S2000magic

Objection: assumes facts not in evidence.

Having recently started playing at a local club after an hiatus of some 17 years, I have noticed an interesting trend, and wanted to know if it's within the rules. Many declarers when ostensibly asking dummy to follow suit with the smallest card available, will say, simply, "Play!" I don't want to be a jailhouse lawyer by insisting that the declarer designate specifically which card to play - I'm new at the club, after all - but I wonder if the imperative "Play!" might violate the rules requiring declarer to specify the cards played by dummy. (Of course, there was also the gentleman who would, as dummy, play the cards without declarer asking him to do anything; I understand that that partnership has since disbanded.) Thanks!

Whereas to me it looks like a 1NT opener. ;)

A Hugo Boss suit. 3♠.

2♦. Not that I'd expect partner to get too excited by 2♠, but the diamonds are stronger.

Frankly, if they build the high-speed rail (and they're quite gung-ho about it), I hope that people do move and change. You're right historically, but Californians have proven to be a stubborn lot wrt mass transit.

Adherance to proprieties shouldn't need to be be enforced with penalties. Unfortunately, adherance to proprieties needs to be enforced with penalties. It's nice to hear that the penalty was just enough to make a difference; perhaps it made a difference. Congratulations on your advancement. (That's sincere, not sarcastic.)

And, if you ignore the possible attendant medical bills, more economical.

I'm not sure, but your question brings another question to mind: would I be allowed to reserve my (our) rights at that point, or would I have to wait until it's my turn to call?

I would like to think that a high-speed train between LA and SF would be a good infrastructure investment, but, having lived in CA for my entire life (well, except for 1½ years in NW New Jersey that I'm still trying to forget), I can say with some certainty that they won't get the ridership to justify it. Rightly or wrongly (wrongly, in my opinion), Californians don't seem particularly interested in mass transit apart from airplanes.

I think that this is the crux of the matter: who's to say under what circumstances it's appropriate to ask and under what circumstances it's not. It's a psyche only if it's determined that there was no legitimate reason to ask the question. Would a rule that proscribes 2NT in a situation where "someone" deems the question inappropriate apply similarly, to a 2♣ response to 1NT on, say, ♠ x x x x ♥ x x x x ♦ x x x x x ♣ --- ? (If you argue that this is legitimate, would you argue that passing partner's (artificial) 2♦ rebid is as well?) Certainly one could (accurately, if not fully) describe Stayman as forcing. Your point is well taken; however, if described as, "asking for a feature", it can still be forcing with a wide (even incredibly wide) range of strength. In response to a 15 - 17 HCP 1NT, Stayman can have a range of 0 - 25 HCP.

Agreed, but if they field it they're no better off than if you'd kept silent, and may not be better off than if you'd bid 3♥ or 4♥. I'm all for varying one's tactics in this situation.

Genii?

In both Doubles for Takeout, Penalties, and Profit and Opening Leads, Robert Ewen mentions playing in 5♦ redoubled (making) when his cue bid was doubled en route to a ♥ slam; he had ♦ A Q J 10 4 3. So, apparently it happens. As for the original question; I'd double 4♦.

Why not? I believe that, with a reliable partner, it's a great tactic. Good opponents might suspect that you're stealing, but if you can steal a bid or two (here, 2♠) from them, it can only help your side. (If there's a rule against such a psyche, shame on the people who enacted it.)

Absolutely correct. It sounds as though you and I take active ethics equally seriously. I wish everyone did.

I hope that this is the right place to ask this; mods: please move it if it is not. In last night's club game I made a preemptive bid (a jump raise after an overcall), putting the Stop! card on the table before my bid. My LHO immediately passed, while the Stop! card was still on the table. This is the second player I've encountered at this club who has ignored the Stop! card. (I'm told that the first teaches bridge.) The question isn't so much whether there's any redress - I suppose that I could call the TD and ask him to admonish the offender - but whether anyone here has seen a successful program to educate players on the meaning of the Stop! card. I'd appreciate any suggestions. (Note: I'm rather a newbie at this club, so I cannot - at least, yet - suggest holding classes in active ethics. And even if I could, I doubt that those who need tehm the most would attend.)

No². (Although it isn't really an issue here - as pretty much everything else also argues against a weak 2-bid - I believe that ACBL rules won't allow a weak 2 on two HCP.)

I don't see why it can't; I'd have taken it to mean exactly that.

2♥ looks good for now, then you can listen to what happens and decide after that. Do you have the other hands?

It would depend on the vulnerability: red vs white, 1♥; all others, 4♥.

I'd bid 5♦; seems relatively straightforward. I'd never come across preempt key-card before now; it's an interesting idea.

My bid would depend on how much I trust my partner. If I trust him to know that I'm essentially bidding both our hands, then 2♠ it is. If I suspect that he'll try to compete further, then a discrete pass would be it.

At the moment, we own one dog, two cats, and two horses. I've always liked dogs. We have a collie that we got from the animal shelter. I never liked cats, until we got one. The two we have now are from the animal shelter, and they're a hoot. I had no interest in horses at all until 10½ years ago when my wife made me take horseback riding lessons. Now, I cannot imagine not owning horses. The relationship one has with a horse is much different that that with a dog or cat. I wouldn't call them pets, although they're included in the poll.

That's a good question. Although we agreed on splinters, I'm not sure that she would have taken such a bid as a splinter. She has recently learned 2/1 and wants to play it at every opportunity. It's not my favorite, but I agreed. We had one hand on which I opened 1♦ and she responded 2♠, believing that that was a 2/1 - hence, game-forcing - response. Oh, she does play preemptive jump shift responses. There's still a lot to learn. (For both of us.)