Lurpoa

♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ WHY ?

♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ Why ?

♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ Oh, shocking, your language.... Really un-acceptable... We hope somebody does something about that...... From my part, I forgive you, but please, do not forget that many people read this.....

♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ Very unpolite post !!! Know that we are all here to learn and exchange information in a civilized manner. No, we wish, we could downvote your post !

♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ Rather rude your mail, isn't it ? and xenophobic... or are we wrong ? But OK, we forgive you. We just wanted to know why it is so evident.... As we already said, we do not like Oracles, we only accept them comming from Gods...:rolleyes:

♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ WHY ?

♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ WHY ?

♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ Oh,yes, might be be true.... Anyway, good to hear your opinion. It would be nice if everyone would appreciate the ideas of others, without making fun of them.

What are you trying to tell ? Your "really" seems very manipulative to us ......

Yes, it is Competitive Bidding. :unsure: You have as South: ♠ K52 ♥ 2 ♦ K754 ♣ J8743 IMP scoring, you are Vul vs nonVul. Your RHO opens with a pass, you pass, LHO opens 1♥ - they play SAYC. Partner overcalls 2♣ - we too play SAYC, so 2♣ is typically 12-16H, 5card. Now your RHO raises to 2♥. Your call now. If I say, that this is Butler scoring, that the average level of the pairs is rather low and that the actual opponents are one of the better participating pairs, does that influence your decision ?

♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ Very, very sorry about your way of thinking. We did mean no harm. However, we think your contribution is very blessing to me. Please, think about it. I am ready to accept your excuses. ♥♥♥Lurpoa♥♥♥

♥♥♥ ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ LOL is easy, and manipulative... We do not like people who make LOL of others. And also your post doesn't add anything to the debate. All we want is a clear statement why LOL. We are really not interested in oracles... unless it is done by a God... :rolleyes: ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥

♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ No, no LOL. We simply do not think you have answered why you LOL the others..... We would be most happy to hear why. And please, no oracles .... Really we would be most happy to hear from you..... ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥

♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ please no LOL. We are not interested in your LOL. But tell us why you LOL. Thank you.

♥♥ ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ Most important: you should agree on the strength of the double in balancing seat. There is little reason to play it different than in second seat: 15-18(19)HP. This said: it looks like opener has an upgraded 1NT opening with long ♦. Double by you should be for penalty: not a good idea at this vulnerability, at best it is 2 down, probably only one. Only one bid seems possible: 3♦ in search for 4 card major. you will raise his 3 of a major response to game, and pass a 3NT bid.

♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ Is this Desperate Housewifes ?

yes, and why is that absolutely clear ?

♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ I know, I keep repeating myself, but you need to agree on this sequence with your partner. There are always pro's and cons. partner told he wanted to compete at the 3level. So he should have some values. Without agreement, this double seems to be for penalty. And for MPs I would prefer to play it like that. But if this is for IMPS, and sitting in front of the 3♥, why would I risk this double....how frequent would that be ? So would prefer to have a further competitive double here......

♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ Please, agree,this with your partner..... As said, by other contributors, it can be anything.....

♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ First of all - and I keep repeating myself - you must agree with partner on the significance of the 2♣bid. During many, many years: 2♣ was GF. Nowadays, a lot of partnerships will play it, as just a good raise, ... or an unassuming cue-bid. What was it here ?

For one or other reason, I cannot read your diagram, it is too small in my browser. Why could that be ? Apparentlly, others were able to read it... Can anybody help me ? But to answer your question: what does it mean "bypassing NT" ? The BWS Bypass rule is a generalisation of the 1NT bypass rule. The following was written by Mr John Montgomery, in his 4th Edition of RCS. QUOTE ONE NOTRUMP BYPASS RULE This rule, invented by Jeff Rubens, holds that anytime you bid 2NT in a defensive auction where you could have bid 1NT earlier and chose not to do so, you are showing some kind of two-suited hand, not a natural 2NT bid. An example is (1H)-X, (P)-2C, (2H)-P, (P)-2NT. You could have bid 1NT (or 2NT) the first time, but chose to bid 2C instead. Do you really want to play 2NT now? No, says Jeff, you are showing a desire to get to three of a suit, and a second suit to go with the one you have bid, which can only be diamonds here. He says he has never seen a hand where this rule didn't apply. I haven't thought of one either, so let's play the rule. But note that it doesn't apply to auctions where the first bid by the eventual 2NT bidder showed a good hand. Here, the 2C bid showed no values and could have been passed. UNQUOTE Jeff Rubens (ACBL Hall of Fame) is a Bridge World Editor: so, no surprise this important principle found it's way into BWS2001. He is also a "promoter" of Hand Evalution by Visualisation.

Deleted rude post that's just a personal attack - Rain

What you think is not so important. What is important is the justification for such a bid. Robson Segal have written a whole book to justify this fit raise, which is now considered by many experts as a very good treatment.

Yes ! You offered a 3rd possible BWS interpretation of that bid ! The Splinter Raise ! And indeed it is what prescribed in the standard after a 1 of a minor opening, and an overcall: the double shift is a Splinter Raise. I do not see any reason why it should be anything else here. Ibelieve that in the light of possible further competition, thissplinter should show extra values, and not be solely based on thedistributional values of the shortness.

Very Good suggestions I think. But they have nothing to do with the BWS Standard, but may be taken into account for a futur update of the Standard. I would be nice to have a short justification for each of those bids. Thank you for your contribution.