Trinidad

Then you go down on a spade lead, or ♥A and a spade shift. It has happened before, and it will happen again. If West leads a small heart, you take 12 tricks and partner will think that you underbid. That also has happened before, and it also will happen again. Rik

It does in England, and Wales. As 2C was artificial I think online one might add "lead-directing" or "clubs" if that is the meaning, but I don't think one is obliged to do so. You can have the regulations that you like in England and Wales. As you may have guessed, I am not a fan of them, but that shouldn't bother anybody: When I'm in London, I will do as the Londoners and I will follow the English regulations without questioning them. But we are not in London, or Cardiff. We are on the BBO forums, a forum for a company based in France, with its roots in North America. Given that, why are you posing a bridge problem on the BBO forums where for the crucial clue (the meaning of the non-alert of the double) you assume that everyone will automatically understand that English/Welsh regulations are used? There is the famous story about a visit of the English queen to Denmark: At an elevator, the text next to one of the buttons was blocked off to prevent the British monarch from seeing it. This text was "fart op" (which means "ride up"). I am sure that Her Majesty would not have broken wind if she would have seen the original text. She would have realized that she was not in London, but in Denmark. Rik

I don't understand what you are saying: What shows clubs? 2♣ was alerted as art. GF. So, that didn't show (or deny) clubs. The double was not alerted. That certainly doesn't mean that it shows clubs. Are you serious that in your jurisdiction the standard meaning of a takeout double (showing the three suits that the opponents didn't show (or extra values)) requires an alert? Do these takeout doubles require an alert too when they show hearts, diamonds and clubs? 1♠-Pass-1NT-X 1♠-Pass-3♣ (7-10, 4+ spades)-X 1♠-X-2NT (4+ spades, limit or better)-X 1♦ (11-16, 0+ diamonds) - Pass- 1♠-X Rik

I am sorry, but in my world, the double is takeout of spades, the only suit that the opponents have shown. And for the record, GF does not equal to "strong". Responder is usually in complete control of the auction and can, at any point, sign off in 4♠ (and in some cases, even pass opener's 3♠). Rik

You don't need to bid spades yourself. If partner has a game invitational hand with 4 spades and 5 hearts, he will bid 2♠ after 1♥-2♥. Partner will intend this as a long suit game try to invite to 4♥, but you can bid 3♠ to show your hand. Partner will than bid 4♠ if it he has four spades (and he will bid 4♥ if he made a long suit game try on a three card suit). Rik

I know that's the official position. I also know it's bullshit. I agree with you as a basic principle: The combination of a hand and a call, does not mean that the partnership has agreed to that meaning of a call. As an example: if someone is stuck in a slam auction and "makes up" a control showing cuebid of 4♣ to get the information he wants then you won't hear me when the player says that he was stuck, made up the bid, eventhough he didn't have a control, but that he couldn't figure out a better bid at the table. However, for auctions that come up often, I think that the automatic assumption that this was not the first time and, therefore, there is an (implicit) agreement is entirely reasonable. After all, we do not need to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that an agreement exists. We need to weight the evidence. The evidence is: This situation (a 4441 distribution in the 1NT strength range) comes up often. The player thought that his action (opening 1NT) described the hand best. It is unlikely that he didn't think that the previous time that he had this hand type and won't think that the next time he has it. Therefore, the evidence points to an agreement. And we rule based on that. The ruling will be wrong only if it really was the first time. All the other times, it is the correct ruling. Better than having individual TDs rule in cases like this, is to have the RA spell it out, so that individual TDs don't need to struggle with this. Rik

What do you think is easier: taking 7 tricks in spades in a 4-4 fit (where you can tell partner what to play) or taking 7 tricks in diamonds opposite a singleton diamond (and a partner who will not understand that you have a Yarborough)? What do you think scores better: taking 6 tricks in 1♠ or taking 6 tricks against 1♦X? Answer these two questions and you have the answer to yours. Rik

I would say that with enough to compete to the 2 level, you bid at the two level: 1♣ (1♠) P (P) 2♥ After all, you do not want your partner to pass the double if you have a 5-6 hand. Rik

