Lobowolf

Do juniors play penalty doubles?

Which is another way of saying he shows spades, and no other specific suit.

When I was talking about the "tiny" chance, I meant as a general proposition, not specifically in the context of this hand; I do agree that the factors you list make it more likely here than in the abstract. Having said that, though, in this extreme-case-scenario, would you really both A) pass if you knew that opener guaranteed three clubs, and :D bid either 2NT or double if you knew that opener could be 4-4-3-2?

I agree with the decision; all the offending side had to do to find out what the player in question would have done is announce (/alert) announcable (/alertable) bids. I don't know about how likely I'd think it is that someone's telling the truth; people learn pretty early on what they have to say to a director on a judgment call. Either way, though, it's the offender's fault. I will say that I think it's putting far too fine a point on an auction, and almost certain to be negative expected value in one of the two situations, if you honestly would make one call knowing that an opponent routinely opens 1♦ when 4-4-3-2, and a different call knowing that while the same opponent usually has 4 clubs for a 1♣ opener, and often has 5, and almost always has 3, there is a tiny chance that the opponent is exactly 4-4-3-2 with a hand outside the 1NT range and is opening this particular hand on a doubleton. Honestly, I don't think a hand/auction could be contrived where my call would depend on knowing whether an opponent opened 1♣ or 1♦ when he happens to be exactly 4-4-3-2.

Is this some attempt to cut Pearson out of royalties?

He's not the only one. http://atheocracy.wordpress.com/2008/06/29...arent-atheists/

I thought the point was to lead the T♦, permitting partner to overtake if the trick is ducked in dummy. ;)

Agree entirely, including the question of whether or not I'd get there anyway. 2♠ burns up too much bidding room. You're at 3♣ and neither player has shown clubs...not much chance. At least in the suggested auction, N knows about the club fit by now.

Gandhi should be an honorary BBF regular.

Agree completely except for the bit about partners wanting to yell at me. I might get a scowl, though, if I guided us into hearts or clubs with the spade shortness in the long hand (or, on a bad day, if there were no long hand in a club contract). If partner's hoped-for spade honor is non-existent, maybe RHO's spades were so good, he took the opportunity to overcall a 4-card suit. When these hands come up, most often it seems that partner has at least a stiff quack, and often a doubleton honor that might get eaten by the lead, but will produce at least one trick from my holding. On a good day, no reason you can't get a J♠ lead through Qx and set up a couple if they get excited about spades.

Feel free to buy a house in my neighborhood!

Thanks, all. I appreciate the opportunity to vent.

I agree (!!) I don't see how any given vote for Nader is any less meaningful than a vote for Obama or McCain would have been.

So, after another fun day of working and participating in the BBO Forums, I was on my way home when I got a phone call from my girlfriend, who got home (same house) before I did, and was calling to let me know that our house had been broken into. Could have been worse, but they did get a few things that are particularly annoying.

On a national platform, I don't think any third party candidate really has a chance. If you mean, would he have had a chance running in the Democratic primary and trying to get the nomination, maybe a very outside chance. If you mean running against both Obama and McCain, a la Ross Perot, I think all he would have done is win the election for McCain. Edit: By "a very outside chance" I mean somewhere between 1% & 5%.

I'm not sure about that...it's sort of a semi-common phenomenon in various guises, for instance, responding on a hand where someone feels he should have passed the first time, then he wants to pass a forcing bid, or lie about how many aces he has...or deciding to pass when it was a close call whether to preempt, then wanting to make the preemptive call after the opponents have exchanged a round of information...I think a variety of situations are sort of related to each other, and to the OP. My feeling is that it's usually a mistake to try to "make up" for a past decision you think you've gotten wrong. On a good day, 3♣ will be a normal contract, and you'll get an average board or even a good one, if an overcall would have served to help declarer play the hand. Bidding 1♠ initially will lead to more good days than bad ones, though.

I agree (see, I can say it!) If someone fell over dead at the table and I had to fill in starting in the passout seat, I'd pass it out now.

This is another example of hrothgar mischaracterizing something I've said. I've never "tried to create a false equivalence," nor have I posted anything for the purpose of "spreading fear." I do have to admit to a morbid curiosity as to how making a tongue-in-cheek reference to a long-dead phenomenon could be construed as "trying to spread fear."

All redoubles are to play. Chuck doesn't need "rescuing." And if his partner does, he doesn't need to tell him; Chuck will rescue him.

I took a call at a regional once where instead of leading, the opening leader laid out her entire hand as if she were dummy. Talk about a double-dummy problem.

If you weren't eligible to vote (from a country other than the USA...underage...whatever), but would have voted for one of the two, please feel free to answer the poll as you would have voted.

You underestimate your own numbers. I do? I don't recall opining as to how many small-L libertarians there are.

You may have never used it (and I wasn't suggesting that you did), but like "liberal media elite," I'm sure it's a term you've heard many times. In the end, all I can tell you is that around groups that are largely liberal, I sound like a conservative; in groups that are largely conservative, I sound like a liberal; and in groups that are a balanced mix, I sound pretty close to the middle. As you've noted, I do have a propensity to voice disagreement more than agreement. I like playing devil's advocate. Undoubtedly, this magnifies the effect.

Talk about being in good company.

Right I have been over that with you before. You do not commentate on Fox News so you are part of the liberal media elite. Let me clarify and unsarcastify. Pardon me if I don't take their opinions very seriously... Yes, and as for my liberal friends (and non-friends), I don't support affirmative action or illegal immigration, so I'm a neocon. Pardon me if I don't take any partisan position on either side very seriously.