cherdanno

Pass - I don't like to play 4-3 fits when an opponent has announced a 5-5 two-suiter.

Yeah how can North not double 3♠?

You haven't been posting much either!

Come on Roland. This is an urgent count situation, why do you want to preserve a heart honor? If you play the 7, partner won't know whether you have QJ73 or QJ7.

Yes. Penalties. Most likely to be strong balanced, but doesn't have to be. Hmm, do you two really agree? Josh says there is a negative inference from not bidding NT now, you say it is most likely strong balanced (I happen to agree with that). Too bad we can't ask jdonn anymore :P

But he already has a double-n!

Do you think team strategy should be different depending upon whether a team is playing a series of 16-board matches as opposed to a single 128 board match? If you think there should be a difference in the way teams approach these two possibilities, then I think a good case can be made for your trials to mimic the championship format. I knew that posting the question would help. I think that the 16-board match rounds are pretty much irrelevant to the team strategy and, when I've been NPC, I've told the team that they need to consider it as a 320 board tournament. The conversion to VPs make little difference in the long run. Thanks for reminding me! Since you asked the question, I was automatically assuming you have the opposite opinion! The only reason I could see to play it as 8 matches of 16 boards would have been to give players practice with the state of the match considerations. (When you are down, there is a bit of advantage to swinging.)

He didnt promise to stop playing robot tourneys, did he?

Did Armstrong let go of the attack at the second summit because he didn't want to help Wiggins? Or because he wasn't able to? If the former, did he do the right thing? Clearly he would have been a stronger helper for Contador against the Schlecks than Kloeden today.

Me too, although I am waiting for louisg to correct the dummy before i play to trick one B)

Let me just add one thing that Mike and Josh didn't mention. 3N would be a much better bid if you have ♠Axx. As it is, spades could very well be 6232 around the table (with partner having 2). In that case, you cannot shutout preempter's spade suit by holding up, and you would need to take 9 top tricks right away. If you have Axx, you can duck twice and then establish tricks if you only lose the lead to LHO.

A frequent forum poster gave me more sympathy towards an adjustment in about 3 lines of chat than the 10 or so posts by the poster in this thread arguing in favor of N/S. If 4♦ was last train, declarer denied a spade control, and East didn't stress having one, so there is a good case to be made for trying to lead dummy's ♠Kx(x). If 4♦ showed shortness, then declarer implied a spade control by his bidding, and opening leader might prefer the safe diamond lead. I don't really agree with these conclusions, but if this is the case North had made to the TD, would you rule in favor of him?

Given that they were not a regular partnership and had many hundreds of pages of system notes, I it is questionable that they had a proper agreement about what 2NT meant. Say I give you 100 pages of system notes the day before we play, and you tell me "yeah it looks fine" after half an hour, and I know that on page 59 there is the bazumba convention that I know you have never played, and this bid comes up during the play. Can I really assume that your bid is intended as the bazumba convention, and have I fullfilled my obligations when I alert and explain your bid means bazumba? Of course, "no agreement" is not a good explanation either. Maybe you have read page 59, after all.

I wouldn't double with the South hand, but it doesn't seem wrong. Good psych East!

Sorry p, I have a little too much Hamman in me! Will have to remember that for my post-mortems.

The phrase you quoted was the explanation for the noun "subsitute". I change my vote though to "both exist" and "jdonn is right in this specific use in law 27B4". However, in the context that REALLY matters, i.e. football (the one with a ball not the one with a banana), there is clearly a "substitute" = new player, and a "substituted player" = the one who had to come off the field.

Heh. I vote for bluejak (and believe jdonn misunderstood the dictionary if his reference is http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/substituted ).

Doctor, doctor, I have a split personality! - Yeah, ok. We will have to talk about that. One of me wanted to lead a diamond! - CALL AN AMBULANCE WE NEED TO BRING THIS GUY TO A HOSPITAL.

Even more offensive power! No it doesn't make a difference to me.

Btw, I now agree that this discussion is off-topic for a laws forum. Laws are meant to be the rules that are identical for events starting from the non-life masters Wednesday afternoon game to the final of the Bermuda Bowl. As long as noone wants to enforce Fred's rule in the Wednesday afternoon game, and as long as the laws allow for it, the place for this regulation is in the Condition of Contests. Where, apparently, at least in NA things are not so far removed from the way Fred and his friends like to see them. (I believe the USBF has a similar rule in the CoC.)

Are you bidding again after 1D-1H-1S-2H 4H-P-4S-P ? Curt Of course not. This hand has just the right strength for a splinter. This isn't contradicted by the fact that it makes slam opposite a hand with two keycards and a fit for our suit.

"Spadey" Good answer. I don't even think partner raising on 3 creates much of a risk. They are very unlikely to find a balancing double since they have too many hearts, and if RHO were to make a penalty pass of one he would probably have had a 1♥ overcall to begin with. You will just go for 150 peacefully if partner raises on 3. Well ok, that is a fair risk. Stupid matchpoints. Even at IMPs your lottery ticket is far too pricey IMO. There are many balanced 13 counts where opponents don't have game, and you are getting to the wrong partscore by bidding 1♥. Yeah sometimes you win the lottery when neither opponent can balance you out of your 3-3 heart fit when they have 3NT on, but that gives only twice as many IMPs than the double partscore swings you are losing.

Strong? I think we should measure him by the standard he set for himself. He wanted to win the tour. Without the team trial and the accidents on the third stage, where would he be placed now? Well he's in 2nd Place now. That is at lot better than other so called favorites like Menchov, Sastre or Evans. And without the crash and the team trial he would be pretty much exactly where Sastre and Evans are.

No, passed hand 2/1 responses are non-forcing.

I think you missed Fred's main motivation. Forgetting systems spoils some of the fun for opponents.