Flem72

Playing Flan. After 1H-(2m)-?, is there virtue in agreeing that the negative double shows 5S, limited? it would seem to be implied as a corollary to Flan, but I wonder -- any experience out there?

They never let me cash AKQ.

Agree, and Bourkeish is how I'd like to start also (O would call 2S at third bid to show secondary Hx or xxx support), but after R's 3Ht it becomes a questino of judgment: clarify the major two-suiter with 4H (there may be a H slam) or give in to the C before the 5 level. 1C-1S 2C-2D! 2S-3H 3N-? If 4H, shape is clalrified and I'd hope partner would prefer to 4S on the actual deal, but we are now poorly placed for other O holdings: O could hold 2-3-2-6 and pass. If 4C, bazinga. So no matter how you get to the 3-level (natch is swell, but is 1C-1S/2C-2H forcing on "change of suit by R" grounds?), I think success requires R to eschew pattern out bidding and support the C

Valid point. Problem, of course, is both hold significant extras. 1C-(2C)-X-2H 2N*-(P)-3H**-(P) 4C***-(P)-4D**** * = 12-14 or 18-19, H card ** = ubiquitous cue, suggests extras/asks values *** = real C, big hand **** = Redwood, thinking now that 6 is possible. However, bounty abounds. In the interests of full disclosure, I always confuse people with these ubiquities and I haven't been successful persuading regular partners to play Redwood in these 4-level things. But that's how I'd like to be able to do it. Another way to bid it: Open W hand 2N.

Yeah, but looking at E's hand, is 2H (=LR+?) all that attractive? Why not the more flexible double, showiing values and cards in at least one major opposite what may be a WNT kind of hand? Regards and Happy Trails, Scott Needham Boulder, Colorado, USA

Well, what the heck are they? I have always hated 'stops up the line' b/c it advertises the lead and occupies the 2M calls with a concentration kind of call, rather than a shape kind of call. I've always been a WNTer, and after studying "Washington Standard" to better accomodate my (overwhelmingly) SNT partners, was happy to see that those guys, who seem to uncdrstand SNT about as well as anyone, advocated 'hand type' responses: Just bid 2N with the balanced min, and 3m with the unbalanced min. Now, 2M is forward-going and shape showing. Mo' bettuh. Regards and Happy Trails, Scott Needham Boulder, Colorado, USA

No, it challenges the unfounded assertion that "28 states have the precise same set of restrictions at the state level. This requirement is neither new, nor controversial." Moving targets.... If the expected 1st Amendment suit is filed, I suppose they might become past laws. You inverted the numbers: 8 states currently provide no exemption. The G's workaround appears to be transparently specious, mere accounting skulduggery.

Just couldn't let this pass. Here's one recitation of the facts: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/chris-matthews-scolds-ny-mag-reporter-for-using-white-house-talking-point-on-contraception/ When even Chris Matthews is moved to contradict The One it becomes painfully clear that there is so much purposeful misinformation coming out of this White House.... Regards and Happy Trails, Scott Needham Boulder, Colorado, USA

In an auction of the form 1m-(3Y)-3N-(P) ? where Y>X, and assuming adequate Minorwood/Redwood agreements (another sticky wicket), shouldn't 4Y be Exclusion? EDIT: yes, m = X, my bad

Older than "neighbour"?

I keep looking at the N hand, and I just keep thinking it looks like a 1NT overcall. Kind of a mutant, but still in the family.

Lately the SOBs have been overcalling our 2N openers, and we're soft/undecided re: handling this. Any stuff you'e willing to share, or a reference to a prior thread? Regards and Happy Trails, Scott Needham Boulder, Colorado, USA

Agree completely. Even though he's not a Flem. When I was first playing duplicate, Meyer Schleiffer (sp) used to open these patterns 1N all the time, even 12-14s, even with a 7 card minor. A winning action. Regards and Happy Trails, Scott Needham Boulder, Colorado, USA

Is XX reserved for its traditional (fairly low frequency) meaning? Is there a problem with XX = transfer to 1NT?

But E did not pass b/c the error was the explanation that S held 10 HCP, when in fact he held about 3. So only after the 3D call was passed out did S -- who fortunately understands the obligations better than I do; I'm always running to find a director to ask what my obligations are -- informed E-W of the misinformation. I think I'll ask our local BOD to get the Unit Recorder to offer some classes on basic and frequent situations. Maybe a few of our directors would attend!!

At least that's clear. A big part of the problem here was that the director, though well liked by most, is a dunce. She seems to have the Roman numerals down, but the capital letters confuse the heck out of her -- and forget about the (ii) subdivisions. She asked the players what they wanted her to do about it.

I don't get this, seems backassward looney to me. N has been asked by opps to explain a call made by S. N's explanation is incorrect _according to their agreements_. S knows it is incorrect _according to their agreements_. It seems to me that the best way to handle such situations is to allow the question by E, and allow N-S immediately to suffer the results of their misinformation, which, up to the point where E might ask, has only affected N-S's auction. Should there not be another rule for 'replies given by the partner of the player who made the explanation in question'? I know I have been asked before whether partner's explanation was correct, but perhaps it was at the close of the auction....

You mean "fix" by imagining E-W had the proper info in the reconstruction? Related: Does E have the right, before her 2D call, to ask S if the explanation was correct?

But if E-W were correctly informed, N would have correctly remembered their agreement, would not pass the XX, but would start bidding 4-carders up the line. With the actual cards, N-S admit they would've stopped in 2C, which would be doubled for down 2 or 3, both scores beating the other table's 3N = for 400. So, if I understand correctly, the score should be adjusted to that result, down 3 based upon blackshoe's comment...?

Lately I've been reading NABC casebooks, trying (struggling) to understand what circumstances constitute violations of different kinds. Here's a new one, and even after the panel explained its decision, I still don't get it. What considerations constrain misinformation? by which I mean, I guess (a) when is misinformation harmful to the non-offenders and when is it not and (b) if there is harm, what result constitutes equity? N-S vul, IMPs. Auction was: N......E..... S.....W 1N*-DBL-RDBL--P P- **2D------P - 3D * = 11-14 **= inquiry about the rdbl, explained as 10+ HCP Turns out that the N-S agreement is that RDBL is a weak runout. E held 16 real, W held 8. At the other table, E-W made an easy 3N, and 1NXX, vul, is down 3 or 4 depending on the lead, while 2CX, N-S's runout contract, is down 2 or 3, depending on the lead. N said at the director call that she forgot their agreement, which was on both cards. Should there be an adjustment? If so, what should it be? How can I get Bobby Wolff to come to the game and make the "Convention Disruption" ruling? Regards and Happy Trails, Scott Needham Boulder, Colorado, USA

Stripping to the Q is bad only if I do not pick up the alleged signal in spades. Partner is never getting in, unless for some reason he can take the 3rd club. After a lot of asking around, I conclude that partner is alone in this signalling "method."

Where on-site do I go to learn how to insert hand diagrams and spoilers and all that kind of stuff? Regards and Happy Trails, Scott Needham Boulder, Colorado, USA

OK, the reason I asked in the first place: Partner held Q832 in spades. I can understand playing the 8 first, as I might have led from T9xx (but: can't find another, better lead?). He then claimed that playing 3 then 2 of S showed the Q as, playing attitude discards, 2 then 3 would've denied the Q. Does this make sense within the agreement that our discards are attitude in our suits, count in theirs? So far, everyone I've asked has said that partner is counting out spades for me....

Can see that: Spades in dummy are AJ7. But, point taken, I need to learn how to do that stuff....

They were behind 17 at halftime and this was their first attempt at a catch up board.