keylime

I'm taking insurance here. 4♥. I think doubling doesn't help us, and since they are confused potentially, let 'em guess last.

Han, Consider this for a moment. Let's open 1NT on this hand: KJT9x AQJ xx KQx. Our non-descript NT has become a monster if we the overcaller take a call other than pass. Additionally, it caters to EITHER major being trumps if you're not sure what the trump suit is. Remember, we're not having to be sane here since the opps took a non-forcing call of 2♥ and jacked it up to 4 without concern. Since pard has doubled here, and you're staring at spade length, pard to me is barring me from another call. Maybe a hand of AQ KT9x Axxxx xx.

I confess, the more I think about this topic, the more I am keen to reconsider strong sanction, not because of the action itself, but for the limitation of damage it would inflict on the game potentially. It is no secret that I strongly disagreed with what occurred, but, I also feel need to take a step back from the emotions and at times, virulence, that has happened as a result. What I feel is the majority view, that even under the best of auspices (which I privately doubt occurred here unless there was something said or acted while there), imposing one's belief structure and philosophical views is fundamentally wrong and disrespectful when a guest of another country The core issue I have wrestled with, is that determining the degree of punishment, for lack of better words, has caused more consternation and passion, than the actual act itself. Does it benefit the game of bridge and its primary component, people, to "lay wood" to the team for a year's suspension from all bridge events, solely on the premise of what appears currently to be an indiscretion and exercising of poor judgment? Or, does it hurt the game by not by decisive action reaffirming the neutrality that is desired by the sponsoring organization? Will the choice rendered by the USBF cause a positive or negative effect at tournaments or other mediums? I feel it is no longer the issue of right and wrong, but of the goal of mending and progression. It is the method of such which I am torn. I can only imagine what was discussed at the Baltimore and Richmond sectionals this weekend.

This is a thought-provoking hand. It definitely looks like the 1NT bidder, assuming the standard 15-17 range, is trying to entice us as the intervening side into a large penalty. I wouldn't be surprised to see 5 spades in the 1NT bidder if I took a call now. The pluses of my hand: 1. I own the club ace. 2. I have length in spades, to cover the other major. 3. I have a heart in case we defend. 4. I raised pard and he's doubled a voluntarily bid game. The minuses: 1. If pard meant his double as takeout, then this could be a p'ship issue after the hand is over. 2. What kind of hand is the 1NT bidder raising to game on if it isn't based on a spade stack in addition to hearts? 3. Could it be offshape, like a 2-4-2-5 hand? 4. Pard found a double here - are they freakish enough to try to prompt me? 5. Is pard looking at only 1 hand and not catering to mine after my 3♦ raise - inferring a x-4-5-x? I'm passing, and leading trumps immediately if they choose to leave it in hearts. Versus a spade pull tho, I'm smacking it. Very good hand problem. Will send to my pard.

I might table 1♠ if I was with Larry just because of the tremendous potential of trick taking I have in 2 suits. However, 2♠ is a little too offbeat for me. Once tho you elect 2♠, 5♥, definitely.

Ran it under both Windows XP Pro, Ubuntu 7.10, and Leopard - not one issue. For what it's worth, Leopard is a fresh installation and not an archive and install. The colors appear more vibrant to me and that is a plus. The latency is minimal, and the interface is rich but not overwhelming. Overall, a positive and large step forward to full functionality I feel.

I'd like to see just a few things added to the GCC. 1. Transfers over 1♣, regardless of the strength of 1♣. I think the world can handle that. 2. 2 suited preempts, if both suits are known or a specific combination of 2 suiters possible. 3. I don't know if the Multi would be too much of a shift to assimilate, but I do think that defenses against 1NT should be gradually unrestricted. 4. I'd like delayed alerts to start at 4NT and not 3NT - for the sake of disclosure (I do understand the rationale behind it currently). 5. Lastly, Kaplan Interchange would be greatly appreciated here.

