Lobowolf

2♦. There's essentially nothing do go on as far as which of partner's suits is longer, so with no shorter suit of your own, you have a better than even chance of finding 1) a major (they pay more, even at IMPs), or 2) a fit with your long suit.

That's kinda like saying you could have bid 1NT with cards plus diamonds. Well, yeah, if you're strong enough you can. Surely, though, there are hands that aren't strong enough to double 1♦ for takeout directly, but are strong enough to ask partner to bid any other suit at the 2-level after the auction has revealed that he has some values. I'm not saying it's the best way to play the double, but there have to be hands that meet the description, e.g. something like a 4-4-1-4 10-count.

Nice!

I was speaking of the upper crust. The only one of those who I am slightly acquainted with cyberspacewise is our site owner, who I had in mind as being hopefully typical of the class. The sole Bobby Knight type I ever heard of in that class was Barry Crane. It wouldn't be the first or last contentious situation, historically, pertaining to the selection process.

I like your chances of building a race track. I don't like your chances of avoiding having to strangle the County's staff people.

I'd pass it red. I wouldn't mind too much if partner opened it, as long as he didn't mind when I led something else next time, when he's got KQTxxx.

Per Max Hardy, I believe it's penalty (strong with diamonds), and 2♣ is takeout of diamonds, giving up only the natural 2♣ bid in front of the guy who didn't introduce hearts or spades or raise diamonds.

"Matchpoints" A form of scoring wherein +170 may be good. c.f. "IMPs"

"Hang" v.t. A prophylactic technique used to dissuade partner from balancing on future hands.

"DSIP" See also "cards" and "endplay"

"Swiss Teams" -A clever form of bridge competition wherein one player competes against 7 others, appropriately named after a country renowned for standing alone.

Ken's post on the Smith Echo thread reminded me of something I hadn't thought about in a while. Before I played UDCA, I noticed that when I saw upside down carding referenced in bridge literature (this was in 2 or 3 different places), the sources I read said that typically players who use upside down carding would revert to standard count in present count situations. None of the sources ever gave an explanation as to why standard present count might be preferable. Anyone with a strong theoretical preference care to share?

If I'm systemically required to have a sixth spade to bid 2♠ (like, if someone died at the table and nobody else could fill in and I owed the director a favor), then I think starting this hand (5-1-2-5 minimum) with 1♣ is the least of evils. In the context of a more standard system where I could rebid a catchall 2♠, I'd certainly open 1♠.

"Break the Squeeze" v. What to do when your girlfriend's double-dummy analysis becomes better than your single-dummy analysis.

2. Alt. Def. A rough guide to the skill level of random opponents: A. Self-Blame (novice) "Sorry partner. I should have bid 1♥." B. Opponent-Blame (intermediate) "Well, he bid spades. I thought he'd have a stopper." C. Partner-Blame (advanced) "If you'd just raise hearts immediately, I could have cuebid the ace of clubs."

Or open a wise 1♣?

You neocon!

Kind of a curious remark, in light of your rather poignant post about your experiences in the Vietnam era, and remembering what happens when government power goes unchecked. Unfortunately (though I don't agree with the "greatest generation" bit), those who remember the nth degree of blaming "the Jews" for one's problems have, for the most part, left the building. So I guess it's no surprise that even bringing this story up brings evokes a Limbaugh response. Must be a neocon thing on Jimmy's part. I mean, heck, you can call NYC "Hymietown" in the middle of a presidential campaign and still get millions of votes. WTP?

Love him or hate him, he's gone too far now...this just in from Reuters - They're banning Coke Zero in Venezuela for "unspecified dangers to health." Unacceptable.

I think human nature is generally that it's a proximity issue. Right or wrong, most people would be more disturbed by reading of the death of someone in their city than in another country, regardless of race.

What's wrong with that? How is that enforced?

No, it doesn't. if i don't give a crap about what others think of me, why would a change in their opinion be a penalty? That's a good point. Maybe "penalty" should have been in quotes. Or maybe "consequence" would be a better word. If you don't care what they think, then it's like partner making an inadmissible double and barring you from the auction when you were going to bid anyway. It still follows as a result of the action, but it may or may not bother you.

On the contrary, its enforcement is automatic. Unwritten rules are descriptive, anyway. It's not like a lead out of turn penalty, where the director consults the laws and tells the players what the "enforcement" will be. That's not the nature of an unwritten rule. Someone drops a card on the floor, and you deliberately sneak a look at it, you've violated an unwritten rule. Anyone who catches you now think you're a jerk, and has lost respect for you. That's the penalty; no director call is needed to enforce it. That's the nature of an unwritten rule. It's descriptive. The director doesn't have to tell the people at the table to lose respect for you. It just happens. this assumes that I care whether others think I am a jerk or that I somehow feel i need to have them respect me. No, it doesn't.

On the contrary, its enforcement is automatic. Unwritten rules are descriptive, anyway. It's not like a lead out of turn penalty, where the director consults the laws and tells the players what the "enforcement" will be. That's not the nature of an unwritten rule. Someone drops a card on the floor, and you deliberately sneak a look at it, you've violated an unwritten rule. Anyone who catches you now think you're a jerk, and has lost respect for you. That's the penalty; no director call is needed to enforce it. That's the nature of an unwritten rule. It's descriptive. The director doesn't have to tell the people at the table to lose respect for you. It just happens.

I think the poll's overwhelming consensus choice is correct, then.