cherdanno

Nigel, I read your review. I don't understand your point. From the above it sounds like your review is evidence that the accusations are based on flimsy evidence. In the first three examples, there are clear standout leads, or at least clear standout alternatives, and the lead chosen at the table is not among them. If this was a hand on vugraph, and you asked me for a bet, I would have given 15:1 odds against the lead chosen at the table. In the last hand, there is very good bridge logic supporting the lead chosen at the table. I am happy to bet that it would be the majority choice among all expert BBF posters here, if you make it a poll.

I will let you in into a secret: to take a trick, it's not enough to play the highest card in the suit to trick. You also have to make sure that nobody is allowed to ruff you trick with a trump! :P :P You should expect North to be short in the minors (a typical shape for his bidding would be 6511), so your ♦K and ♣Q probably don't take tricks. Similarly, your ♥J may not take a trick if South has a doubleton heart.

Yes, I really thought the line you mention was the best one. Which one is? How about

What a better way to start your birthday than reading a back-handed compliment from Jlall! Enjoy.

Seriously?

I have been wondering about GIB's partscore penalty passes. Maybe GIB's simulations are too random, of course, the variance is quite high on these decisions so you would need a lot of simulations to get a good estimate whether pass is a long term winner. But maybe it is us humans who are biased, because we remember the big disasters (-870) more than the more frequent smaller gains (+200 instead of -100, +500 instead of +170, +800 instead of +620).

You shouldn't be surprised when you are reporting 3.2 million year old stuff.

Not to go all Winstonm, but isn't this the normal course of action? (Need I mention Iraq?)

I agree. We should just make sure that the market actually sees all the hidden costs. E.g. a carbon tax would be ideal for that.

I've been on a mission regarding this and I'll stay on it. No one EVER does that in real life when they think the trumps are out. Not one time in a thousand. When trumps are out and are all in one hand, every bridge player in the universe plays the remaining ones from the bottom up, always (maybe slight exception for experts trying to hide a card, but certainly for any player less than that). So if ruffing low would cost and ruffing high is right then he can be made to lose the trick, but you can't force a ruff with the ace that no one would ever make imo. Lol are you serious? No one ever does that? I see this all the time. Also I assume you mean they play a low one when ruffing only? Obviously when playing out trumps most players just play them from the top.

I think it is much easier to predict the effect of the stimulus on the unemployment numbers, than to predict the actual unemployment numbers. So no, it's not useful for that either.

But, in fact, this must be done -- and will be, eventually. Btw, Richard, did you know that you have Howard Weinstein on your side? He made some remarks on that in a Bridge World writeup of a championship - I don't remember which one, unfortunately.

I think it is more natural when you come from the other end. Usually a cuebid shows something in that suit. 1S 3S 4C 4D, here 4D shows s.th. in diamond. But sometimes, when we have only one cuebid, it just shows strength. (3H) 3S, now 4H is the only cuebid and it only shows a good spade raise, not a heart control. Same with 3-level cuebids when you are looking for 3N. (1S) 2C (2S) 3S is not "asking for a stop", it just shows a good hand with club support, as it is the only cuebid we have.

Surely you are joking Ken. You wouldn't post a hand where partner made a takeout double with one hcp. I am sure RHO has the club void, and partner thought double is penalty.

I think it's silly to play gambling 3NT in the "no side card" sense opposite a passed hand. Discussing followups to such an agreement seems a waste of time.

I don't like gambling 3NT. I prefer 3N to show a preempt with a solid minor.

so you don't think the stimulus was a policy failure? Well, some think it should have been bigger. I guess they may have been right. But I am sure it has prevented the situation from becoming much worse.

The insult? "Sorry p, I think we deserve each other. Actually, even if you bid like that I have still beat you and bid worse than you on this hand. But it's close."

I think South made 1N+2 at the other table. I would think spade lead to the Q and K, ♠A-oops (♦ pitch), heart switch to the J and A, heart back. South cashes two spades and West pitches a club, still thinking declarer has ♦A. Wasn't too hard was it?

My experience is that people are pretty good at hesitating without giving anything away. Making it obvious that you aren't actually thinking about your hand is, of course, cheating, and should be reported. For me, "cheating" means "intentionally breaking the rules in order to get an unfair advantage". Hence your second sentence is just wrong, 99% of players who give away whether they are thinking are either - not aware that they should make an effort not to give this away, or - not aware that they are giving away whether they are thinking. Since your second sentence is so wrong (IMO), I find it hard to believe your first sentence, no matter where you live.

Make that KJ732. No, I am pretty sure most people would not double.

Nothing against Sushi parties, but well-prepared sushi of good fresh fish is something worth paying for (if you go out to eat in restaurants at all).

you have some objection to ...4♣ 4♦;4♥... I do.

The club suit has more HCP's though. Points Shmoints. We have 5 of the top 8 diamonds, and only 2 of the top 8 clubs. And we have 7 of the top 12 diamonds, but only 3 of the top 12 clubs.

Nah I am sure Justin read the auction as 1H 1S 2H.