Partner's 3♦ did not promise the jack, but you don't need the jack to make 7NT the obvious bid. You are essentially asking two questions: 1. Do you want to be in a grand opposite six diamonds headed by the AK? 2. What grand should it be? Let's start with question 2: As I said above, 7NT will fail if partner doesn't have the jack, diamonds split 4-0 (the wrong way) and nothing else good happens. But if the diamonds split 4-0 the wrong way, you are never going to make 7♦, while there is a small possibility that you can make 7NT. In addition, in 7NT you cannot suffer a ruff at trick 1. Therefore 7NT is a better contract than 7♦. And now for question 1: Do you want to be in a grand? The grand has a 90% probability of making opposite ♦AK6542 and nothing else, the worst hand that partner could have. (Diamonds splitting 2-2 or 3-1 = 90 %). That means that you want to bid it even if he has that worst hand. There is no bad news that partner can give you, other that that he missorted his hand, that will stop you from bidding 7NT. Additional questions ("How many diamonds do you have?", "Do you have the jack?") could tell you that the grand is 100 %, but they don't answer the question whether you should bid it. The 3♦ response already showed that. You did: And I argued that ace asking bids are not merely premature, but simply unnecessary if you already have the information that 7NT is the right contract to bid. Rik

I argued that as soon as North shows 6 diamonds with two of the top 3 honors (with his 3♦ response) South should bid 7NT. There is no reason to ask for aces, whether by Blackwood, Minorwood or Ron Wood. South knows that there are 13 top tricks in NT and that every suit is controled. Why would you want to "take time and explore the options" when you know that 7NT is the right contract? The only option I see is that partner misunderstands your exploring and you end up playing in 4NT or something silly like that. Those are not options I wish to explore. Rik

The 3♦ response takes up a ton of bidding space. You can only do that if it means something specific. For most players a positive response (e.g. 2♥ or 2♠) shows two of the top three and at least five cards in the suit. You would try to avoid these bids when you want to put other strains in the picture. If your response doesn't take much room, then a second possible strain is all right. You could bid 2♥ with ♠9754 ♥AK974 ♦Q3 ♣72: You will raise opener's 2♠ rebid to 3♠ and you have painted a perfect picture of your hand: Spade fit, heart suit, slam interest. But if you take away a lot of bidding space, you cannot have a second strain. This means that 3♦ should show a six card suit: You cannot have a side suit, and with a balanced hand (5♦332) there is no reason to jump. Once South realizes this, he has an easy rebid. He has 2 tricks in spades, 2 in hearts, 6 in diamonds and 3 in clubs, for a total of 13. So he can bid 7NT. This can only go wrong if one opponent has ♦JTxx (and if partner has the ♦8, it only goes wrong if East is that opponent). And even if South is that unlucky, he still isn't down in 7NT. Rik

It is important to realize that an immediate 3♥ by East is NOT an invite. It is a single raise. Its properties are similar to 1♥-2♥. It does not ask West to bid game "with something extra". It just tells West that East is not broke and that he has heart support. If East would want to invite, with a better hand, he has the 2♠ cue available. This is the reason why a direct raise to 3♥ should be automatic with the East hand: It exactly shows the values that he has. (If 3♥ would have been an invite then 3♥ would be a significant overbid.) After a direct raise by East, it is easy for West to bid 4♥. Rik

I think that there is a significant group of people who voted Trump on November 3rd, but who didn't agree with Trump's actions after the election (think Brad Raffensperger). Voting in an (essentially) two candidate system, means that you vote for the person who you think is the better of the two. This may be because you think he is great or it may be because you think he is the lesser of evils. I do not think that conservative people with core Christian values (that, for the record, I do not share) voted for Trump because they wanted him to lie about election results, refuse to admit he had lost or to have him he incite riots. They voted for Trump for having Pence as V.P., for appointing conservative judges, for turning over Roe vs Wade. They voted against liberalism, legalization of marihuana, euthanasia, lhbtq rights, raising taxes. There is only one person responsible for Trump's actions. That is Trump himself, until the moment he dies or is deemed insane (whichever comes first). Rik

