Trinidad

Imagine the nice opportunities for tax schemes if a person can get married to a corporation. ;) Rik

Okay, let's take your cherry picked example hand. Would you make an invitational bid with that hand when partner overcalls 1♠? Would you expect overcaller to make any move towards game with his 6 card suit and 8 HCP? Contrast that to what would happen after a WJO of 2♠: Advancer furthers the preempt to 4♠ and voila game has been reached. Rik

So, when you are vulnerable, have a six card suit that isn't worth mentioning, and about 8 points, can't you simply conclude that the six card suit isn't worth mentioning, the strength of the hand isn't worth mentioning and simply put a green card on the table? Why would I overcall at the one level with 6 times the 10 in an 8 HCP hand? It hardly takes any bidding room away. It suggests the wrong lead when he opponents are declaring. The fact that I have a six card suit (that partner doesn't know of) reduces the probability that partner can raise, so the opponents will be declaring more often (than when I have a decent five card suit). What is the point of overcalling with such a hand? Rik

That is true, but I don't think that such an agreement would be well suited for novices/beginners. Rik

I am one of the very few who plays that a 1-1-1 can be forcing. But before you think that you have found someone: it doesn't apply to this auction. It only applies to two auctions: 1♣-1♦; 1♥ 1♦-1♥; 1♠ The reason for these exceptions is that I do not want to jump with strong 4441 hands. (And in my style a 4441 hand needs to be very strong before it is opened at the 2 level.) But as I said, very few players will make these exceptions. Other than the exceptions I gave, I cannot come up with a good reason why a 1-1-1 should be forcing. The only thing I can say is that, in practice, I rarely pass. Rik

Hi Kylekatarn and welcome. I would be most interested in the vulnerability. On these very distributional hands usually both sides can take a lot of tricks in their own best trump suit. So, unless I was at unfavorable vulnerability (we vulnerable, they not vulnerable), I would bid 4♠ and let the other three players sort out the mess. At unfavorable vulnerability, I would jump to 2♠ and wait what happens. I might introduce my diamonds later. Rik

Just my $0.02: Pass = 10 2♠ = 9 1♠ = 3 Why am I so negative about 1♠? Because I may be forced to bid once more and the only possible rebid I have is in spades. Then I will be showing a six card suit. Partner will notice that I didn't make a weak jump overcall, despite my six card suit. He will conclude that the reason for that is that I was too strong for a weak jump and will play me for an opening hand. So, if I have to choose between telling my partner that I have six spades and a weak hand and telling him that I have six spades and an opening, I will pick the weak hand by making a weak jump overcall. Rik

Music: in my opinion, the best intro, by a mile, Honky Tonk Women by the Stones. Rik

Just my $ 0.02: 3NT means: "I think we have 9 tricks in NT if you have spades stopped." You have spades stopped. It seems that your partner thought wrong. Rik

How is that? The auction is over. You ask for an explanation of the entire auction. When you get to 5♥, they reply "2". You play in an environment where 1/3 of the field plays 5♥ as 2 aces, 1/3 as 2 keycards (no info about the queen) and 1/3 as RKCB (2 keys, no queen). In addition, you know that cc's are sloppy because those players that play 5♥ as showing 2 keys, without info about the queen, will have written "keycard Blackwood" or "RKCB" on their cards, because they don't know any better. The same holds for many who play good old fashioned standard Blackwood: they have "RKCB" on their card, because they don't know any better. So, after the reply "2", you need to ask a follow up question. I think it is relevant to know whether partner has the queen, or merely could have the queen. Similarly, partner would like to know if I (could) have the queen. I have run into some card sharks there who play RKCB and only reply "2", just to figure out how to play the hand. So, my partner and I have the agreement that whoever asks about a keycard auction will ask the follow-up question(s), whether s/he does or doesn't hold the king and/or queen. Rik

?!? Do I understand that you claim to have evidence that: - homosexuality is not innate - God exists I would like to see that evidence. I will not get into a God discussion, but the least I can say that homosexuality is certainly not exclusive to humans. If you look at animals, you see homosexuality (and other non-heterosexual behavior) anywhere: cows, dogs, whatever. Is there anybody who doesn't know that dogs even like "doing it" with humans from time to time? You believe that dogs have somehow learned that behavior? Who taught them that? If non-heterosexual behavior is all around us in the animal world, which means that at least in these animals it would seem to be innate, what makes you think that it wouldn't be innate in animals of the species Homo Sapiens? You need to have pretty good evidence to claim such an exceptional position for Homo Sapiens. I am curious... Rik

