nigel_k

I would suggest the analogy with football is more like this: If a strong attacking player opposing a weak goalkeeper is brought down, the team gets a penalty because he would likely have scored. If a weak attacking player opposing a strong goalkeeper is brought down, the team just gets a free kick outside the box because he probably would not have scored. That's what the laws of bridge effectively do now by taking into account the class of player involved. I am suggesting the same penalty (or free kick) in both cases, disregarding the ability of the actual players involved.

You are correct that the strength of the field would affect what you could legally do, but the advantage would be that everyone in the field would be held to the same standard, which I think is a pretty big improvement. I don't disagree that it would require a change in the laws. But the phrase "among the class of players in question" seems like a fairly typical example of the laws not quite being explicitly clear about what is actually meant.

I'm pretty sure he meant this as aspirational, i.e. the future actions, choices and achievements of the US will demonstrate that they are the greatest nation on Earth. Not literally reminding people as in just saying "hey, don't forget we're the greatest and you're not".

This is something I don't understand about the US. According to this link, in New Zealand's 2005 election we had 6094 polling stations for a population of about 4.1 million so a ratio of 673:1, three times better than your 'very lucky' town. It also says: '71% of voters voted in less than 5 minutes and 92% in less than 10 minutes. 98% of voters are satisfied with the waiting time.' If people complain about disenfranchisement from voters having to prove who they are, how much worse is it when people choose not to vote because they aren't willing to wait in line for 2 hours?

I no longer have confidence that the problem is solvable at all. My country is further down this track than the US. Our debt isn't proportionally bigger but the entitlement mentality is more entrenched. During my adult life (the last 25 years) we have gone from a centre-left government committed to fiscal responsibility to a centre-right government that has no intention of ever balancing the budget. We must eventually reach the point where Greece is now and go past it. There is a long term personal cost to spending money you don't have. But there is no such cost to spending other people's money, especially when those people cannot vote and may not even have been born. To refuse this money requires a strong sense of personal responsibility and a moral worldview that just won't permit you to take more out of the country than you put in. This has to be reinforced by a critical mass of others with the same views. Once that critical mass is lost, I doubt very much there is any way of getting it back. The best we can do know is understand how we got this way so other countries such as China can have a chance to stop the disease before too many are infected.

What regulation states this?

I would not consider pass. I have nine solid hearts and partner could not double. Obviously I didn't open 4♥ because I consider it the limit of what the hand is worth. I opened 4♥ in case we take exactly ten tricks and they make nothing and/or let us play there. That seems much less likely now. I don't have to stop playing bridge and just accept a poor result any time partner thinks before passing.

I tend to agree with Nick. It would be better if logical alternatives were assessed based on the average strength of the field, with reference to the methods, but not the skill level, of the actual players involved.

It looks like the actual rule doesn't outlaw an agreement to open 1NT with a singleton and instead just talks vaguely about what partner expects. It's quite possible that you may agree some hands with a singleton are best opened 1NT, but partner will never 'expect' a singleton and will not allow for it. So I don't think you need to lie to the director to make this work. The 1% threshold may still be a problem though.

Don't forget that he also cured cancer, achieved world peace, and will complete a procedure to reverse aging in his second term.

I would not make a slam try on the first one.

On the first one I would try again with 5♠. Probably partner should show some life with a good hand and no spade control, but they may not see it that way and we have a very good hand in any case. The second one I would always double. Third one 3♠ cue agreeing hearts. I'd return a spade on the fourth. Fifth one I definitely double. I have two aces and partner has minor suit cards, if not values. ♠A at the second trick, Since we didn't double let's just take our tricks. A trump could be right if we had doubled but I probably wouldn't because it needs too much. The last one I would not double ever if down only 18. Team-mates could have done anything. Only at matchpoints would I consider it. But I have not played penalty doubles here since 1986 so my judgment could be off.

I am not on lead, or at least not after this auction.

No, don't do this. Post whatever you want and we will look at it and find faults or make suggestions if we can. That's a perfectly good way of learning and, who knows, we may also learn something. Certainly you don't have to just sit quietly and listen to your betters. I definitely agree with mikeh's criticisms of the actual method though.

