TimG

The forums really shouldn't be about figuring out how many people will fail. It's about getting constructive discussions about problems.

Would our pass be forcing? I would guess "yes" after the attempted one-level penalty.

I like to be able to see replies as soon as they are made. Though I wouldn't mind such an option for polls, I would not want to see it the default.

I don't see any need for a special Junior/Youth forum. Announcements for these events can go in the same forum as announcements for other events. Problems of conditions for these events can go in whatever forum conditions belong in. Etc.

I'm a wimp. Ask again when it goes 2♥-P-P back to me.

I like the idea of new forum names. But, I think this scheme has a problem of duplication in the "bridge problem area" and "bridge by level". If I have an easy bidding problem, do I put it in "bidding problems" or "beginner bridge questions"? As I've been reading through the suggestions, it has become more and more appealing to me to eliminate the "beginner", "intermediate", "advanced" and "expert" descriptions. I don't think it should be that difficult for experts to filter which threads they pay attention to. But, it would be useful to have the ability to both flag threads of special interest (or threads to be ignored) and to ignore individuals.

I wonder when a game force was established. Since 3♠ was available to establish a force, wouldn't 4♦ be non-forcing? I agree that it won't be passed very often, but it does seem an option.

Yeah, I think as presented 1NT is going to be a landslide winner. I expect you would get some difference of opinion if the overcall had been 2♣.

We'd never be playing 20 diamonds, we'd be defending 20 diamonds. If that's our minor, that's quite likely OK by me. If it's not OK by me, maybe I shouldn't have been doubling in the first place. Doubling 4D is no more committal than bidding 4H over 4D. Bidding 4H seems more committal, because now the opening side can defend if they want, not just in the case that they are also willing to play 4DX.

Sorry I don't have reference, but I think this myth was true for early generation florescent lights.

I think the answer to all your "problems" is to host your own table and set it up as you want.

I would expect double to express doubt that the opponents can make 1N.

I'd be concerned that partner could pass 3♥ (2N was non-forcing, right?). So, I'll bid 3♠ which must show a good fit for partner's second suit. If partner wants to offer 3N over this, I'll agree. Over 4♣ or 4♦, I'll show the fitting heart honor. If partner offers 4♥, I'll let him play there.

Something is fishy. Give opener 12 and responder 7 (minimums for their actions) together with my 14 makes 33 HCP, leaving only 7 points for partner. That's a pretty weak overcall, especially considering we have the Ace of his suit and responder has shown a stopper. Would he overcall 1♥ will something like ♠xxx ♥KJxxx ♦xx ♣Kxx? Maybe ♠xx ♥QJTxx ♦xx ♣Axxx? I guess it's possible everyone has their bids...barely. I'll bid 2♦ and then take another call (2♠) if partner corrects to 2♥. I'll probably compete to 3♦ if the opponents compete to 3♣.

I like a simple 3♣. It might look a bit timid with virtually 8 tricks in my hand, but there's nothing saying 3♣ will end the auction, nor is 3N a lock even when partner bids it.

The auction was 1♣-1♠, 2♥-3♦, 3♠. I'm surprised at the suggestion of "3+♣". I would have expected that a reverse showed 5+ in the first bid suit. Even with a difficult to handle 4441 shape, I would expect opener to do something other than reverse.

The companion hand was ♠ KT875 ♥ -- ♦ A852 ♣ QT83 So, neither pass nor 3N would have been much of a success. What do you think of the takeout double with this hand?

Isn't this sort of like getting one overall winner from a Mitchell?

You are very funny!

I'm not sure what you are suggesting. If I start a thread, no one that I have can post to that thread? If someone I have blocked is quoted by someone who I do not have blocked, I can only read part of the post? That would likely make it difficult to figure out what is going on in the post. Or does the whole post get blocked because someone I have blocked is quoted? What of someone else quotes the quoted part?

It's very important to know who is voting for which option. Counting "agree with" replies from respected posters is much more useful than looking at poll results.

I don't know the answer to your question, but if I was aiming to qualify 4 or 8, I would look to a method that would best determine the top 3 or 6 teams with the final slot(s) being filled with the best of the rest -- sort of like a wild card. Perhaps it is only a psychological difference. But, if I was qualifying 8 and was doing a simulation to determine how many matches had to be played in order to be x% confident that the best 8 teams qualified, I would instead see how many matches had to be played in order to be x% confident that the best 6 teams qualified. If the participants knew this, I think there would be less grumbling about the randomness of the last couple of qualifiers.

Opener probably has a hand a little too good for an initial weak two-bid. Or, maybe a flawed weak two-bid, something like a side four-card spade suit or void. I expect that partner has the best hand at the table. Probably 1 1/2 trump tricks and values on the side -- a hand that wasn't quite good enough to make a 1NT overcall. There is certainly a danger that the opponents have a club semi-fit and diamond shortness and will take quite a few tricks in 3HX. But, I think in the long run double will be a winner.

IMPs, vul v nv ♠A92 ♥J873 ♦J764 ♣K4 (Pass)-Pass-(3♥)-DBL (Pass)-??? Your call? On a scale of 0 (flip a coin) to 10 (this is automatic), how do you feel about your call?

(1♠)-DBL-(Pass)-2♠ (DBL)-Pass-(Pass)-3♣ No special agreements. Is this non-forcing? Forcing one round? Game forcing? One line answers perfectly acceptable!