Interesting case... I have had the pleasure (:() of playing against opponents who routinely didn't fully disclose their ace asking method (in places where people also played 0/4-1/5-2-3 keycards). They would explain the 5♥ reply as "two keycards". They would simply wait for an opponent to ask the follow-up question "does it say something about the queen?" and then finesse trumps into that hand... Rik

After 1x-1M; 2M, I play a relay (2M+1) as a general invitation to 4M. Opener, who is going to be dummy, can: Accept the invitation by bidding 4M Accept the invitation by bidding 3NT, suggesting 3NT as a contract Reject the invitation by bidding 3M Describe his hand (as a game try) by bidding between 2M+1 and 3M The bids between 2M+1 and 3M can be to your taste. I personally like long suit tries, but short suit tries or help suit tries are fine if that suits you better. Finally, in the auction 1m-1♥; 2♥-2♠; 2NT shows a game try with spades (long suit, short suit, help..). This way, declarer leaks little information to opponents. Rik

Regardless of whether the double card was above or on the table: It is clear that South intended to call double at the point where he pulled the card. So double is the call that is made and it cannot be changed. In addition, of course, South's remark is UI to North and AI to EW. Rik

I expect you never tried to double him with a voice of thunder. ;) Rik

Ben Franklin has a good point. Rik

How many clubs do you think partner has? He either has a 2=4=3=4 distribution, or he has at least 5 clubs. On the other hand, partner won't have 7 clubs or he would have rebid the clubs. So, I would play partner for a 2=3=3=5 distribution or that distribution with one card moved to another suit (not spades). I would bid 5♣. Rik

That is true, but his not asking is UI to partner. And this "non asking" occurs more often than you think. I once had a real nice example as a player: LHO opens a strong 1NT, my partner bids 2♥ (DONT). I alert, but no questions are asked. RHO doubles. I ask what the double means and hear "take out". I raise to 3♥. It goes pass-pass to RHO who now asks what 2♥ meant. I explain: "hearts and spades". She now bids a confident 3♠, immediately alerted by LHO. I ask again and the answer is: "asks for a spade stop". So, the first round responder showed spades by not asking and on the second round she asked for a spade stop by asking first. And indeed, she had a game force with 4 small spades. Fortunately, the TD was experienced enough to recognize that both the non-question and the question were UI. Rik

I agree the watercooler has been going downhill, and the climate change thread is ridiculous - but replace it? With what, exactly? Perhaps you care to address the corruption in the water cooler? ;) Rik

So, you simply assume that this player has never asked a question about a call in his life... because you are not told that he has asked questions before. What is the more realistic assumption: 1) That the South player, just like all normal bridge players, asks for the meaning of a call from time to time. 2) That the South player is an unlikely exception to the rule and never asks about any call... ever. Rik

As can not asking and bidding... which is more relevant to this thread. Rik

I don't know, since the hands on the bridgeclues site are only available for 24 hours (unless you pay for them which I don't plan to do). Then a new problem is posted. But the theme of the entry saving duck came up there just a few days before Phil posted his. An entry saving duck is not uncommon, but it is rare enough that I don't recall seeing one discussed in the time that I have been on BBF... except for one a few days after Mike Lawrence discussed one on his website. Rik

I might disagree... For a completely different reason than you might think. The reason why I think that Phil might have dome something seriously wrong here is that this theme (or perhaps even this hand, I don't recall) came up in the play problem on www.bridgeclues.com a few days ago. (Most problems there are written by Mike Lawrence.) Do I have any proof that he simply copied the theme after he had seen it on Bridgeclues? No, I don't. And it might just be a coincidence. But copying an idea from somewhere else and posting it here representing it as if it is yours (whether encountered at the table or constructed as a puzzle) is wrong. Rik

The straight answer: The Swiss should prosecute you. That is where you committed your crime. The fact that this is a crime in both the USA and Switzerland does not suddenly make it right for the USA to prosecute. Swiss law applies. That doesn't only involve the decision whether to prosecute, but also, e.g. how the court procedure will take place and what the possible sentence might be. Suppose that German drivers that are speeding on the German Autobahn would be prosecuted by the Dutch legal system (speeding is just as much an infraction in Germany as it is in the Netherlands). Suddenly those poor German BMW drivers would be paying enormous fines. (For those who don't know: speeding fines in the Netherlands are ridiculously high and in Germany ridiculously low.) Rik

For me, there is no principal difference between an internet account and a bank account. They are physically the same, some bits that are up or down on a server somewhere, that give the holder of the account certain rights. Rik