Just my little theory: Yesterday, I got the feeling that Trump de facto is retired. The video that he read from autocue was certainly not reflecting the opinion of Donald J. Trump. It is my impression that his cabinet has him by the balls. If he doesn't behave, they will invoke the 25th amendment. One of the things he had to do to stay president, in name only, is to record the video. As soon as Pence thinks that Trump crosses the line that he (Pence) drew, Pence will formally be the acting president. If Trump behaves and nicely plays golf for the remaining 261.25 hours, his reward will be that he gets to finish his term as president. Rik

That is obviously true. I would have preferred Biden to win Pennsylvania with a 5 % difference and get Florida and Texas too. What I meant to say, and probably I wasn't clear about that, is that the perception would have been entirely different if mail-in ballots would have been counted when they came in: On Tuesday evening, the map of almost the entire USA would have looked blue. During the night Ohio and Iowa, and later Texas and Florida, would have turned red. Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania would have been blue all the way. On Wednesday morning it would have been clear that Pennsylvania goes to Biden, and the election is decided. At about the same time, they would have finished counting in Georgia, giving it to Biden too. They would have announced a recount in Georgia, on principal grounds, but it would have been moot. At that time, North-Carolina would start to shift red. Biden would have been ahead of the race all the time. Trump would have played catch-up but would simply run out of time. Apart from the Georgia recount, the result would have been clear on Wednesday. This would have saved me my finger nails, but that is not important. What is important is that Trumpers would not have been able to say that the election was stolen from them, certainly not by Democrats who "found" votes. They never would have had the perception that they "had" the election, so it couldn't have been stolen either. No one would have called for a war against "a Democratic election fraud apparatus". We would have been in the transition period. Probably, Trump would have forced a few issues while he still could. The fact that the election actually was closer than it initially seemed would be good for the history books only. Rik

There may be a lasting effect from the decision to not allow early counting of mail-in ballots in PA: The perception of this election. Suppose that the current status will be the final result: Biden gets PA, GA, AZ and NV. Trump gets NC and AK. Then Biden will have won the popular vote with a margin of 2.5 to 3%, he will have 306 electors vs Trump's 232. That is definitely not a landslide, but it is a clear victory. Suppose that the mail-in ballots would have been counted ahead of time. We would have seen Biden clearly ahead in many states. We would have gone to bed on Tuesday with the clear feeling that we are going to have a new POTUS. We would have woken up on Tuesday and we would have seen that it was actually a little tighter than we thought. But a win is a win. Now, at least Ken and I have had a few sleepless nights in a row. We perceive this election as incredibly close and tense. When, probably, in reality it wasn't. Rik

The whole world has had nightmares. America picked a guy that can formulate only one sentence correctly and gave him the key to the nuclear missiles. No big deal, you would think, but this one sentence happens to be: "You're fired!". I wish you a good night sleep... and many more to come. Rik

In 2013, a group of Dutch ethical hackers had gotten access to a large database with passwords. This included some of Donald Trump's accounts. When they saw what his password was, they got access to his Twitter account. They notified the US authorities immediately. A few days before the 2016 election, they tried to get in again. It didn't work. That was the good news. It didn't, however, take a lot of effort to figure out that Trump had changed his Twitter account name. They tried again, using the password from 2013. They got in without trouble. The password was "yourefired". Again, they notified the authorities. Link to NRC (in Dutch) A few weeks ago, one of them just tried if he could get in again. The good news was that now the password had been changed. The bad news was that he got in anyway after a few guesses. The password was: "maga2020!". No other verification required. (Link to NRC) Rik

I think Trump just did what he does best: Taking people for a ride. Rik

That is the entire point: There are no WTO rules with respect to standards. But the UK and the EU do have those rules. If there is no UK-EU trade agreement, trade between the EU and UK will default to standard rules. This means that for the UK the conditions to trade with the EU will be worse than for, say, Turkey. The brilliance of the EU is that it enabled its member states to trade freely amongst each other, with well defined standards, so that an apple in Wales is also an apple in Poland. But if you are not a member state, this free trade is gone. You have the advantage of sovereignty. You have the freedom to call a pear "an apple" if you want to. But you cannot sell your pears, or your apples, to the other EU members. Rik

