Lobowolf

Particularly given that this thread is in the B/I forum, it's worth elaborating a little on the importance of the distinction between the auction: (I should note that I'm in the same geographic area as Phil, FWIW) 1♦-1♥; ? and 1♣-1♦; ? The first auction doesn't say anything about whether responder has 4 spades or not; even if he did, he'd bid hearts first. So if you're interested in locating a spade fit, you'd better bid spades now; if partner has a weak hand, 1NT will probably end the auction. In the second auction, it's very common practice to skip over a diamond suit to show a 4-card spade suit, with a weak hand. Therefore, the 1♦ bid suggests that there's a very good chance that either responder doesn't have a spade suit, or will be strong enough, if he does have a spade suit, to show it over 1NT. So as opener, it's ok to skip spades to rebid 1NT. There are inferences available from the 1♦ bid on the second auction that aren't available from the 1♥ on the first auction, even though the two appear similar.

I frequently see (not saying that's the case here) the question posed as something like, "Is this hand good enough that I may open 2♣?" and it really should be thought of more as, "Is this hand so good that I must open 2♣? Strong 2♣ openers are a (sometimes) necessary evil.

No, in case partner has a doubleton spade and a hand suitable for defending. Does your browser truncate every post after the first five words? No offense intended...just struck me funny. "Takeout" has a connotation to me suggesting that the partner of the takeout doubler choose one of a variety of suits.

This is funny, too (because, of course, it has an element of truth to it).

Joe Biden: "When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the princes of greed. He said, "Look, here's what happened..." Jesse Walker: "And if you owned an experimental TV set in 1929, you would have seen him. And you would have said to yourself, "Who IS that guy? What happened to President Hoover?" That's funny. It would have been funny if any of the four would have said it, but I gotta think you would have heard it a lot more if it had been McCain (and, no doubt, "evidence" of his senility) or Palin (evidence of the ignorance no doubt caused by her lack of a higher education).

In case partner is concealing a longer diamond suit, or a 9-card side club suit?

I can't vouch for the SAYC, but generally "standard" (in practice) is that new suits are forcing at the one level, but non-forcing at the 2-level. Redoubles show 10+, but not all 10-point hands redouble. So, for instance, if you have a good hand and a spade suit you want to bid, you can simply respond 1♠ over the double, even if you have more than 10 points; however, if you have a good hand and a club suit, you'd redouble rather than bid 2♣, because the 2♣ bid would be non-forcing (and limited). Once upon a time, all good hands began with the redouble; this was found to not be a good idea. 1NT is natural, and not preemptive (at least not per se; it may have the side benefit of getting in the way a bit).

It's as I suspected, Watson; the style has become the system.

Wow, I thought I was an optimist...can you all sign this release form? I have to forward this thread to a couple of my partners...

I hate those "I definately agree"-posts. This however really sums it all up. So: I definately agree. Lest Josh think I'm deliberately contrary and argumentative, I agree with this (these) post(s) in its (their) entirety. Except for the part about being averse to "I agree" posts.

The support double was invented by Eric Rodwell. I don't know whether or not he based it on the Law, but I think it's pretty presumptuous to think he did. Support doubles fit nicely with LTT-conscious bidding, but (according to Larry Cohen, anyway), they were designed to keep Rodwell out of 3-3 fits after his partner(s) couldn't take a joke...the joke being the young Rodwell's penchant for bidding 1M over 1d on a 3-card suit.

Definitely not a fan of anything but pass here.

I don't think this is true. I think it's more of a case of trying to elect representatives who, it is believed, will do best for people in any given voter's group of choice to identify with. Congressmembers are elected so they can do best not for "all of us," but for "people in my district," or, with the support of PACs who in turn receieve financial support from individuals not necessarily in the interests of "all of us," but in the interests of (union members/gun owners/ members of a particular race, gender, or sexual orientation/retired persons/ farmers/the wealthy/the poor/etc.)

I notice one difference. When a democrat says it you react like this?! When a republican says it you react like this. The Italics were actually intended to emphasize not who said it, but whose position it was. The original post wasn't really intended to be much of a "slam," but rather an expression of bona fide amusement/incredulity. To the extent that it was intended to be a slam (in bridge terms, call it a "small slam"), it was a slam on McCain, not Obama, for being so illegal-immigration-friendly that it's striking that he could be portrayed as some anti-illegal-immigration guy. I did realize that it might come off as an Obama slam, which is why I hastened to add the second post.

