Edmunte1

I agree with that

Neither is to blame, maybe the methods could be better. Something like: 1nt-2♥ 2♠-3♥ (1) 3♠-3NT(2) 4♣(4)-4♦(4).... 5♦(5) -6♠ (1)-retransfer (2)-forcing, SI 6+♠, no shortage (4)-cues (5)-reevaluating, the hand value increased, denies ♥ control, second round ♣ control, emphasis is on concentrated hcp in ♦ and trump Still a tough slam to bid

I'll take some risks here. I'll finesse in hearts, then try another finesse in trumps

Pass, not even close to the line

I would bid 4♥ with an unbalnaced hand that i would have bid at least a positive 3♥ bid over 2♠, considering you're playing 2NT good bad. So in other words a 5 1/2 losers hand. In the board you presented 4♥ call is close I would double 1♠ with at least 7 useful hcp and good shape

I also voted 'beyond words', but let's just consider South had a normal hand for his hand (4hearts), i consider both passes with North hand really bad bidding. So the right choice should be 'beyond words and 110% North' :)

Pass is normal. And i agree with the biding too

You were lucky, 13 tricks were possible after diamond lead :unsure:

2♣ for majors is a very useful tool for this position, i strongly recommend it.

The main question that you should ask yourself when you define in your partnership a low level double as penality should be: Is there another way to express a non penality invitational plus hand without direction (for example a hand with which you would have bid yourself a 2♦ nmf)? Here the obvious answer is no, so double should not be played as penality

Agree

I see only two choices: -initial double -pass and pass

[hv=d=s&v=b&s=sk92hqj108762d2ck5]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Your choice?

1) Pass, not close 2)Pass, 3♠ close 3) Pass, close 4) 3♠, not close

Considering pass as forcing, my votes would be: -5♦ -9 -Pass - 8 -Dbl -2

This is a strong point. Creationism theory cannot be a science. "For a theory to qualify as scientific it must be: -consistent (internally and externally) -parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations) -useful (describing and explaining observed phenomena) -empirically testable and falsifiable -based upon controlled, repeatable experiments -correctable and dynamic (changing to fit with newly discovered data) -progressive (achieving all that previous theories have and more) -tentative (admitting that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)", but: a)Creation science is not falsifiable : Theism is not falsifiable, since the existence of God is typically asserted without sufficient conditions to allow a falsifying observation. If God is a transcendental being, beyond the realm of the observable, no claim about his existence can be supported or undermined by observation. b)Creation science violates the principle of parsimony : Creationism fails to pass Occam's razor. Many explanations offered by creation science are more complex than alternative explanations. c) Creation science is not empirically testable : Creationism posits the supernatural which by definition is beyond empirical natural testing, and thus conflicts with the practical use of methodological naturalism inherent in science. d)Creation science is not based upon controlled, repeatable experiments : That creationism is not based upon controlled, repeatable experiments stems not from the theory itself, but from the phenomena that it tries to explain. e)Creation science is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive : Creationism professes to adhere to an "absolute Truth", "the word of God", instead of a provisional assessment of data which can change when new information is discovered. " On the other half, evolution theory it's a science and it's rational. It helps its main purposes.It put things in order, from small to big, from simple to complex, everyone has his branch in the evolutionary tree. It also tries to explain how did it happen. It's logical and apprehensible. But it has some flaws: "a) There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present. b ) The fossil recors shows the species do not evolve but exist for million of years without changing c)natural selection cannot change on species into another because it can work only on variation already present in the species. d)The odds against random chance for producing a complex organism from lifeless ingredients are astronomical e) life contains structures and systems too complex to have evolved gradually, step by step. f) Evolution violates the second law of thermodinamics g)The rock strata finds are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution" So my point of view is that evolution theory should not be used as an atheic theory. Humans, in all their history, were searching for the ultimate answers for the essential questions like our origin, and i think we are still far from that. Everyone has his choice that satisfies his way of understanding the universe, no matter if one's choice is Darwin's theory, or a catastrophic theory, or an external interference or an omnipotent creator

