Echognome

Mike - I think it's because there is a difference between "with any hand shape" and "with any hand with shape". As the poster does not define "with shape", this could be anywhere from quite controversial to quite obvious. I'm sure no one will pass 1♣ with xxxxxxxx xxx xx ---. And yet most would pass 1♠ with xx xxx xxx xxxxx. So it just depends on what the poster really means.

Sounds like a good deal for Through the Pack and a tale for the 6 of clubs.

2♠ first time. The hand sucks, but we have 6 spades and need to show them.

I also play that 3♥ is Michael's (as I would if a weak 2♥ was opened on my right), so I will start with double as well. I won't be disappointed if partner jumps to 4♠.

I haven't played a weak NT regularly in a few years, but is this really true? How would you bid after 1♣ - 1♠ with: ♠Kxxx ♥Axx ♦x ♣KQxxx or ♠Kxx ♥Axxx ♦x ♣KQxxx The same way as with: ♠Kxxx ♥AQx ♦Ax ♣KT9x Maybe I just don't understand what is standard there? Anyway, putting that all aside, I think I would bid 3♥ as a mini-splinter if available, although I find it close to being a 2♠ call. I just think we have some pretty good playing strength and should try to show it. I don't think it's the perfect call, as I try to avoid splintering with a stiff A, but I'll view it as my choice from the lot.

I don't mind boring movies when I want to take a nap. Airplanes are good places for them. The other 99% of the time I watch movies, "Was it boring?" is my first criterion for whether I thought it was a good movie.

I believe I expressed this same sentiment with my answer.

Opposite a passed partner, I feel I am only worth one bite at the cherry, so double it is.

Han gave me this hand as a defensive problem earlier today from the East hand. The actual bidding was slightly different, but not relevant. The interest to me comes in the play. Han and I analyzed one of the variations and jchiu and I another. I think the third scenario is more straightforward. So with gratitude for Han for giving me this problem I present: [hv=d=w&n=saqt5hdaj974cq843&w=sj6hakq654dqt83c2&e=s874ht87d652cakt9&s=sk932hj932dkcj765]399|300|Scoring: IMP 1♥ - Dbl - 2♥ - 2♠; 4♥ - 4♠ - All Pass[/hv] Opening lead: ♣2 - 3 - K - 5; 1. Heart returned at trick 2. Play or defend? 2. Trump returned at trick 2. Play or defend? 3. ♣9 returned at trick 2. West ruffs and returns a trump. Play or defend? Try to do so without the help of GIB. I think it's a neat hand.

I'll wait a few more days before giving my picks.

Tony, I don't believe this is the modern style. You may want to read a thread I started awhile back. It seems that there are two approaches that are in common practice nowadays. One approach is that double followed by a new suit at the same level is NF. E.g. 1♦ - (2♣) - Dbl - (P); 2♥ - (P) - 2♠ = NF. Another approach is to play transfers in these auctions. Otherwise, you will face serious problems competing for the partscore. Anyway, read the thread for yourself here: http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...ouble+lebensohl -Echognome

Was there something that precludes you from bidding the nonforcing/gameforcing 4♠? I can understand you may not choose to do so, but it seemed odd to me you felt the only choices were 3♠ and 4♥.

I think your third question shows why 4NT is not a good way to go. I agree with the 1♦ opening and the 4♣ splinter. I will make another slam try with 4♠ and bid 5♦ if partner bids 5♣. I will respect a sign-off by partner in 5♥ over either of those.

I guess you missed the suggestion of several others above that you bid 2NT scrambling with such hands? Seems easy enough to me: 1♣ - (2♠) - Dbl - (P); 2NT - (P) - ? Now when responder has a 2452 he bids... drum roll... 3♦. Now on the other side of the coin, do you suggest opener bid the same way with the following two hands. If not, how does he bid them? A: ♠xx ♥Ax ♦AQJx ♣AQTxx B: ♠xx ♥Ax ♦QJxx ♣KQTxx

From the story I read on Yahoo News: Which made me think that a 50 game suspension seemed harsh for what was just a mistake of Manny's doctor. Surely he would appeal. Then I read: I don't understand the reasoning. Why would you not appeal just because you will miss games later in the season rather than earlier in the season? I mean yes, on the surface, I can understand that being in playing shape closer to playoffs is important. But if there's a good chance you will have the sentence reduced or thrown out all together, surely it must be worth it. I can't help think there's more to the story than he's saying.

My first thought was to bid 3♠ and hope that partner bids again, so we can bid 4♥. However, upon reflection, I would be worried that 3♠ would be passed too often when we have game and I like 4♠. Our spade suit is good enough for it.

And pray tell what color is that? Whitish yellow?

Seems to me like an easy pass. Maybe you will color me yellow, but I would have passed as well over a 1♠ response.

That part in parentheses in the last sentence is really important! Also "So pass will give you a positive score about 53% of the time" can not be concluded from your results at all. If opps make 3♣ 468 times of 1000 simulations, they go down in 532 of 1000. If they go down I get a positive score. 532 of 1000 is about 53%. I think that is a valid logical conclusion from my data. Without considering any other conclusion, if you write "3♣ only makes" then that would imply the opponents can make exactly 9 tricks with clubs as trumps. The key word being only. If you had written 3♣ or more makes, then we'd start to get there. However, you are missing one key point. When we pass, it is not going to always go P-P-P. Sometimes LHO will raise and they will go down. Sometimes LHO will bid a new suit and they will find an alternative contract that may or may not make. Sometimes partner will take an action. Etc. etc. So no, I do not think you have made a "valid logical conclusion." No offense of course!

I agree that's what we play. I can easily be convinced that splinter is a better treatment. I currently like 3♥ as showing hand #1 as I believe it's a good way to absolutely set trumps. I find that auctions that start 1M - 2m; 2Red - 2M are often murky, unless opener bids 3M and then that sets trumps. Perhaps it's simply that we need more discussion on these auctions!

Also have asthma, so it never interested me. I don't view it as any worse than drinking alcohol either.

And just to show that you can play a similar method quite differently. We used to play that when shape was known at 3♠, then: 3NT = To Play 4♣ = "Strong Relay" = Control Ask followed by denial cuebids 4♦ = "Weak Relay" = Bid 4♥, unless significant extra (similar but not the same as the end signal) 4♥/♠/5♣/5♦ = To Play 4NT = Quantitative Note that there is much less of a reliance on keycard. We prefer to go into denial cuebidding instead. Also the order of showing the suits suggested by Richard seems awkward. We use "Longest-Highest", so since all the suits are the same length, we would go Spades > Hearts > Clubs. I've also seen "Longest-Lowest".

I know this isn't conclusive, but I tried again and still had a blank white screen (i.e. no message). I know that isn't too helpful, but it's what occurred. Note that before I tried I went into the options and under "Cache Operations" I clicked on "Clear History". It erased my browser history.

Can't add much to the discussion. I would upgrade the nice diamond suit and downgrade the Jx. I would consider the hand 16 and open accordingly. One other point is that when playing a 14-16 NT, we are then forced to rebid 2NT on 17-19, so I normally prefer to include good 16 counts in 1NT.

Same for me on a Kyocera TNT. Same for me, which is a shame as it's something I would definitely enjoy viewing. If anyone finds a fix, please let us know!