mr1303

I must admit I'm not overly impressed by that decision. OK, it's a shame that Harmison isn't fit yet, but I think that Jon Lewis is worth a place, probably in place of Liam Plunkett. Batting I'd keep as it is.

As responder on the second sequence, it's more common for 2NT to be 12-14 ish or 18-19, and 3NT to be 15-17, similar to opener's rebids. This is how it's suggested in Mike Lawrence's CD

The speed of light is calculated from the following formula α = e^2 / h bar c where e is the charge on an electron, h bar is h/2 pi (where h is Planck's constant) and alpha is the fine structure constant, which is related to the strength of the electromagnetic force. Somewhere in Oklo, there is a "natural" nuclear reactor, where Uranium 235 undergoes fission to form Samarium 149, which can capture neutrons to form Samrarium 150. The rate of this neutron capture is meant to be proportional to alpha. Depending on who you ask, the rate has varied over the past 2 billion years. If it has, then alpha has varied, and so c has varied. If not, then alpha has not and so c has not. Source: New scientist, June 2004. In my opinion, since the fact that the speed of light is or isn't constant hasn't been accepted either way, the equations that use it shouldn't be considered to vary either.

Well, it depends. If 1D 2D 2NT is forcing, I bid 3NT. If 1D 2D 2NT is passable, I'll probably raise, since I'm vulnerable at imps, and have no way of involving partner here. If I'd bid 2C and partner bid 2D, I'd raise 2D to 3D, and see what partner does from there. Any number of NT is better played from my partner's side.

There are times when I've joined a table, whereby kibitzers required permission or were disallowed (without my knowledge usually, when I've clicked on "take me to a game"). After a while, the host leaves, and I take over as host. Of course, the settings remain the same (because I haven't noticed). I would suggest that automatically blacklisting anyone who requests permission to kibitz is a bit heavy-handed. Incentally, you're always welcome (as is everyone else for that matter) to kibitz at my table.

Speak for yourself!! Have you not seen me yet :D

I'll go with 2C. Shows where and what my values are pretty well I reckon. If partner passes it, we shouldn't be in too bad a spot. Edit: thought I was a passed hand. In which case, probably 2D might be better then.

3♥ was, and should be a splinter, and looks like a very good bid to me. In other words, game forcing values, club support, singleton heart. I'll say that you should pass the double of 4♥, and not say anything more.

I'd be much happier with 2 low spades rather than QJ tight of spades. That's 3 points that are completely wasted.

Well, at the table, I tried the traditional 4♠. This proceeded: 2♠ P 4♠ X P 4NT 4NT was 2 places to play, X was take-out. What now? If you pass, it goes: 4NT P 5D P P ? Do you do anything this time?

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=skqjt9xhqjdxxxcax]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Partner opens 2♠, showing a weak hand with 5♠ and a 4 card or longer minor. RHO passes. What do you try now? LHO will be bidding something here....

The trouble with 2H is that partner might well play me for something awful like: [hv=s=sxhqj10xxdxxxxcxxx]133|100|[/hv] since I am 3rd in hand. So if we do have a good save, we'll be unlikely to find it. So 1H it is.

I saw Lancashire Lightening's Twenty20 cup campaign, and saw every match in that competition, apart from Finals Day. The one game I don't get to go and see, they lose :angry:

I physically broke down into tears yesterday afternoon. Last summer, we hardly dropped a single catch. This summer, we hardly took one. You could see the anguish in the face of Matthew Hoggard when the catches went down. Bowling that many overs is physically exhausting, and you can't fault the effort of the bowlers, who had very little luck. But if you can't bowl a side out in 200 overs, you aren't going to win. Simple as that.

I think pass is 100% clear cut. 4C should show either a better hand or better clubs. I think there's a good case for opening this 1NT in the first place. I have no aces and wasted KQ tight in spades. I've no reason to double this at all. I'd even expect this to make.

Minor 2 suiter, not good enough for 3C I reckon.

Well, I'm going to dissent here. A couple of useful queens is all you need for game here, and this hand has excellent playing strength. So I'll open it 2C without a problem.

Hi all. In Bristol, we're lucky to have two reasonable quality bridge clubs. However, I'm now quite angry, on account of the fact that both of them have decided to ban wearing shorts. It is currently in the middle of a heat wave, and they INSIST on having the heating on at all times. Neither me or my partner are happy about this. What does everyone else think?

But playing the weak or strong only version, both of those hands are in between and as a result would NOT use Michaels, and would make a simple overcall instead.

Because the "weak or strong options only" method makes bidding 3H clearcut. If any suitable hand, then it becomes closer. I'd probably bid a slow 3H!

I request more information. Do you play it as weak or strong options only, or do you play it as any "suitable" hand? If weak or strong only, I bid 3H. If partner has the strong hand he'll bid again. Otherwise, I'll probably bid 3H anyway. QJ of spades are waste paper, and I just don't have a hand I can bid a game on.

Speaking of psyches, this was one I came up with the other day: [hv=d=s&v=e&n=sxxxhaktxdkxxcxxx&w=skqjt9xhxdaqjxcqx&e=saxxxhqxxxdxcakxx&s=shj98xdtxxxxcjxxx]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] I was South, playing weak NT 4 card majors, and opened 1S. Auction proceeded: 1S P 2NT* P P P 2NT was 10-12 balanced, with 2-3 card spade support. I believe it went about 4 or 5 off, but the opponents were cold for 5S, so I didn't mind.

4H. Surely I can only have 4 of them, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered doubling 2NT

1NT for me. My style over their 1C is to only bid with something that might be of genuine help. In other words, I won't bid on xxxx xxxx xx xxx calling my hand "Weak with both majors". There are plenty of those who would do though.

If anything, I would have thought that the post might have been more offensive to men. Still, I suppose me offending people is nothing new these days.