Jlall

If you can make game opposite very little you should bid game, I have always believed that and am always amazed by how strong the forums will make a simple overcall with over a preempt rather than just bidding game. That being said partner in this deal has a huge and and should make a move.

Seems like a stupidly obvious pass, thanks for the hint!

Wildavsky and Doub show the typical american bidding philosophy? Do we all look alike also?

Cannot add anything to what gnasher said

I would pass but expected to be in a fairly significant minority (not that I'm saying you're wrong). Agree with all of your reasons for passing and that is why I would pass, with special emphasis on being red at MP and possibly going for 200 even undoubled. I think that raising has upside though, especially with xx spades, it seems likely that we can push them up a level on momentum by raising sometimes which is a pretty big gain. I don't think this is worth the risk though.

just say no

Results, he picked AK8642, he clearly had the edge because the ace is just the stone cold nuts, but I ran good and won despite them leading the A so often (ship the 3s and 5s baby, skill game).

andreeaaaaaaaaa

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=31074 this one Hero

The wire is the #1 show for me ever. After that it is... Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Not joking, it is an epic show. Everyone should watch it. Nobody will believe me :P

I would lay you odds that there was not a single MSC panelist who didn't force to game heh. But w/e that is not the standard gib should be held to.

Meh I think this would be the perfect time to simulate rather than have rules. I mean if you're not gonna simulate a signoff/invite/drive slam decision then you might as well scratch simulating all together.

Probably just simulated hands and rated 6N to be the best bid, I doubt it was a bug.

Pretty sure Rain does them, or at least she used to because she made a post once asking us for input about them (csaba search time!) Custom undertitles ftw anyways :P

Free are you aware that even when you have all suits controlled, and some slam interest, you are not necessarily cold for a slam? There is more to making slam than having every suit controlled.

I see what you're saying, but with 5 good spades and concentrated values/ not much in the reds it seems reasonable to me to choose the 5-2 spade fit. Maybe you're right though, 5332 is 5332 heh. I disagree with your characterization of 2S as "more spades" though, in my style I would bid 2S even with QTxxx Axx xx AQx, so 2S doesn't say much about spades to me at that point. I would say I've shown spades, then no side 4 card suit/not both red suits stopped if 5332, then clubs. At that point, with 5 very good spades and a suit oriented hand, I might choose spades.

If you play natural 1N, I'd recommend 16-19 not 15-18.

I don't think I've ever won a sports bet... F the lakers, F kobe.

Thx for your reply ari

:) oh god this is gonna get ugly

I think ideally every country would have a teams trial of significant length. If that was impossible, I think selection would be fine in smaller countries that are not that deep. The benefit of smaller countries though is that usually the teams can travel to each other pretty easily since they're close. In USA I think selection would be awful because there is too much depth. I think pairs trials are always awful.

1 board in less than 1 minute?! UNPOSSIBLE!

Ahhh H_Karluk has joined Ari on the programming team, it all makes sense now!

I disagree really strongly with "30 years is not that much" because bridge changes slowly, but oh well. The fact that the most recent book you can find is 30 years old does not mean that's still the normal way to play it. The game can evolve without books, most people learn from what their friends play, and those friends probably learned from their friends, and that person probably learned from the local "expert" who learned it from a larry cohen lecture or a bridge world article or something online or something on the forums etc etc. I do not think that most people learn from the Root/Pavlicek book about "modern" conventions. In fact most people don't read books at all, let alone 30 year old books from people who don't even play bridge anymore. I mean stephen tu, you said it yourself, most people play the opposite of what root and pavlicek wrote in their book... doesn't that mean that the standard definition these days is not what it was when the book was written? That means *gasp* the book is outdated, at least on this convention. IMO standard is defined by what people are playing. IMO there is little correlation in what a book 30 years ago thought about a popular convention today, and how people play it now, so referencing such books doesn't add much value. A far more relevant reference is Stephen Tu himself basically saying that he believes most people would play this as forcing in todays world. Personally I am with campboy in having no idea why both 2C and 2D should be nmf if you aren't playing 2 way, it seems like 2C should just be artificial then you can follow with 3 of either minor as invite or forcing whatever you want to play, and 2D should be NF. But I don't claim to be an authority on how most people play 1 way NMF over 1H 1S 1N.

BTW imo your opponents best strategy should also be to start out playing their best bridge as if it were a tied match, because the margin is quite small. After half the boards they can maybe re-evaluate that, but that's how they should start out. Most people who try to swing just do many wildly anti-percentage things (much more anti-percentage than they think) and dig themselves into a hole they can't get out of real fast. I mean if they have 2 disasters early on they will actually need to swing, and they'll basically be out of it. On the other hand if in 12 boards they just pick up 1 game swing, and their teammates play solid and do the same, they're down like 10 with 12 boards to go etc.