to use it to draw trumps. Some cards are inherently high in rank: the ace, obviously, but also the king and the queen. Lesser cards may also fall into this category because of the way that play has gone prior to the claim. Declarer may falsely believe that a card has been established because he thinks he has forced out all of the higher ones, for instance. The important point to recognize is that there is a difference between a card that is thought good because of rank and one that is thought good by virtue of being the last remaining. Whenever there is an attempt to establish guidelines, there is a risk that some will use them in lieu of common sense or even of law. Guidelines are not laws, but are intended to form a basis for consistency. With this in mind, the following are given as guidelines concerning claims: A. The order of play of non-trump suits should be the worst possible for claimer (although play within the suit is normally from the top down). B. Declarer may never attempt to draw any trumps of which he was likely unaware, if doing so would be to his advantage. C. It is considered a normal play for declarer to take a safety check with a "high" trump. D. Declarer should not be forced to play the remainder of his trumps to his disadvantage if both opponents have shown out of the suit. (Directions - July/October, 1992)

The only way keeping the spade can be irrational is if she does not think her hand is good and when she loses the diamond trick she knows she has to keep dummy's clubs as the spade is no good. But as the others have already stated, if she thinks her hand is good, there is no irrational pitch from the unreachable (again, already stated by others) dummy, so why not throw a club from the "immaterial" dummy?

This is true.

I think there is also the responsibility of the non-offenders to continue to play bridge. Some may argue that North's passing is so egregious that it constitutes not continuing to play bridge. I probably would not adjust the score but strongly caution EW to give complete and, I guess, serious, explanations of partner's call (admonishing east then) as not everybody "gets the joke."

Put me down for pass, too.