jjbrr

It's clear to pass 5♣. No one has shown a ♦ cuebid. And you have a minimum anyway and partner hasn't cooperated for slam. Your 4♥ bid 100% DENIES 3♥ because of the failure to bid 3♥. It is right to bid 3♥ instead of 3♠ because partner hasn't denied 6♥ and 4♥ could definitely be the right spot on this auction and will be a huge majority of the time. If this were an "assign the blame" for missing 4♥, you would get 100% for not bidding 3♥.Your partner should not pass 4♥ after you bid 3♠ because you're looking for slam in ♣ and not offering it as a place to play.

bid 3♥ instead of 3♠

Ya sorry. the stuff about 5♣ was directed at Reid

considering the crap people open 2C with when it is strong, forcing, and artificial, I would think 1C would be allowed with that example. i think its very wrong to open 1♣ with that. upgrading by 1 point is fine, but AK xxx x AKxxxxx is a clear 2♣ bid to me in precision. edit: but with that said, i would have raised with the hand with only 2♣ and an AQ and a doubleton, so obv 2♣ can contain some pretty decent hands. i just strongly feel that a strong 1♣ is wrong with that hand, and that after 2♣ it's a bidder's game and it's good to jam this auction a lot. it's hard to penalty double at the 3 level when you know someone has a 6-card suit and the other guy has a fit. but particularly after a double where 2M will likely be great for them, it's good to preempt them a little with a raise. it's pretty low risk imo and in cases like this where partner has a 4♣ rebid, we're sort of in a good spot. i also think 5♣ is wrong. 3NT could be way better, and you have some defense, and you'll get a chance to bid 5♣ if partner shows interest. what's the hurry?

He could have like AK 7th and an AK outside. I think this hand is close to bidding 5♣, and it'll probably make 11 tricks on a ♥ lead with the K onside, but I'd still pass this. Opposite myself, I would definitely raise to 3♣ the first time. Opposite someone who sometimes opens 2♣ on 5, it's clear to pass.

Am i supposed to notice the pattern that when I said "The internet reports EXACTLY WHAT THE NEWSPAPERS REPORTS IN MOST CASES." that that was fact rather than opinion? What's your point? The original question was "Would I pay $X for newspapers" and my answer was "No, I can get it for free." Is the information in all those links 100% fact? I have no idea. Is it close enough to 100% fact that I can get the basic idea of what happened? Yes. If I wanted to further research the topic to get the whole truth, could I? Yes. Would it be irresponsible to take everything in those articles as fact and not question either the credibility of the source or that the information is accurate? Completely.

If the newspaper / press service folds, where does the online edition copy the information from? The internet reports EXACTLY WHAT THE NEWSPAPERS REPORTS IN MOST CASES. Your guess is as good as mine if the newspaper folds. But chances are I won't give the internet information as much credibility even as I do now!

Learn to read, *****-for-brains... Show me where I claimed that newspapers never contain any element of opinion. Indeed, in my original response, I was very careful to differentiate between the Op Ed pages and reporters who are collecting information. When you debate people, its generally frowned upon to misrepresent the other person's argument. It might be easier, but damn, it sure makes you look stupid. 2 does not logically follow 1 unless what I said is true. Unless you're somehow bringing Op Eds into the discussion with "facts" which is completely irrelevant to the quality of information posing as fact in a newspaper compared to that as a fact online.

And anyway, I stand by my claim that the newspaper industry is suffering. At the risk of getting flamed for sharing an expert's opinion on the matter, I turned to PBS: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/ne...aperprimer.html It seems I'm not the only one content with getting information at no cost, even if it has some minor flaws, which I don't really care about.

I'm sorry, but maybe you're just not very good at using the internet. There are plenty of places where the information provided is either first hand just like newspapers or the articles are copies of the newspaper columns verbatim. I don't really feel like doing much research, but I suspect I could find almost all of recent NY Times and Washington Post articles somewhere on the internet. Many local papers print the same articles in their papers, and they put those on the internet. If you somehow think the information in your precious newspapers is better than that online, despite being EXACTLY THE SAME, I think you're nuts. Furthermore, any responsible reader will realize that news industries are a business. They have a lot of incentive to get the information to the reader ASAP, and it doesn't take an hrothgar to realize that sometimes you sacrifice quality when you need to do something quickly. As such, a prudent reader will realize information that you seem to consider fact in newspapers may not be the truth or the complete truth or whatever. That's why I put "facts" in quotations, because I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "facts" when it should be easy to see that information in newspaper columns is often far from fact. Like I said, if you're looking for facts anywhere but the almanac, you're about as nuts as those who call Obama the Antichrist. So enlighten me. What "facts" are in newspapers? Surely there are interpretations of facts or partial facts, but I would go so far as to say the whole truth has never been told in a newspaper article. With that said, are newspapers a valuable source of information? Absolutely. Is the internet a better source of information? Yes, if you know where to look and don't indiscriminately take everything at face value. And speaking of inane arguments: "1. You started off by saying that you didn't see any value in newspapers because all the important news is available all over the web. 2. I responded that that there is a difference between opinion and factual information." is just retarded. You honestly think newspaper columns are facts and never contain any elements of opinion? You honestly think all news on the web is opinion and not fact? That's completely nuts.

Read any good almanacs lately?

Enlighten me. Do you always scoff at people whose interests are different from yours?

Well, in fairness, I don't put much value on "facts" and even less on "opinions" so maybe you're right. Do you have a convincing argument about why I should be so interested in "facts" that are in newspapers but not online? This obviously shouldn't be a philosophical debate, but "facts" don't really make much difference in one's life.

Newspapers are going the way of the dodo. The important news is readily available in a million places on the web. Local articles are almost always online. Sports columns and analyses can be found everywhere online. Political hullabaloo is everywhere. What am I missing? I suppose something like WSJ would be worthwhile to me, but for the Times or Washington Post or something, I just don't put enough value in it.

Double seems painfully obvious.

Why can't we just defend 1NT and try to go plus?

3NT

ask them.

The country needs more people like JoAnne. That's the perfect way to look at it and a good way to say it.

It's not clear to me, also, that this won't be doubled. What hands can the guy have to pass 3♣? The answer is weak hands with ♣ and ♦, so there is a strong argument for double. So gnasher's points might be somewhat tenuous, though like I said, passing is def a possible winning action.

It could certainly work, though there is no reason to expect we won't play in a 5-card fit, that partner's ♥ aren't better than our ♣, or even that we might make a game. We do have an ace more than we promised. though I admit it's very unlikely that we'll make game or even go plus for that matter. We know ♣ will be a miserable contract, especially with a million diamond losers. We don't know either major will be miserable; it's just likely. I don't imagine we have any inference about RHO's pass vs double?

This is Ok. Do you expect that partner understands what means 6♣ and how to continue? Yes

1♦

I'm just glad people have dropped the whole Obama/Osama/Hussein thing.

at the club, a plus score at MPs is a good score imo. In the Platinums I'll play the ♠. Go big or go home. Better kfay?