Lobowolf

I hope it's about a lot more than that, and I hope we'll get a lot more than that.

Against all but fairly good opponents, the chance of their either grabbing the queen or tanking long enough to give the position of the queen away (so you can hop up and succeed against Qxx on the left and Txx on the right) will usually give you some percentage points that aren't measured by simulation.

Computers always duck the Qx when you lead the 8.

He'll be fine. He's replacing an extremely unpopular president; he'll get the credit for almost everything that goes right, and Bush will get the blame for almost everything that goes wrong.

You're never good enough not to balance.

Probably your chance of a bad board has increased by virtue of the fact that 3♥ was bid, regardless of what you do now. If most people were allowed to play 2♠ for +110, for instance, if your options are +100 against 3♥ or -100 in 3♠, you're in trouble. The extra trump is a useful yardstick - it both helps on offense, and hurts on defense (increasing the chances that a potential spade winner will get ruffed). Also, the partner with the long hearts is usually better placed to make the decision - if those hearts are, say, 9xxx that argues somewhat for bidding on, as the hand is better offensively on splinter principles; if the hearts are KJxx, the hand is better defensively. This distinction is somewhat undercut, though, in that the balance doesn't guarantee a fit; it would be more useful in an auction where both sides' fits were disclosed. You might compete with 9xxx and then find out that the opponents were at the 3-level with a 6- or 7-card fit.

♠Txx ♥ATxx ♦AKTxx ♣A Opponents silent at matchpoints...Anyone have a preferred alternative to a 15-point reverse after 1♦-1♠?

How much can I get down on the over?

Yes, yes and yes. Like I said, I like to open light, and my partners know that. You know the old saying...an opening hand opposite an opening hand should produce a partscore bonus.

I am Mr. Roark, your host... Ricardo Montalban is now welcoming people to heaven with Tattoo. Or something.

I could see putting quotes around "association," but would even that dude from Friends put them around "terrorist" when talking about Ayers?

Since we have a clear winner...for those who entered "Yes," how critical is it to your decision that the hand has both majors? If you switched the red suits, so the hand only had one major, would you still open it? If "Yes," again, how about if you switched both the red and the black suits?

If I were forced to open 1♦ on one hand, and 1♣ on the other, this would be the 1♦ hand, not the original, because 1) the singleton gives this hand a little bit more playing strength in a suit, so if the auction were at 2♥ before I saw it again, I'd rather have this hand to compete with 3♣ (assuming, for instance, that partner had made a negative double), and 2) The 1♣ bid is probably going to restrict us to only bidding one suit, so I'd rather have the semi-balanced first hand for my 1NT rebid. Having said that, I'd open 1♦ with either hand; just wanted to comment because this post suggested that the second hand might be "more" of a 1♣ opener, when I think if anything, it's the reverse.

2♥ for me... Hxx and a singleton is peachy support.

So what do you play with the 7-2 doubleton?

So I'm coming back to the first question is, does a low card suggest an underlead (or that an underlead is ok)? If so, we can't encourage with a small doubleton. If a low card doesn't suggest an underlead, then presumably nothing does, so we can never help partner out on the underlead decision, but we can encourage with a doubleton. It seems like we should encourage with a small doubleton, which in turn implies that the encouraging card shouldn't have implications re: underleading. So I'll go back to the 4, followed by the 2.

Why? I don't see it. For me it seems that it only increases the odds that he will try to underlead the clubs to get a heart through to his king. This is a live possibility, since we only need ♣Q + 1 trick to set the contract that way. I don't use soft middle card signals in obscure situations such as this one. Either I play a high spot or I play a low spot. The middle ones are reserved for highly enlightened situations. Sorry...I was overly fixated on "continue or shift." I guess the ultimate question is about the utility of "underlead or shift," and underlead is more likely to be useful, so an encouraging card should show the queen. Edit: Second re-think. The same analysis that you used in response to my post calls into question part of your initial analysis, though. You said you'd discourage because you didn't have a doubleton or the queen. If that means you'd encourage with a doubleton, then you're still running into the problem of partner underleading in that situation.