My own grandfather held stock and never sold a share in his life. He held on to stock all through the depression, as people told him he was foolish. I find it hard to believe that anything like 90% of individual investors end up losing. The 90% figure that most sticks in my mind is that something like 90% of fund managers don't beat index returns in the long run. Having said that, the notion that 90% of investors lose money doesn't sound too counterintuitive to me... unfortunately, though the opportunities are there to do extremely well in the stock market, the psychology often works against people -- they panic and sell at the bottom, and they buy at peaks (bubbles, even) after things have been going well and when the stocks or sectors are most overvalued. btw...your grandfather WAS foolish to hold his stocks through the Great Depression...he should have been buying MORE!! (that's a joke) :(

For the record (since irony is often lost in the internet), I thought "the issue" was pretty clear. I just thought it was very amusing that McCain could actually conceivably be portrayed in an anti-(illegal) immigration light.

btw which is not substantively different in principle from the McCain ads on Obamba's immigration record. It's a little amusing that either of them attempts to get traction here; as one attorney cited in an NPR article said, their positions are "as distinct as Tweedledum's from Tweedledee's."

immigration?! Anyone caught the Obama Spanish-language ads trying to make McCain sound overly harsh on (illegal) immigration?! He must be trying to rally conservatives to support McCain, but I can't imagine they'll be fooled...

"Making private ownership of gold illegal" de facto took the U.S. off the gold standard; the gold standard pegged the value of currency because it was exchangeable at a fixed rate. The ending of the Bretton Woods system (Nixon '71) was essentially the last straw, ending fixed exchange gold trading between other countries and the United States. The key dates are 1933 and 1971, and "off the gold standard" and even "THE gold standard" are somwhat ambiguous, but it was more (and first) Roosevelt.

The critical point in the auction comes when opener, without a stopper in front of the club bidder, chooses whether to go down in 4NT or 6♦.

There've been a few threads recently with fairly heavy support for action on hands where I'd favor a pass. I was just flippantly expressing that it's nice to see overwhelming support for a pass.

The responses in this thread warm my heart.

From purely an investment standpoint, though, also worth keeping in mind the mortgage interest tax deduction.

♣J

Sorry, Han.. I completely disagree. I see no basis for asserting that we will drive to slam with any hand, no matter how good it may seem. Partner has not evinced any slam interest: he bid a forcing 3♥... we really had little choice but to bid 3N with no heart fit, and a club stopper, especially if the club stopper offered some prospect of combining well: say A10x(x). When he bid 4♦, he was still looking for the best game, not enquiring about slam. With AJx J10xxx AJxxx void, I'd expect the same auction... and it is far from clear how he should bid over 3♣ with say KJxxx Axxxxx in the reds. So I cannot accept that 'with the top 20% of hands', consistent with 3N, we should drive to slam. I also have trouble with the middle 35-80% cue bid. To me, a below game cue bid in an auction in which partner is unlimited, but hasn't yet confirmed slam interest (nor denied it... hence 'unlimited') announces that, in the context of the auction to date, I am interested if you are... not... we are going to slam if you are interested, but more along the lines of 'I'm prepared to discuss slam if you are'. Hence, 5♣ is only slightly stronger than 5♦... it is a MILD try for slam, and, on the given layout, would have got partner unimpressed. Partner would have had no trouble bidding 5♦. Note that even improving opener's hand to Kx in hearts still makes slam a poor contract. I admit that this style will miss slam when opener has Kxx Ax Qxxx AKxx, as an example... but all styles represent compromise. And, as an aside, after 5♣, I think that partner can bid slam even with xx in spades, with AKxxx AKxxx, since we cannot be suggesting a mild slam try without at least 2nd round control in spades. I agree with this post. I also think that it also (along with Han's previous post) underscores that at its most fundamental level, the difference between 5♣ and 5♦ is simply one of partnership philosophy/agreement/understanding about what cuebids below the game level mean in this and analogous situations.