Is it so hard to understand? If there is no trade agreement, then the "default" WTO rules apply to the trade across the border... also if this border is in the Irish Sea. But in the UK there are politicians who keep uttering the absurd idea that it would be fantastic if there would not be a trade agreement... effectively blocking trade within their own country. This is what fact-free politics leads to. Of course, no one in the EU wants to block trade between England and (Northern) Ireland, but there must be a trade agreement in place, or WTO rules are followed. Rik

Please answer the following questions: 1. Did you want a Brexit? If No, you have my sympathy, you didn't create this mess. Skip the rest. 2. Do you understand that a Brexit means that there is a border between the EU and the UK? If No, I am flabbergasted. Discussion seems meaningless. Skip the rest. 3. Ok. So you wanted a Brexit and you understand what it means. Where would you draw the border between the UK and the EU? If between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic: You do understand that this is a breach of the Good Friday agreements and you are willing to deal with the consequences, don't you? And you do realize that it wasn't the EU that put that border there, the UK voters did? If somewhere else: You do realize that the piece of the UK that will be on the other side, will effectively be part of the EU trade zone and that this has consequences for trade with the rest of the UK. This effect will be stronger if there is no decent trade treaty between the UK and the EU (a hard Brexit)? The problem is clear, but it is difficult to solve. British Tory politicians have acted as if the problem was vague and easy to solve. I would call that irresponsible behavior. Rik

You do know what a border is, right? It is a line, normally between two countries, where the passage of goods and people is restricted. When you voted leave, that meant that you wanted a border between the UK and the EU. That means "restricted passage of goods and people" from the UK to the EU and back. Then there was this little problem. It had been mentioned by the EU side long before the Brexit referendum, but was completely ignored in England: Leaving the EU would mean a violation of the Good Friday agreements, since a Brexit would put a border between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland. This is not an EU problem. It is a British problem. People in Italy or Poland really do not care whether there is a border on the Irish Island. But if the Brits want a border, then there will be a border, with all the advantages and drawbacks. Of course, the normal thing would be to indeed draw that border between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland. And while the UK politicians did not do a thing to solve the problem that they create with the Brexit (since that would be political suicide nationally), the EU has been really flexible in this: It suggested to the U.K. to opt for the border in the Irish Sea. After all, Poles and Italians do not really care where this border will be exactly. And then the EU did their best to wrap this in such a way that British politicians would not be lynched by Protestants in Northern Ireland. But no good deed will go unpunished. Now, the Brits do not want to live up to their side of this agreement. The consequence will be simple: If there is no strict border in the Irish Sea, there will be a border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, because a border there will be, that is what Brexit means and that is what the British have voted for. Any consequences in Northern Ireland for breaking the Good Friday agreements are for the Brits to deal with. They are not the problems of the EU. Rik

There is, of course, a difference between (1NT)-Pass-(2♣)-Pass/Dbl and (1NT)-Pass-(3NT)-Pass/Dbl. In the Stayman auction double/pass says something about a lead of the suit bid. A double there is a natural call (more natural than a takeout double). I do not see why a double of a Stayman bid would need to be alerted if it says "I like clubs". In the 3NT auction dbl/pass says something about an arbitrary suit that is a specific partnership agreement. When Dbl asks for a spade lead, this is a convention and there is nothing natural about it. There is no doubt in my mind that this double needs to be alerted. The remaining question is whether the negative inference of not doubling, but passing needs to be alerted. If the double would not be alertable (as after Stayman), then obviously the pass isn't either. Id the double would be alertable, then the pass could be alertable too. The question whether to alert the pass is a matter of the philosophie of your jurisdiction. It is essentially the same as in 1♣-(Pass)-1♥-(1♠)-Pass when playing support doubles. If this pass is alertable in your jurisdiction (because it denies 3 hearts) then the pass of 1NT-Pass-3NT-Pass, should also be alertable. If the "support double pass" is not alertable in your jurisdiction, then pass in the 3NT case should not be alerted either. My own opinion is that negative inferences should also be alerted, certainly when playing with screens or when self-alerting online. Rik

Van harte gefeliciteerd, Helene! Rik