TimG

I accept the invitation. I thought about it a bit, so guess it wasn't quite automatic for me.

I don't think I was able to figure out any of this, but I didn't read any help files or instructions.

I think you could sit down with an unknown partner, say "strong NTs?", have partner agree, and expect to have a reasonable game. I think you'd be surprised how infrequently conventions come up and also be surprised at how infrequently it is important to to know things like whether you're playing limit raises or forcing raises, whether 1NT is forcing or not, or even whether you're playing 4-card or 5-card majors.

I'd suggest making your own HTML (or Word, or whatever you're using) template. That way you can make it look just like you want it and then repeat it easily.

Click on "show results".

Shouldn't this be identical to 1H-1S-2D without the inversion? 3S would likely be both invitational and an accurate description, wouldn't it?

I agree, unfortunately, the rules still don't allow it. Yes they do. Once you agree that the "meaning" of the insufficient bid is "I have a hand which wants to bid Stayman over 2NT", then this is the same meaning as the proposed correction, so the correction to 3♣ is allowed without penalty under the new section B1(:). So, if the auction starts 2N-P-2C, the person who made the insufficient bid ought to say "I'm sorry, I meant 3C" rather than "I'm sorry, I thought the opening bid was 1N". Bottom line, I'm not sure how you can reliably determine the meaning of an insufficient bid. It seems to me that the new Law is attempting to allow correction of an "oops", but not an "oops" of the inadvertent-corrected-without-pause-for-thought-mechanical variety, but rather an "oops" of the brain fart variety. I remember once taking some time over partner's limit raise, I was trying to decide whether to make a slam try or simply sign-off in game. I eventually decided that game was enough and passed. It was a few moments before I realized that I was now going to be playing in a partial. Nowadays when something like this happens, one is supposed to say "oh *****!" and then be allowed to change the call, but this was long before that seminal ruling.

I don't think it is resulting to suggest raising diamonds with KQxxx rather than introducing spades on Txxx. I'd expect to get to slam after that start.

If you're the "right pair" don't you automatically psyche in this situation and take the average or average-plus?

I'm not sure about all your sets and subsets, but it seems to me that the intent was to allow the correction of things like 2N-P-2D to 2N-P-3D where the diamond calls would both be transfers. But, I'm note sure how you can determine the meaning of an insufficient bid. I suppose the director could look at responder's hand, see a bunch of hearts, and accept that responder intended to transfer. But, what if the pair also plays multi, maybe this person missed the opening bid altogether instead of mistook 2N for 1N and was attempting to open 2D rather than transfer over 1N? Even if you decide that the insufficient 2D was a transfer, wouldn't there be some minor differences in the sets of hands that would transfer? There are ranges of hands that contain hearts that might make a four-level transfer over 1N, that would make a three-level transfer over 2N.

I think the most amazing thing about this poll is that there are 23 experts here to vote. There must be a lot of experts lurking but never posting... :-)

In my preferred methods, double here would be penalty. I'm not sure why people are anxious to bid 2N with a balanced hand that includes values in their suit and double for takeout -- seems backwards to me. If you agree to play penalty doubles, it seems like a good place to play some sort of good-bad 2NT so that partner knows whether you are merely competing with 3m or need just a little from partner in order to make 3NT a good bet.

One has the option to turn off avatars (and smilies). I don't see either.

If they actually said "you're cheating", they should be required to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. They can't, of course. So they should be drawn, quartered, and hanged by the neck. ;) They should be but they wont be - they'll be paying customers. :) In ACBL events, I've twice had opponents make an accusation of unethical behavior (once they said "cheat", once they did not) as a result of a psyche. In both cases the director made it clear to the opponents that their actions were inappropriate (in the case where "cheat" was used, the director demanded an apology be made). Not quite drawn and quartered, but I feel that both times the director handled the situation in an appropriate manner, never making my partnership defend ourselves or otherwise reprimanding us, while coming down quite hard on the players that made the accusation. One of the situations was similar to the one that initiated this thread. My partner made a spade overcall of a strong club opening and later ran to clubs. I did not correct to spades despite holding more spades than clubs -- I don't remember exactly how many more spades, nor when the doubling and running started, but it was similar. In the other situation, I opened 2NT (strong) with 8 solid diamonds and out. My partner used Stayman and signed off in 3N when I denied a 4-card major. They led a low card from a major (my partner had Kxxx in both majors and no other high cards), RHO won and cleared the suit with me discarding, which raised a couple eyebrows. Then I ran diamonds and the excitement started.

In isolation, isn't correct play in spades to first cash the Ace and then lead towards the Queen, finessing the Nine if RHO played the Jack or Ten under the Ace? Playing low towards the Queen is only slightly inferior, and has the advantage that you will know whether you can take four spade tricks before you have lost two tricks. So, your line allows you to fall back on the diamonds when your spade line does not produce four tricks. So, I agree with the poster who suggested cashing the Queen and playing on diamonds if needed. BTW, I don't think this is a restricted choice* situation in spades. If you play low to the Queen, shouldn't LHO play the King from Kx or Kxx while RHO drops the Jack or the Ten? This gives you the losing option of finessing on the second round. If the Queen wins the first trick, you have no choice but to play the Ace next. * It's probably technically a case of restricted choice, just not one that should alter your line of play.

I can imagine a hand that will drive to 4♠ even opposite a 3rd hand opening (especially if the partnership has some restrictions to opening a weak two with a void or side four-card major). But, I find it difficult to come up with a hand that is consistent with an initial 2♠ and a later 4♠. helene's ♣xxx suggestion is good, but I'm not sure it's enough.

With barely half the deck (at best) and no reason to suspect the opponents haven't found a fit, it seems to me that passing the double is a crap shoot. 3C. Double seems to be aiming at a very small target.

I find this rather staggering. A survey of 1 billion individuals? I think it is just a bad phrasing, meant as "representative for 1 billion Moslems". I.e. in some countries the survey could not be taken for some practical reasons. Yes, I suspect they surveyed individuals in Muslim communities with a total population of about one billion. That is, there were only a tiny fraction of one billion surveys actually taken, but they represent that many individuals. Not sure it really makes a difference in the results, but it sure puts the effort in a different light.

This sounds like it could have come from the Moral Majority. But, "traditional values" doesn't necessarily mean the same thing to both groups.

I find this rather staggering. A survey of 1 billion individuals?

Sorry, I thought, without apparent reason, that we were talking about what to do without the benefit of ELC. With ELC, it would seem to be a non-problem.

no 2♣ or 1♠ now Why the difference? I dont want to hear 2♦ You didn't want to hear 2♣ when you were 4252. Are you saying that you will make the overbid of 2♦ when you hear partner advance 2♣ (and you are 4252), but aren't brave enough to bid 3♣ when partner advances 2♦ (and you are 4225)? I think that the non-ELC doublers are willing to pass if partner bids their doubleton, and thus it should not matter whether you are 4252 or 4225.

no 2♣ or 1♠ now Why the difference?

Do the doublers also double with: ♠KQxx ♥Qx ♦xx ♣AQJxx?

You probably would have downgraded this 4333, 2 QT hand, and not opened 1NT. Of course, you could change the NT range to 14-16 or 13-15 and get back to the original point.