Anyone that is trying to uphold the free speech banner refuses to accept this simple truth: Once one leaves their birth country, or a country where one becomes a citizen of, any application of what is one's normal customs and rights are no longer valid. I have had the experience of not only being a citizen of a country (the U.S.), but also go through the process to become a permanent resident of another country (Canada). One of the tenets of the process in Canada that I had to undergo was gaining an understanding of customs and normalization within Canada. This was an eyeopener. In Canada there exists a sense of restorative justice, unlike here where due process and the rule of law is prevalent. Thusly the mindset is very different - one approach espouses looking at the incident as a global view to the community versus the other which solely seeks removal of the offender from society. The point I want to make is, one's rights when abroad are not a transferable commodity that is expected to be honored at the destination. We are merely guests of the host country, and thusly, should be reasonably expected to attempt to adhere and adapt to the norms of that locale. And in most locations in the world, using a platform of a positive accomplishment and then contorting it for a personalized, nonlocal view that can be construed as disparaging, is not socially acceptable, regardless of whether or not the view has any merit (my very strong opinion is that their sign has the tinge and odor of obnoxiousness). Frankly, to apologize for being an American, is criminal upon itself. It would be analogous to apologizing for being Asian, or white, or black, or female. It is a flat denial of one of the primary components of the person: the sense of country, of nationality, of identity. I have very little sympathy towards the VC team. They rightly deserve strong sanction.

I don't hammer it unless there's some agreements along the lines of G/B 2NT at imps - Mike hits it on the head. At MPs, it's only one board. I smack it and go for +200.

My lead agreements mandate a diamond length due to the auction, and the fact that I have a potential trump winner. Additionally, Mike's and bhall's arguments are similar to my views.

I like 2♠ - gets my hand across and it's just right on suit strength. 3♠ is a little harsh with this hand.

For me, 2♦ red/white, otherwise 3♦ - and I'd expect Larry to reciprocate. My views about preemption are simple: bad 4 card majors are ok, a void is ok, seat position and colors are key. Most importantly, you're trying to barricade the opps.

Here's the thing tho - I have privately hated a 4 level bid over a 3M jump bid as a cuebid; pard had told me their hand and I want to help pard get to the right contract. I also don't want to lose the club suit either if pard's on a 6-4 (or better). I have another bid coming to me and I want to help pard make the right decision. Since I have super spades, and 2nd round diamond control, I want to drive to slam. I can still get to 7♠ or NT. I can't get this information by 1h-1s-3h-3s-3n-4c because the diamond control still is out there to determine, and the trump suit is yet well defined. I definitely can't get this info from a 4NT ace-asking bid either.

I like 4♣ a lot more than a confusing 3♠. You have a rebid coming to ask about the diamond situation (5♠). Good problem.

I'm liking pass here slightly over redouble - the redouble might steer them into another strain. That, and if I bid 2♠ I get my just desserts doubled.

I don't like double here at all initially - you need to show your hand immediately, and you have an ACOL 2 bid in spades. I do tho think once pard takes a freebid or five spades that six should hit the table due to Josh's excellent rationale.

2♠, and not a thought more. The void and six card suit upgrades nicely.

I am quite saddened over this news - he exemplified class and dignity. Truly, the game is less because of his passing now...

I really loathe 4m here, and convert the double - the +200 allure is too much when they are red at MPs. That and the psychology of netting +500 when others are in a shaky 3NT that may go down, might help you in the long run as well.

I don't bid 5♠ here with 2 dead in hearts and a soft diamond queen holding. I could see 5♠ on a singleton red card and Kxx in the other suit. I rather hedge my bets with 4♣ since pard should now bid any 4 of a red suit to keep 4♠ in the picture.

I'm pulling here. I can't set a 2 trick set with an extra heart and side five card diamond suit, along with the void. I got bad karma about defending here. And at IMPs, I am taking insurance and bidding one more.

Double caters to many things (including a pass) and is most flexible, showing a good hand versus a 4♥ hand. If pard finds a 5m call, then we're almost golden.

3NT here. No need to try to make a probing call when it's likely the shortcut game desired. 5♣ should NEVER enter the equation here.

I would expect my pard to sharply discuss my pass after the game if I elected that at the table. I have some values, and even tho I have a pancake hand, I do owe them one raise only to up the pot.

I wish to have my feelings understood, my feelings felt, and my feelings ached over...but this is rather a bit much. Someone pass me some painkiller from all these feelings!