cherdanno

Btw, I don't think criticizing the committee for being "political" is fair. It's like criticizing a gay rights advocate for being political. It's a long tradition that the prize isn't only given to people who end wars, but also for those who fight against injustice, against human right violations, against discrimination. I bet the award for Martin Luther King Jr. was also seen as political advocacy at the time. Which doesn't reflect so badly on the committee if you think about it now, doesn't it?

Except that, you know, they can also award someone for great things she did 3 years ago. Or 5 years ago.

Well, the committee has made awards based on "hope this will help them in the future" rather than "look at what they accomplished" before (even though of course they wouldn't admit it). Remember Arafat? Meanwhile, anyone know Hertha Mueller?

Do you think this was more due to the team spirit thing, or due to the teams selected by teams trials consisting of better pairs?

I don't think it is close at all.

Option 3: Cherdanno picks the 3 best pairs for USA1. USA2 can fight it out in ACBL robot individuals or whatever :)

It's so obvious that declarer is more likely to have a heart void than a club void! Mike!

I don't particularly hate a ♥ lead, but calling it safe?? It surely does not look safe to me! I would lead a ♦. I would probably bid 2♦ on the second (assuming it is an artificial force) and pass whatever partner bids.

South the given hand. North 17-20 hcp (*), no 5-card suit, at least one 4-card major. 1000 runs, South makes 7NT 633 times, goes down in 6N 11 times. Curiously, in the few hands i looked at i saw about as many hands where you would go down in 6N instead of making when playing single dummy, as in 7N. (Opposite ♦Kx, you often have to play diamonds for 4 winners to make 6N.) (*) I would think with 17 hcp partner will usually bid 6N. He will have KQx(x)-suits that he will like opposite our likely aces. S.th. like KQJx Kx Kxx KQxx - add a spot and now do you really want to be genius and play in 4N opposite 16 hcp? There were a few 7N-1 though with 17hcp where one certainly wouldn't bid it though (KQ tight aside from no fit etc).

Well, i am sorry if posted in wrong forum. I thought it doesn't matter when an eventual winner played. Really does it matters? Thanks for your time. Of course it does. Maybe the suit layout is [hv=n=skx&w=sjt98x&e=sq7xxx&s=sa]399|300|[/hv] Declarer (West) least the 9, and partner is thinking about playing the king. But when he sees your ace, of course he won't.

Uh yes, because partner might have 5-card support and a singleton? I would still pass though, especially as 2♦ is probably badly defined (i.e., as showing diamonds, not implying longer clubs).

Agree with both Bill and Andy.

4♠. I am not generally opposed to opening at the 2-level with 65 or 66 hands, planning to bid again, but here we would probably have to bid 5♣ over 4♥, bypassing our most likely par contract in 4♠.

Playing 1C P P X XX as "pre-rescue" in case LHO has a penalty pass seems misguided - responder could well have a 0-count with 4/5 clubs where there is no reason to run from 1♣. Standard is "strong balanced". So there is still a need for responder to rescue on the first auction.

I think those who bid 2♠ only misevaluate xxx of hearts. Without the 2♥ raise, these would be terrible cards, but given the raise, it is great to have no wastage opposite partner's doubleton.

I am not really suggesting that the forum software underlying BBF should be upgraded, but if it's ever considered here are the features I would appreciate the most: - Have the option to ignore some forums when looking at "View New Posts" (in my case, I would like to filter out the laws forum, as well as forums in languages I don't understand) - Have the option to ignore specific posters (this might as well cut down on the number of flamewars in the forum...)

Yeah that's the kind of hand because of which I would hate being TD. Opponents bid 5♦ white against red after trying to play 4♦, and I have two aces. And now I have to think whether someone who didn't double would be more likely to double given a different explanation??

I thought it obvious that actions "demonstrably suggested" includes actions that are, given the UI, demonstrably more percentage than before. I couldn't imagine any bridge player would think otherwise. But then, I have really not much of a clue about the laws, and so assumed that the silent majority of posters with better knowledge about the laws than me had reasons for their silence. Btw, if you wanted to construct an example, I would take an invitation by a passed hand, in an auction where a GF is barely possible. I guess you would have to make up the system somewhat :)

So you want to play 4♠ with a small doubleton opposite a 5 card suit, when your partner shows weakness, in the face of opponents, who told you that the suit is not breaking well? Sounds to me like a sort of hara-kiri at the Bridge table Strange how many people want to play 4S when opener has not guaranteed more than 5 cards there. 4♠ could easily be down with 5♦ or even 6♦ on. It is even imaginable that opener has opened a minimum hand 1♠ with 5 cards in ♠ and 6 cards in ♦ Rainer Herrmann So partner opens 1♠ with 5 spades and 6 diamonds because he isn't prepared to bid 4♠ over heart preempts after opening 1♦, but he is willing to bid 4♦ over heart preempts after he opens 1♠? No thanks. In any case I would take 4♥ as slammish in support of diamonds, so I have to make a choice between 4♠ or 5♦. I would bid 4♠ as I think partner will be 65 more often than 55. Btw, even cooperating with a slam try is absolute nuts.

I tried the pass strategy once with a good hand, assuming that the opps wouldn't pass 2♦. It didnt work, they were down in 2♦ but we missed our cold slam. and your point is what? That the partner of the 2♦ bidder may pass anyway if he thinks we have game, whether he has diamonds or not. Do you really think 1NT-(2♦) - p - (p) means that the 1NT opener is forced to bid or X? No, but what is wrong with defending 2♦ undoubled with your hand in this thread?

Yeah, we should be happy we have the judgment decision on this one, why throw away that advantage? Same as throwing away the advantage from the UI on the first one.

The description of a bid can sometimes completely hide other bids (even possibly the most recent one).

Wow, the young people these days! Now a 5431-hand with a fit for partner (and partner likely to have shortness opposite my weak 4-card suit) has become "flat"! When I was young, you had to be 4333 with xxx trumps to use this word...

That sound like: A: "I find it unacceptable that we are spending so much money on health care in the US and still have so many people without insurance not getting the help they need." B: "That just shows you just don't understand how health care in the USA works." I don't think that's a good analogy, and not just because Gib is a toy. When they fix the bidding they make corrections or slight changes to the code. Fixing the play would involve rewriting the code entirely in a different way, in other words writing a new program altogether. In other words, the healthcare system could be changed in major ways and still be the healthcare system. Gib could not be changed in this way because then it wouldn't be Gib. So the only constructive element to complaints like this are really for someone to write a new bridge-playing robot and for BBO to use that instead of Gib. You seem to know a lot about GIB. For example, apparently you know that it is impossible to automatically generate more simulations with bad breaks when random simulations do not yield significant differences between various lines. And you know that many similar ideas that I didn't come up with while thinking about it for 2 mins are impossible to implement either? In any case, there is a difference between saying "here is a problem" and saying "XYZ should fix this problem!". I can complain about the disastrous state of public transport in the USA even if I know that this is almost impossible to fix. Anyway, welcome back :)

That sound like: A: "I find it unacceptable that we are spending so much money on health care in the US and still have so many people without insurance not getting the help they need." B: "That just shows you just don't understand how health care in the USA works."