cherdanno

In that case there would be now blame but still 3H would have been a terrible bid.

As it should be! That's debatable. Brogeland > Helness?

Please don't bid 1H, ty.

This is the wrong question. It's too late for me to think about a good explanation, but maybe the following reasoning is intuitive: Fred's question would be the right question if we knew the first 8 cards partner got dealt were 4 spades and 4 diamonds, and then we watch him getting dealt 5 more random cards. What we actually know is that partner got dealt at least 4 diamonds and 4 spades in total - but maybe he got his 4th diamond only on the 13th card he got dealt, so there was never time to deal him another diamond. (To Fred: I would guess sure you have already thought about this difference - as it is the reason why writing a dealing program with constraints is tricky.)

But it is correct (assuming we ignore the hcp restrictions).

When determining whether a play is irrational, does the level of the players matter?

You're imagining it, at least as far as the current laws are concerned. However: (Emphasis mine.)

Agree. I was not trying to make any claims (haha) about what the Laws actually say (I have no idea) or what I think they *should* say (I am not really qualified to offer a meaningful opinion). Fred Gitelman Bridge Base Inc. www.bridgebase.com So what is the purpose of your commenting on a laws forum on a subject in which you are not qualified to offer an opinion, although I find this hard to believe, as I would expect you to have at least a basic knowledge of the Laws? Especially when you preface two of your postings with 1000%? We all agree that there are many people who would accept the claim here. The purpose of this forum is to decide what the correct ruling is if the TD is called. And I would submit that is one more trick to the defenders. And I am certain that is 1000%. And, like campboy, I take a dim view of someone who would laugh at the opponents for calling the director. Umm. Fred's "1000%" phrase said that in a strong game, it was 1000% clear what declarer meant. This is not a claim of what the ruling should be, so someone making that claim only has to know declarers in a strong game, and has to know nothing about the laws. Nevertheless, I very much hope it is relevant for the ruling. If every player in a strong game would understand this claim the way Fred does (and despite having played only very few very strong games, I was 99.9% sure this is true even before I read Fred's and Justin's opinion in this thread), then I would hope that any director would take that into consideration. To me, this is the equivalent of having a trump suit of AKQJxx opposite xx and only winners on the side, playing one round of trumps from the top, then claiming. It is obvious to everyone that I was checking for a 5-0 trump break, and (I assume) nobody would call the director in this case if I claimed the rest without saying "pull trumps from the top".

4S, I just like the odds of it going double-all pass too much.

Yeah 3♦ and I like my chances of winning a game swing against the "I NEED 6 HCP TO RESPOND"-crowd.

I like 2NT. If partner has a doubleton without 4 hearts, it is probably the right strain and will get us to the right level, and if he has a singleton, he will probably find another. Not sure whether that makes me a woman or a cat though.

Just shows you both have taste for jokes!

The Massachusetts situation is rather peculiar, as it already had state-wide health care reform with many similar features as the one proposed by the Democrats now for the whole nation. It was supported by Republican Mitt Romney then and was also supported by Brown now. (His argument against the national plan was along your "there is nothing in it for MA" lines.) Polling suggests that health care was not the deciding factor in this election. My impression is rather that there is a backlash against "Washington" - so the same backlash as all the time - which is just now turned against Democrats.

I second this one. It's really one of the most eye-opening threads I have seen on BBF, and I think one of its lessons (preempt with shortness in the majors!) is by far not well-known enough. Hmm I don't understand this thread... Tysen is really smart though! He wrote a famous poker book after all of this also. Cliff note version: What's the worst shape to pick up in a money game? No, not some 4333, it is 2=2=(5-4).

I second this one. It's really one of the most eye-opening threads I have seen on BBF, and I think one of its lessons (preempt with shortness in the majors!) is by far not well-known enough.

The last time I didn't double an opponents' slam because we were going to win 13 IMPs anyway we picked up five (-3 in slam at our table, -1 in game at my teammates table). So I don't like that argument very much. If they run, I believe doubling again should be lightner (asking for a high-ranked suit). So when I double 6N and don't double 7C, maybe partner has a shot at leading a diamond... Anyway, the moral of the story seems to be to try to find teammates who can bid :)

I didn't expect "cutting down" to be such a literal expression...

Maybe you want to make a slam try with 4423 shape?

There was a thread ages ago where Justin called this bid "preemptive" and Frances "invitational", although I think it seemed they didn't agree all that much on which hands would bid it (Justin's preemptive hands where still ok to get raised opposite a min with 4 trumps and controls). Maybe Csaba can find it...

Btw, the main feature I miss from the old windows days is how a team match automatically transformed into a chat room after the last board. Was much more social, and made it very easy to organize rematches. Maybe one could just leave the table who finishes last open after they have played the last hand?

also 50 is an overbid. I think my mactop only fits about 23 names on the screen at once. For me it's 19.

Adam, this is really a ridiculous comparison. I don't know Hardy's book, but I have read Lawrence's. What you call "rough basis" I recall as a book that is mostly not about system, but about bidding. On hand evaluation for slam bidding. Of course there are also some sections that are mostly on system, but they also define 2/1 much better than the SAYC booklet. (Do you really know how to bid in the auction 1D (P) 2C after reading the SAYC booklet?) The only artificially really required by playing 2/1 instead of SAYC are the forcing 1NT, together with the 3-card minor rebids after 1M 1N.

What matmat says, but with this hand, please force to game, typ. You have 7 running tricks plus extra help opposite an opener, what else do you need to force to the level of 3NT? This hand has extras for 2♣ GF.

I do it the same way actually (and never really thought about why I do it that way or why it is correct). Seems quite natural to compute a determinant by using elementary row operations, now that I do think about it.

Nooooooooooo! ?! My girl friend agrees with you :rolleyes: