nigel_k

I doubt you'll find any reputable economist who thinks that maximising government revenue should be the primary measure of a successful tax system. And surely we can do better than arguments of the form: Most of my opponents believe X X is false Therefore I am right about some issue only partly related to X I don't really buy the 'fairness' arguments about the tax rate (for either side) but I can understand why people make them. If I was going to try to state my position reasonably precisely, it would be complicated enough to state, let alone justify, that undecided voters would turn off long before I was finished. The problem is that there aren't that many arguments for either side that are both simple and correct. But it's worse for small government advocates because the losses from government failing to act are generally visible, and the losses from government doing too much are the reduced jobs and wealth that cannot be seen because they were never created in the first place.

I like the ideas in the articles on Bluejak's site, the main one being that you can make a forcing raise of partner's suit showing one of the top two honours and then follow up by encrypting based on which member of the partnership has the ace and which has the king. This is something that can be established at a low level without too much disruption to system. The simplest way seems to be to just have two ways to raise, e.g. 1♣-P-2♣ is a club raise with one of the top two honours and 1♣-P-2♦ is a club raise with zero or two. This caters for the vast majority of hands. But I don't see anything in the laws that says the key must be derived solely from hands played against the current opponents, and anything else must be disclosed. IMO you are required to disclose your implicit or explicit agreements. Obviously if you use something like your wife's birthday as the key then probably you have explicitly discussed the relevant information, or at least partner can infer it implicitly from your previous bidding and play. But in the case of a key that changes constantly, such as the number of tricks your side has taken in the session, I don't see that the value of the key itself is an undisclosed agreement. I'm not suggesting this ought to be legal or is even a remotely reasonable thing to do, just that it doesn't seem to actually be illegal.

A math nerd would know right away that 632217 is a multiple of three.

I'd pass both but obviously on the first one pass will often be wrong if partner has spades. This needs a simulation.

Agree with restarting discussions. To me this is an obvious 3♠ and I can't remember ever holding the preemptive one.

1. I think it just shows a maximum 2♠ bid based on high cards not shape. It's not for penalty but the doubler will pass more often than not probably since they would have acted over 3♥ with most offensive hands. 2. To me this is a bare minimum for a second double and pass would not be badly wrong. People who are making takeout doubles on 12 HCP 4333 shapes obviously need to double more freely the second time because partner will be reluctant to act in the passout seat.

I don't necessarily disagree with the conclusion but I don't think 3♠ is terrible. If West's minors are switched both games could easily be making. Essentially you would probably be happy bidding 3♠ with East when partner has club values but not when he has diamond values.

60% West and 40% East. I agree with everything gnasher said about East's first double, instead of 2NT or pass. I also prefer 3♠ at East's second turn instead of 3NT. But I still feel that West really contributed a lot to the problem by bidding 3♦ instead of 2♠ and then passing partner's double of 4♦. East's misdescription of his hand is small compared to West's.

You can look at specific hands: 1) xx Qxx Axxx xxxx. You can make 4{HE] if the ♣A is onside unless they are able to get all your trumps out in time which is quite unlikely. But 3NT doesn't have much play. However the ♣A onside means that either LHO failed to WJO with six spades and limited values, or RHO failed to raise with three card support and an ace. 2) xxx Qxx AQxx xxx. 4♥ still needs the ♣A onside but 3NT will very often make. These are just two examples but I tried to go for fairly typical ones where partner will not pull 3NT. From this it looks like 3NT is a better bet.

I'm intrigued by this idea. What sort of things can you use as an encryption key? If it has to be based on the current hand I have no idea how you could do it, but if not, it is quite easy. For example, base it on the total number of tricks your side has taken in the session so far. If that sort of thing is not illegal, it should be.

1) Agree with initial pass 2) Would now bid 3♥ showing a good spade raise 3) I suppose you could splinter if you play them after interference. But it's quite a bad hand and the stiff king isn't ideal.

I like this and you could do the same with leads out of turn instead of having a penalty card. I wonder why the 'theoretical approach people' prefer the existing law to the above. For revokes, maybe there could just be a general provision that the director can modify the standard penalty when it leads to a result that couldn't have occurred on any rational play and defence (analagous to the mistaken claim law). But if anything that might require a 'poorly trained club director' to use their judgment is dismissed as impractical, then maybe the revoke law can't be improved.