If part of the analysis is "nothing can go wrong, because he'll cash a second club anyway," and we want him to cash 2 clubs, but not try to cash the third, then the 4 followed by the 2 makes more sense to me. It probably increases the odds that he'll play the second club, and it probably increases the odds that he doesn't play one if we ever get a hand where we want our attitude signal to apply to his trick 2 action (edit: and play the 8 at trick two on THAT hand), not his trick 3 action.

Great player, and a class act. Sorry to hear this.

Sorry, this is incorrect. Partner's alerts and explanations are UI to him. What makes this complicated is that he's allowed to be "partially" woken up. He should explain his partner's bids in accordance with their agreements, which he's now been reminded of, so that opponents get the same explanations as they would if they read his system notes (for the purposes of discussion, you can assume that the partnership has detailed system notes). But he must continue to bid his hand as if he hadn't heard the alert or explanation -- imagine that you're playing behind screens, or on the Internet with self-alerts. Screens actually complicate things in a different way. Since you don't hear partner's alerts you never get woken up at all, and you end up giving your screenmate different explanations than the other screenmate. This has resulted in some difficult director calls and appeals in high level competitions. Yes, partner can be "woken up" by a BID that suggests he got it wrong. For instance, if I got stoned one night and agreed to play natural NF 2-level responses, and we had the auction (partner opens): 1NT - (P) - 2H (intended by me as a transfer) - (P) P - (balance) - ?? If partner explained (correctly) that 2H was to play in our system, I can't be awakened by his explanation, but his pass of my intended transfer would sure wake me up, and I'll take further action. Having said that, though, there's still a UI issue...if partner had said "It's a transfer" (as I'd intended), and passed anyway, then presumably the reasonable inference is that partner psyched, and under such conditions, I wouldn't be bidding spades at the 3 level.

I gave up directing a few years back for law school, and I haven't read the new revisions to the rules, but my recollection is that this is incorrect. Authorized information comes from legal calls and plays, and from the mannerisms/tone of voice/etc of the OPPONENTS. Unauthorized information comes from partner in the form of pretty much everything that isn't a legal bid or play, including comments, answers to questions, etc. I could be mistaken...do you have a source for correct explanations being authorized information?

Without discussion, I'd take it to be asking about diamonds.

Very rarely does anything good happen when you let the opponents play 2M with a fit. On a good day, the opponents will make 3, and you'll keep up with the pairs who pushed them up a level. More likely... They'll make 2, but you'll lose matchpoints to pairs who A) competed and made something at the 3-level (or 2S over 2H) :) competed and set the opponents in 3M C) competed and went down less than the opponents' partscore.

It was relevant to the original lawsuit, that alleged a Civil Rights violation (!!) in that a husband and wife couldn't play every day, every time slot together (as I recall).

My guess is that there are more females members of the ACBL than male members. I believe NABC level women's events survive for two basic reasons: the WBF has Women's events and the Women's NABC events help with selection of teams for the WBF events; and two there are some females pros that would take a financial hit should the events go away. Perhaps that second reason is not particularly good, but if there is demand for the services, what harm does it do for ACBL to provide the events? I imagine it does the same "harm" that was done by the men-only events that were eliminated as a consequence of the anti-discrimination suit some 20-25 years ago. AFAIK, nobody has filed a similar lawsuit aimed at women-only events, so the ACBL continues to discriminate by offering those events...ironically taken advantage of by, among others, one of the plaintiffs. There are Open events opposite all of the Women's event, I believe. Both men and women can enter the "real" event. When the lawsuit was brought, there were Men's events opposite the Women's events, so that a male-female partnership had no event to enter (and women could not enter the "real" event). Upon what basis would a man file suit against the ACBL regarding the Women-only events? Now, if there is a Mixed event with no Open event concurrent, that would seem a basis for a lawsuit. But, the BOD would not be silly enough to even propose such a situation. I don't imagine it would be too hard to construe; for instance, to the extent that there's a bridge pro livelihood issue, female professionals can bypass the "real" event for easier masterpoints in the restricted event (clients love masterpoints). Or it could be argued that a male bridge pro who hasn't been able to win a National event in the Men's or Open fields (thus unable to become a Grand Life Master, among other things), while a female pro has an easier route. Or on the more general premise that the ACBL offers its "currency" to women in every event held at a National, while men are denied an equal opportunity by being excluded from some events.