shyams

I suspect the original book from where he picked this example had a problem that read "...defeat 7♠...", not 6♠ This is getting hillarious ...

This may sound crazy but I feel the urge to cue 4♦! Yes, I know I do not have 1st/2nd round control; but once I cue, the opps are equally in the dark about it. Their natural lead will most likely be a club or a trump. Yes, I realise partner still needs to put down a strong hand etc; but there is no harm investigating.

Third spade. Partner's singleton ♥K will get promoted Declarer could possibly have started with ♠65 ♥AT98764 ♦AKQ ♣6

IMHO, the only proper action for the United States (and indeed the Western world) is to do nothing (and probably say very little as well). Absolutely nothing. The main reason the Iranian Govt is pushing the nuclear agenda back to the forefront is to expect some form of retaliation (e.g. Sanctions) that will automatically invoke solidarity within the Iranian people against the common enemy. At this time, I'd strongly believe the Iranian people are against the Iranian leaders. Let the situation reach its natural conclusion. Any action that distracts the people from hating the leaders and redirects it to hating the foreigners is not good.

I see the injustice in reducing a 95% score for the NOS to a 60% but would it not make sense for the Director to check the corrected hand for West? e.g. West led a club from (12 card hand) ♠ Kxx ♥ Kx ♦ xxx ♣ xxxx and the debacle ensued (E/W headed for a near zero). But, if the hand was ♠ Kxxx ♥ Kx ♦ xxx ♣ xxxx, West might have led a low spade. This might change the subsequent defense -- perhaps the other suit lead is a 'guiding beacon' to average defence I do not know if my suggestion is relevant in a Laws sense, but I think the Director should at least look at the corrected West hand before ruling that N/S keep the 95% score.

I think the presence of major suit J + T in the two hands makes all the difference. And I do not have any way of finding/showing these during the bidding. If I reach slam with these hands, it is more likely a serendipitious bidding misunderstanding -- normally I would score up a +480

Yes I would

I'm usually not confident on these type of problems but here are my choices FWIW: 1. I'd underlead the club Ace on this one. * The possibility of losing the Ace due to underlead is low (although there are other risks like allowing declarer 2 tricks instead of 1 if he played the suit himself). * The possibility of forcing declarer to ruff 3rd round of club while our side retains control is decent; and the bad trump break would hurt declarer if we force him to ruff clubs early. 2. I'd cash the club Ace. I do not trust opps fully and they may easily have hands with running tricks in both their bid suits. I fear 12 or even 13 tricks for their side if we do not cash out.

I'm not well informed so forgive me for asking. Is there any class action suit in the United States where sub-prime mortgage borrowers (esp. of the 2006-2008 vintage) have sued their mortgage arranger/(s) for mis-selling? A cursory review of this thread indicates most of the discussion is focused on the impact of the sub-prime crisis on the banks, the tax-payers, AIG, the US Govt etc. What about the sub-prime borrowers who got a raw deal because they walked into a mortgage with limited knowledge, were (possibly) mis-sold, and probably continue to bear a lot of burden due to their investments into the housing sector.

I think this is simple when I think a few moments; but is easy to err at the table where I often play reflexively. The winning line should be (hidden):

When will this thread overtake the # of posts on the GW thread? I bet it will at least take a week :)

17 me too. I am now totally convinced it is 17 :P

I think the fractions happen due to other results and not caused by the 10 pt differences.Suppose we had a deal where 4♠ makes 4 and 3NT also makes 4. Say 6 out of 16 tables play 4♠ and the remaining play in 3NT. If all tables make 10 tricks, the cross-IMP score is ZERO for all tables.