I would go on, expecting partner to be at least 5-5 or 4-6 to bid this way and the odds favour him having an ace. I know my hand is limited and 5♣ is a signoff but I have a perfect maximum which partner won't necessarily try to cater for, e.g. xx Axxxx x Jxxxx.

I would open 2♣ on all of them though 1 and 4 are close. I prefer to play 2♣ as forcing to game except for a 2NT rebid. Certainly you might wish to stop in 3♥ on hand 1 if partner has nothing, but it's quite rare that partner has absolutely nothing and he'll never know if the little he does have is useful, e.g. J10x xx xxxx Qxxx vs xxx xx J10xx Qxxx. So I don't think the gain from being able to stop in a partscore outweighs the cost.

How are you getting 32%? Club king onside, 3-3 break and 3-2 break comes to about 12% but there are some extra chances so maybe 15%.

I'm agree with mikeh. Playing weak NT, a 4432 shape with 16 HCP is normally a single raise. I wouldn't have used the phrase 'super-strong' but the jump raise is a bit stronger than it would be playing strong NT. However I still think 3♠ is not enough on the actual North hand. Kaplan/Rubens rates it at 19.3 plus you have a fit and ruffing values. I think South should also bid game. I'll give North 60% and South 40%.

I don't play this method and I can't see how the auction makes sense unless 2♦ is forcing so I'm not going to draw any inference from partner's decision to use 2♦ rather than bid a new suit or 3NT directly. There may very well be some inferences but I don't know what they are. We haven't told partner what he have. We could have quite a different hand and there isn't any obvious way for him to offer a choice of games with a hand such as AKxx x Jxx AQJxx. Certainly he hasn't guaranteed Ax of hearts and we will struggle in 3NT any time he doesn't have it. So I would pull to 4♥.

I also played this in 6NT on the same lead and took a second diamond finesse because I back myself to usually get clubs right if I have enough information about the distribution and I guessed that the value of that information would be worth more than the matchpoints I might salvage by avoiding going off more than one. Obviously I won't comment on the club suit since I know the hand.

Agree with this. Anyone who blames bad luck whenever the law doesn't work is going to be an extremely unlucky bridge player.

North appears blameless. The director would need to ask him some questions but probably it is logical to treat 3♠ as natural over a natural 3♥, especially for the class of player involved. Bad players often bid the way South did 'in case partner has forgotten'. So I wouldn't necessarily conclude that South realized his misexplanation or did anything else wrong unless he has UI. You could still get an adjustment if there was a misexplanation and the opening lead was affected. Or maybe South was woken up by North's reaction to the alert. I would be a little surprised if an inexperienced North failed to react at all but obviously the director would need actual evidence that it happened. Overall, without more information I agree with the ruling that the result stands despite South's apparently illogical pass.

4♦ then 5♦. I think it's quite unlikely 3♠ and 4♦ are both down so I can't afford to risk it going all pass. The biggest worry will be if they bid 4♠ and partner doubles. Passing that could be right but I would pull to 5♦ since my hand is not close to what partner will expect.

♥7

1♣ then 2♣. I have yet to be convinced that opening 1NT on this hand type with a small doubleton is a good idea, especially when my clubs are easily good enough to rebid. Really dislike 1♦ and would only ever do that as a last resort on something like x AJx AKQx Qxxxx.

It's true that matchpoints has the feature that a when a pair makes a mistake, this penalizes all the other pairs sitting in the opposite direction. Revokes are just one example. However the revoke law is very rigid and does seem out of step with the other laws that focus on restoring equity. Very often the penalty for a revoke will be much greater than what us needed to restore equity. IMO this is the real problem so shouldn't be fixed with a split result.

1. The 2♣ rebid is 100% correct and I'm surprised your partner would try to use this hand as evidence against it. 2. I prefer 2NT to 2♠ as partner will usually have something in diamonds so I would not feel that stiff queen is a weakness. Pass is an option here as well, certainly it is a minimum for further action. 3. Partner has an obvious 3♥ bid at the end since he has insufficient values for game and there is bound to be a weakness in either spades or diamonds. 2♥ could be anything up to 9 HCP and you stretched to bid 2NT to cater for that so it's very wrong for him to punish you by bidding game on a 4333 5 count.