I agree with 1♣ but I certainly don't dislike having aces and kings. The shape is poor and an unsupported ten is not worth all that much. Make it Kxx AKxx xx A10xx and I would upgrade.

With: ♠ K ♥ AQxx ♦ A8xxx ♣ Qxx Maybe you can rebid 1NT, but you couldn't with an extra jack somewhere. And I would hate to reverse on that. A 1NT opening seems best, but I have never had to worry about the legality issue where I play. If you make the singleton a small card and add a jack, so something like: ♠ x ♥ AQJx ♦ AK8xx ♣ Qxx Now my feelings about reversing go from hate to just intense dislike. And I don't consider myself a 'strong' reverser. I would rebid 2♣ but any heart fit is probably lost because I would pass a preference to 2♦. At least there is only a narrow-ish range of hands where this can happen. Or you can play reverse Flannery. The weak NT helps to some extent because you can rebid your suit on weaker hands and rebid 1NT on stronger ones.

Anyone with the cardplay, defence, judgment, and team-mates of Nunes and Fantoni would have a lot of success. It's very hard to quantify the effect of system vs other factors. I would guess that, if they just played 2/1 with a weak NT and put the same level of work into it, their results would be very similar and quite possibly slightly better. I personally don't like Fantunes because I want to open weak two bids as often as possible, and, while I prefer the weak NT, I don't want to be forced by system to open it on all kinds of unsuitable hands. The upside of their system doesn't seem enough to compensate. Their leads and carding methods are definitely worth a look though.

Definitely a 1♠ response. The worst that can happen is a 2NT rebid by opener on a hand where 1♣ would have made or you would have got a plus score some other way. But many good things can happen. The idea that you need 6 HCP or even 5 HCP to respond has been dead for some time. Unfortunately it has never been given a proper funeral and burial and is now starting to stink up the place. But don't take too much of the blame when it is your team-mates that missed the 3NT game. The converse of responding 1♠ on this hand is that, when opponents do it, you shouldn't take them seriously and instead continue to bid constructively if your hand warrants it.

Definitely for takeout. Their combined strength may not be great when they do this. Bid like it's your hand until proven otherwise.

On 2, I would bid 2♣ then 3♠ which I think leaves partner with a very clear 4♠. If it went 2♣-2♠ and he bid 3NT then you have to guess. When there is a chance to play in 3NT with an eight card major fit, I really prefer it if both partners know about the fit and can choose whether their hand is right for 3NT, rather than just ending there because one player chose to conceal their suit length. Hence my preference for 3♠ to let partner decide. There is a risk of 3♠-1 when you could have stopped in 2♠, but playing the right game is pretty important.

You could cash ♠K then play on clubs, which will be necessary if West has something like Qxx T98x AKJxx x. So you would be relying on him not overcalling on that, as well as East always taking the ♥A when they don't have Jxxx of clubs. I would want to be at the table for this kind of decision.

I don't understand how people play bridge this way.

On the first hand I would invite opposite a constructive raise and pass opposite a standard raise. On the second hand, you didn't give the vulnerability but the insane option (3♠ not 2♠) looks about right to me.

Interesting idea and well presented and described. Maybe you should have typed the details into your post as not everyone will be comfortable clicking on an attachment by an unknown poster. A full analysis with a comparison of specific gains and losses vs standard methods would be helpful as well. A couple of comments: I am reluctant to assign an artifical meaning to a natural weak 3♣, not just because of the risk of forgetting, but also because there is no alternative to passing with those hands. If you give up the cheapest WJO (1♣-2♦, 1♦-2♥ or 1♥-2♠) then not only is it lower ranking but you have the option of bidding 1 or 3 with the hand that can no longer bid 2. If you slightly change the actions over 1♠ so that 3♣ is red suits, you can use it with strong hands and also transfer the declaration keeping the unknown hand hidden and putting opener on lead. But this would spoil the symmetry of the system.

It's fourth seat white at matchpoints and he's a passed hand. Defending 1NT doesn't look great and there is a decent chance that 2♣ will hit something in partner's hand or at least drive them to a lower scoring spot. Anyway, what do people think partner has, assuming we're playing with a 40 point deck? If he has more shape you certainly want to be bidding, not doubling.