[hv=d=s&v=e&n=skt9872hadkq532c7&s=saj5hkt742datc964]133|200|Scoring: XIMP[/hv]This came up in the club the other day. South dealt and opened 1♥ and West overcalled 2♣. After that, N/S bid uncontested to 5♠, making 6 easily when East had doubleton ♠Qx South - North 1♥ (2♣) 2♠ 3♠ - 4♣* * cue bids; 1st or 2nd round control 4♦* - 4♥* 4NT - 5♥ 4NT=RKCB 5♠ - all pass 1. Would you want to be in slam at IMPs? 2. Which bid/(s) were poor, and contributed to the missed slam? 3. Who (if any) takes the blame for missing slam? In case it matters, the opening lead is a club (same lead likely vs. slam). 4 out of 9 tables bid to slam (of which one went down); the other 5 (incl. our table) played in 4♠/5♠

I'm ashamed to say that when I was playing the deal yesterday, I played wrongly ( ). Fortunately, the deed went unpunished as hearts split normally. While Trumpace mapped out the whole play in detail, his "key play" alone was enough to improve the odds

Using iPads for bidding? with lots of fancy interface between 4 iPads :) :)

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=st62hakq982dqtc87&s=saqh75dk84cakqt62]133|200|Scoring: XIMP 6NT by South Opening lead ♣5 on which East plays ♣J[/hv]After an elaborate and descriptive auction, you reach 6NT declared by South. West finds a passive lead of a low club. What is your line of play? This is an easy problem (esp. when posed as one); but I wonder if other intermediates (and possibly some 'advanced') would actually find this line at the table.

This video (not from the iPad presentation, but the previous one) is quite awesome:

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=saq7hdc4&s=s96h63dc]133|200|Scoring: XIMP[/hv] In essence, I am being told it would not be irrational for me to ruff the C4 and finesse the SQ in this position. The fact that a card was partly hidden when I am claiming (with 8 cards in my hand) is deemed as a future certainty that the card will remain undiscovered if I had played it out. Yet, I think there are no penalties for not claiming in a timely fashion. Someone can play out all tricks with an intention to tire opponents out. But he cannot be punished unless he is stupid enough to tell someone that he played out to make opps expend unnecessary mental energy.

Let's take the case in the second improv -- i.e. I have a method of getting back to hand by ruffing the 3rd club. If I read your comment (quoted portion), you are saying something to the effect "I still lose the spade trick. But playing it out would have resulted in 11 tricks". I find that a bit hard to digest...

OK. Now let us go for a second improvisation, specifically focused on the quote below: Assume the black-suit 4s are switched between East and North (i.e. North began with ♣AQ4 and ♠AQ7; East began with ♣K932 and ♠T843) Would you now give me the overtrick, assuming all info including the first improv above? Hidden:

OK. Now let me improvise a bit: I say "obviously, there is a chance for overtrick if West holds SK". Please note the 5-7 sec since my claim statement still holds good (Though I did not exactly time it, I am quite certain it was more than 5 seconds) Would you give me the overtrick now?

This happened in the club on Friday. I was South: [hv=d=s&v=n&n=saq74hkq2dakj4caq&w=skj2ht4d9865ct875&e=st83hj85dq2ck9432&s=s9(6)5ha9763dt73cj6]399|300|Scoring: XIMP[/hv]The ♠6: I knew I held 3-5-3-2 while bidding. After the opening lead, I folded the hand (to figure out odds for 6H). When I resumed, the ♠6 stayed partly stuck behind the ♠5 Bidding and play: We bid to 4♥ by South; opening lead was ♣5. I finessed (lost) and a trump came back. I won in dummy, drew 2 more rounds of trumps and finessed the ♦J (lost). When East returned ♦2, I claimed saying "I will discard the ♠5 on 4th diamond". As I was spreading my cards I notice the ♠6 again. It's been 5-7 sec since my claim statement. I say "obviously, there is a chance..." What did not happen: I continued saying "How about we call Director and ask him to rule?" Note: Opps have not indicated if ♠ finesse wins. Simple question: If you were the Director called, would you give me the overtrick? I thought this had some similarities to the earlier post with some heated discussions. I did not post it earlier because I could not locate the hand records.

Does no one like pass? I'd prefer pass. In my defense: a. OP says we open aggresively. And partner passed. b. It is IMPs. Even opp a 3 card support, I'd need a bit of luck for game. c. As it is IMPs, partner is more likely to go to game (with suitable hands) than pass. At MPs, the premium for bidding close games is lower and pard can pass.

I have seen many people who play all 13 tricks on nearly every hand. And I do not mean in a robot BBO game. This is real life, and also online on BBO. I also know players/friends who are decent (stronger than me) at bridge who will not claim; they hesitate to explain but I think it could be a case of "once bitten, twice shy"