Very interesting posts, thank you everyone for nice ideas. I read some time ago an interesting book about this topic called "Scientific Creationism" by Henry M. Morris, and i recommend it to everyone intrested. I'm not saying that Scientific Creationism is a better theory than Darwin's Evolution Theory, but it's a certain alternative. Many people pointed out that believing in a superior creature has nothing to do with science, but i should remind you that every theory starts from a set of "axioms". Axioms are things that cannot be demonstrated, in other words they are "beliefs". "I believe that through a point you can make only one paralel to another straight line" (one of Euclid axioms). So in other words, everyone of us has his beliefs, based more or less on his knowledge and understanding of the world, and faith (beliefs) are a part of it. Let's us remember that in time theories modified due to new knowledge and understanding of the universe. Newton's laws were improved by Einstein's Relativity Theory and when Quantum Mechanics appeared everyone tghought it was bullshit. Nowadays The String Theory gains more followers, though it's a certain thing that it will be almost impossible to be proven, so you have to admit its axioms (beliefs), but it's the only theory that can unify the big universe and the small one. Humans are rational beings. They try to organise the universe, they try to give it numbers, laws and theories that can help them in understanding the universe. In other wordds they're trying to give it sense (ration). But they have to start with some initial assumptions, beliefs. I don't know why one of them cannot be that our creator used similar instruments for making different beings

Yes, as i was saying, today is raining in Madrid

Suppose that we lost fist trick to the ten. Now: a) Winning cases for playing to 9 KJxx -Tx - 3 cases (from 15) =24.25/5 =4.85% KJxxx -T - 1 case (from 6)=7.25/6 =1.21% b ) Winning case for playing to Q Kxx vs J10x - 3cases (from 20)= (35.5*3)/20=5.32% Kxxx vs. J10 -1case (from 15)=24.25/15 =1.62% But we ignored our general strategy, when an small honour appears to finesse for the other (in other words we ignored the restricted choice principle, in all 4 cases in situation b ) East could have won with the other honour). So in long term we will win twice for the case a) (when East wins the T and J) and only once for the second case, so if we add all other cases when we win in both situations a) and B) (KT, KJ, KTx, KJx, KJT, KJTxx, KJTxxx) playing for line a) will win in 50% of cases instead of line b )will win in 44.82% of cases

I'm not an OBAR fan also, but 2♠ seems the normal bid. It easily can be a double game board, so i don't want to be shut off

2♠ is definitely the percentage bid

Pass. Usually just not enough minerals for 3♠, so i don't want to trade my -140 with -100(200/500 bad day), and maybe sometimes we can bring them down in 3♥

I'll definitely pass. Here are some points in favor of passing: -Considering that players tend to rebid most 8 counts as responder, the expected strength for responder is 0-7 hcp. The average strength for East's hand is around 5 hcp. -The average strength for West's hand is around 16 hcp, and due to the lack of supra-accept, his average number of spades is 3. -So partner has an average 11 hcp with 4 spades. -The general policy is to be offensive in direct seat over opps NT with distributional hands, so partner rates to have a rather balanced then an unbalanced hand. So the right question (in average) should be: Should i like to be in a three of a suit contract in front of a 11 hcp balanced count with 4 spades? Another point: about not being axed. Usually it's hard to be punished when you have good suits, with body (intermediattes), because opps do not have a trump stack to shoot you from one hand. It's not the case here. So good luck to the bidders

I agree with 1NT due to bad shape and lack of intermediattes. 2♠ shows 15++ and 5+♠ me (GOSH in passout seat can be about 2 hcp weaker). Now i'll bid 3♣ (fit in spade, slam interest)

I was asked by a friend about this board. My choices were: 1)Double is fine. It gets also the spades into the picture, with the risk of being forced to ruff from honours. 2)4♠ is pushy, but it's OK. You're under pressure and it's a bottom line decision between acting and passing. The 5th spade and the unbalanced shape (5242) make me be in the bidders camp. 3) In my opinion, passing is just shy. Slam has a big chance of making, and only if partner has a bottom end 4♠ bid (as it's the case here) maybe we shouldn't be in it. What strain is the question, as long as north sees that in a spade contract he has to ruff from honours. 5NT if it shows that type of hand (and it should) is the right answer, so my point of view is similar with josh's