pbleighton

Thoughts: 1. Never play a convention without discussing it with your partner first :P 2. You don't have room for the exploration of side suits. Bids after 3S should be cueing first round controls, if in different suits. A rebid of your second suit might show slam interest and a strong suit. 3. This hand isn't strong enough for slam invitation opposite an invite with (presumably) 3 card support, especially since it is likely that pd has some club values. Just bid 4S, and don't be upset to miss an occasional slam with 27 hcp and a 5-3 fit. Peter

3C. 3NT isn't bad, but given the vulnerability, I don't like Qx as a stopper. It could depend on the opps. A lot of players are more conservative than they should be vul against a strong club. Playing against someone like myself, I would probably bid 3NT :P Peter

"Fact is, IMO, the conservatives are right about some things and the liberals are right about some things but neither is right much more than 10% of the time. Pure capitalism is just as evil and maybe more so than pure communism - it is when extremes are reached either way that the horrors arise. " Winston, you wouldn't be swallowing some right-wing BS, would you ;) I know a lot of liberals (including the guy who looks at me in the mirror every morning), but no communists. You apparent equation of the two, if that is what you meant, is literally nonsense. Peter

"Is there any rational justification of this bidding sequence or is it just luck?" Just luck. A 1NT bidder should NEVER bid after pd has bid 3NT. BTW, what is your NT range? Even if it is 16-18, the hand looks too strong for 1NT. I don't mind bidding 1NT with a 6 card minor suit, but I would have opened 1D. The auction would go 1D-2C(forcing for one round)-3D(decent 6 card suit, forcing to game)-3NT. Peter

"Sorry, Freedom of the Press DOES NOT trump national security, no matter how ridiculous, pointless, dangerous - pick 3 - our mission in the middle east is. " This is certainly true. The issue is judgement. Just because the Government *can* classify something, it doesn't mean they *should*. Most classified information should never have been classified in the first place. It gets classified by reflex or to cover politcal butt (which appears to be the case here). Peter

You can't expect Bush to read the papers. How would he know? Peter

"An opening bid a natural bid of 1♣ or 1D must promise at least 10 hcp. Can we agree that we can not routinely open a natural 1D on five hcp? I think the answer is yes. This means that the natural opening of 1♣ or 1D on this value is a forbidden. " Bad example for your case, Ben, since one bids with less than 8 hcp are specifically disallowed. Peter

I'm not entirely sure he answered your question. Is it OK to have spades and a minor, or must it be spades and a specific minor. His sentence: "If 2S showed both minors and at least 10 HCP, it would be allowed." is worrisome, since this refers to the "10+ hcp and at least 5-4 in two known suits" exception. Peter

Ken, that's a lot of thinking to pass with a hand which has the playing strength of an average(?) 5332 15 count. I don't think it's close. Peter

Adam is correct: "PART I: NATURAL CALLS Most natural calls do not require Alerts. If the call promises about the expected strength and shape, no Alert is necessary. Treatments that show unusual strength or shape should be Alerted. As to length, ACBL accepts as NATURAL any offer to play in a suit for the first time that shows: (1)Three or more cards in a minor suit. (2) Four or more cards in a major suit. (3) Four or more cards for an overcall in a suit at the one level. (4) Five or more cards for a weak two-bid. (5) Six or more cards for a three-level preempt." from Alert Procedures. Peter

"Killing them is not the answer; it is a brutal act should be eschewed by civilized societies." Ron, I agree with your conclusion, but I would state the reason a little differently: Examples matter, and in a democratic society the examples set by the government are paramount. Capital punishment sends a very clear message: killing people you hate is an acceptable way to solve problems. It is no coincidence that the U.S. is nearly alone among economically advanced democracies in our retention of capital punishment, and also has a homicide rate an order of magnitude higher than our economic competitors. And as for the foreign policy correlations.... Peter

If Moss-Ekeblad play a strong club (I know Ekeblad does), 4H is understandable, though obviously as disaster here. Peter

"If I'm not mistaken, "random carding" is an illegal agreement in ACBL events" Perhaps, but it is quite common :) Peter

"Thus I believe the Okbridge practise (could be former practise, as have not played on their in 2006 or this year) of the mandatory card summary announcement at the start of the round could assist a lot here. Something like "updca, 3/5" or "random carding". " I like this idea. Peter

2H, though 1NT is a reasonable alternative. Peter

"Many forget that this was Iraqi law not our own that was used." Oh, please. As I have said, he was an evil butcher, but: He was tried at U.S. behest, by U.S. puppets, in a show trial (one of the judges was dismissed for being insuffiently pro-conviction), and he was held in U.S. custody until the Iraqis decided to execute him. Thought experiment: if he had been acquitted, would we have released him? No way. Peter

Thanks, Justin. Mine is out of date. Who do I contact to have them change it? Peter

I see this on some profiles, especially in the ACBL tournaments. Is this some sort of rating? If so, how is it calculated. If not, what does it mean? Peter

"Peter, I didn't even know there was a slut style" The excitement is... infectious :huh: "Of course, my views are slanted because I don't play a lot of matchpoints, and I'd say when the object of the game is frequency of gain/loss instead of total gain/loss that there is a lot to be said for mixing it up more." Well, much to your surprise I'm sure, I play mostly matchpoints :angry: Peter

"It is not that the 4333 hand will bid 3, but partner is not excluded from bidding 3 with heart shortness and dummy will surely disappoint." Winston, your point is taken, in theory anyway, but I have been doing this for a while and the types of problems you point out are rare. Have you played the slut style much? :huh: Peter

"The top of of the overcall does have some bearing, but even then you can easily get too high with a 13-14 count and a 6-card suit, no?" A good 14, yes. 13s, hardly ever. I can be pretty pushy bidding games when we open the bidding, especially with the opps silent, but when the opps start the bidding, i'm not nearly so optimistic. Peter

"Yes, the more aggressive might well bid 2S but the question concerns whether or not that is good stategy due to gain/loss - bidding gains by creating blocking action and competition but loses by widening the range of the raise, thus making it harder on partner to know what to do next." Well, there's no doubt there is a cost to aggressive advancing. In my experience, however, it is fairly rare for me to have an overcalling hand which wants to invite over a simple raise, particularly where the opener's partner has bid. One reason for this is that if if the overcall would be on the one level, I will double then bid my suit, if I have an OK 17, good 16, or an excellent 15. That doesn't leave many "invitational" hands. This is particularly true in my partnership where we overcall with 6 counts with poor 4 card suits :huh: , but even in my "normal" partnership (almost always 5 cards, usually 8+ hcp, but we always raise with 3, even with a 4333 yarborough) we have a low top for one level overcalls. Peter

"I find it interesting that so far everyone is assuming a 9-card fit - how many of those also are proponents of 4-card overcalls?" 1) Since 5 cards is the overwheming standard for overcalls, I assumed that you would have mentioned it if the pair was playing 4 card overcalls. Was I wrong? 2) Dollars to doughnuts anyone who is aggressive enough to play 4 card overcalls at unfavorable is aggressive enough to bid 2S here. I certainly would, and in a partnership where overcalls were 5+, I would raise on any hand with 3 card support. Peter

"It is surely right to compete as often as possible, but doesn't that have to be tempered with misleading partner as to the quality of your raise - in other words, should partner expect either better shape or better cards for a raise?" No. Peter

"Just wonder if "Hussein" is subject or object of the implied sentence. Maybe it doesn't matter ..... " Nope. Peter