cherdanno

Of course I don't cooperate with partner's slam try. I hope 4H is a suggestion to play, not a cue, so I bid that.

On a related not, how do you think I should drive from my place to my friend's place? Which options should I consider?

Isn't double dummy a not terribly helpful measure here? I'd expect 6C bid on an uninformation auction to make much more often single dummy than double dummy. I guess (although you might be able to prove me wrong) that declarer will have fewer decisions in the play than the defence will have on opening lead. Well, lmilne was talking about bidding 2N-3N and questioning the merit of driving to slam if there are no methods. I think Cascades simulation has shown that bidding slam > bidding 2N-3N, since the double dummy considerations should make the % of making LOWER not higher as you point out, and it's well above 50 obv. Of course it doesn't solve the debate about whether to just try or not, and whether to blast or not. Doesn't Cascade's second set of numbers resolve that question? Even with a lot of wastage in hearts, slam is still above 30%. I don't think there is a way to try for club slam, show short hearts, and have partner cooperate with holdings like KQ in hearts.

Huh? We have 19 hcp. Give everyone else 7, and I don't see anyone bidding. Who do you expect to bid hearts?

Huh? Double! I have never seen an overcall style where double wouldn't be obvious.

Good evaluation method! So you would do the same with xx xx xx AQxxxxx?

Waiting for Helene to tell us how often we have to see someone play the Q from QJ until it is worth trying exploit his tendency.

And he still got complaints about missing options!

Truly bad players will always play the J. I think we are talking about "good" players here, i.e. players who are good enough to try to do something tricky. Btw, I just wanted to mention that I am completely exploitable and always play the Q.

That settles it, none. Ok maybe Bramley? I hope Andy won't be insulted, but I believe Rosenberg > gnasher (as an analyst).

I really don't understand not bidding 3D. If partner has support, you may have to play 5D instead of 3N, which may or may not be good, and you may get to 6D, which will be good. If partner has a 5-card major, you will be excited (I would basically force to slam over 3S). If partner has neither, he will probably bid 3N which will be right-sided. (Yes we have a tenace in hearts but I believe on a heart lead we have good chances to make, anyway.)

Agree with Kfay, but: you should really watch the spots for clues! 9 x x J would make a duck from the king much more likely, e.g.

I guess it's a good opportunity to swing when you are down though.

Agree with Phil and Jeremy. Actually I think watching go players is more instructive than watching bridge players, because in every single game of go both players are faced with extremely challenging problems all the time. When I watch go games of players around my level or worse, it is always quite apparent to me whether they are playing at their best ability. If I start noticing little mistakes that someone usually wouldn't make, then usually they continue to make mistakes (and I would love to be able to bet on them losing the game at that point...)

If you're buying your ticket from a service like orbitz or expedia, be sure to clear the temporary files and cookies stored on your computer before you visit the site. These services want you to buy tickets on your first visit, and subsequent visits result in higher prices. At least this is what I was told by a professional travel blogger, so it may not be entirely accurate. That's interesting to know!

Me too.

Way too strong for me.

FYP.

You forgot to mention "great defensive plays" in connection with Hamman. When I have read about a remarkable defensive play only found at one table of an important event (e.g. old World Championship finals) it was quite often next to the name Hamman.

Fred, OP said that his treatment of support double didn't deny 3♥. This is why me and some others are tempted to double. Partner can have very probable 3-3-3-4 or 4-3-3-3 - exactly the shape he wouldn't double with playing non-mandatory support doubles. From what I see in the answers people (me included) choose 3♣ assuming pass denied 3♥. Does this consideration changes your mind or is it still obvious 3♣ for you ? I would still bid 3♣ as you are only catering to two specific shapes. However, I also question the wisdom of passing with 4333. I can understand not playing mandatory support doubles, but when you have only 3 cards in their suit AND opponents have a fit AND you can compete over their suit at the 2-level, then passing seems really bad. The time to pass with 3-card support would be when you a strong 4-card holding in their suit, say in the auction 1C 1H (1S) or 1D 1H (2C).

True and it's not just the endgame. Openings and middlegames are less thorough was well. Game times have been shortened starting in the 1940s and on, to accomodate spectators, commetary, even television, and public interest in general. That has succeeded, in a way; the playing population has boomed. But mistakes do work their way in. Go is an interesting model, because there has been a core of professionalism for more than four centuries. Bridge or even chess cannot compare to this. When this same debate comes up on the go forums, we see more players advocating ancient masters as greatest-ever candidates, and realtively fewer modernists who believe that the best players right now are the best players ever. Hmm, I want to challenge that. Of course 3 hour time-limit games are played on a worse level than games without time limit. But on equal conditions, and playing with komi, I would take any of the Korean superstars against the oldtime masters. (Just think about how much the level of go has improved in the last 25 years - it's not that the Japanese stars got worse, but they just got surpassed by new young players who are on a new level.) Of course go is played at a much higher level than bridge anyway, so the difference between the 19th century masters and today is not very big. (ducks and runs)

Clearly you lack imagination. ♦6 must be right! How is partner supposed to know to ruff the ♦A to give us a heart ruff??

Indeed you don't seem to know anything about this particular individual. He is not an Al-Qaeda leader. What is publicly known is basically that he is agitating against the US, in sermons and on Jihadist web sites. So it is plausible that he is (or functions as) a recruiter, but nothing more is known. So from the public information it seems impossible to justify claiming that he is an immediate threat for the US. Presumable the administration has (or believes to have) more information about him, that indicates that he is actively involved in terrorist plots. But there is certainly no confession, nor even anything resembling an indictment (not even by anonymous government officials) about any crime. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/a...-citizen/38592/ Btw, just as an aside, false confessions are one of the most frequent reasons for wrongful convictions.

Agree this looks clear to me, do we really want to suppress 4-card support when we have a singleton in their suit?

Double is takeout for me. Otherwise I wouldn't consider doubling!