Trinidad

I think that a lot of people play some kind of "-sohl" after interference of 2♠ and lower (since 2NT is available), and something else after 2NT or higher. For the sake of simplicity, I think it is handy to agree that Texas is on when "-sohl" applies. At least I find it easier to remember, which means that I don't get ♥ problems (when partner bids 4♥). Rik

One should play 2♣-(2♠)-Dbl and 2♣-(2♠)-pass-(Pass); Dbl as takeout for the same reason that (2♠)-Dbl and (2♠)-pass-(Pass)-Dbl are played as takeout: We have a good hand (in context) to play in a different suit than the opponent's. After all, it is more likely to have a hand with various four card suits outside the opponent's suit (that are hard to show otherwise) than to have a trump stack in the opponent's suit. And IF I should have a trump stack after 2♣-(2♠), I can simply pass, hoping for partner to double. (Note that partner cannot pass, since 2♣ is forcing to 2NT. That means that he cannot let the opponents play undoubled in a contract below 2NT.) Rik

I don't see any problem. Didn't the bidding box have a 3♦ card? Rik

3NT. GF, solid suit. There is no reason to limit this treatment to minor suit openings. The problem hand is the one where the spade suit is not solid. Rik

We play "colorful cuebids" as a defense against transfers: 1NT-P-2♦: Dbl ♦+♠ 2♥ ♣+♠ 2NT ♣+♦ 1NT-P-2♥: Dbl ♥+♣ 2♠ ♥+♦ 2NT ♣+♦ In other words: 2NT always shows the minors, double always shows the suit doubled and the cuebid shows two suits of the same color (and obviously not the suit that you bid). But I think it is fairly standard to play: Dbl shows the suit doubled Cue shows a strong takeout (3 suits) 2NT minors or any two suits Rik

The correct explanation would be: "4+♣; 4+♦; 3-♥; 4+♠; 14-18 total points cards". ;) Rik

I agree, if Namyats is used as it IMO should be: A solid suit, or a semisolid suit with an outside ace. This means that it denies a tenace in a side suit. That makes it a perfect hand to put down as dummy. However, I see quite a few people (some of them as CHOs :( , some of them as true opps :)) who bid Namyats with a hand that is simply stronger than a direct 4M preempt. Obviously, those hands will have more tenaces than the direct 4M preempt instead of less. You should not want to put a 15 point hand with scattered values down as dummy. Rik

So, instead you pick another lead?!? I don't think that the symmetry in the minors should be any argument against leading one. Suppose you hold: ♠Qxx ♥- ♦KQJTx ♣KQJTx Would you lead spades because the minors are equally good?!? Or would you lead a minor, any minor, since it would be better than leading a trump? So, If you decide that a minor lead is the best (I would not), then lead a minor. And if those minors are equal, then you flip a coin. The succes probability of a club lead is not suddenly cut in half, simply because the club holding is (almost) the same as the diamond holding. Rik

I don't doubt that it is common to play that. However, it is also common to have the meta agreement that: we would like to show GF hands, competitive hands, and invitational hands. when we don't have room to include all of them, the invitational hands are the first to throw out (simply decide to force to game or sign off) when we have room for only one of them, the bid is GF, otherwise we pass. You probably guessed that I would have Lebensohled with the aim to get to 3♥ without any worry that my partner would take it as invitational. Having said all that, I will lead trumps. Like Mike, I expect a singleton heart in dummy. Rik

Hi, I think your partner got this one wrong. Pass of 1♥XX can not possibly be for penalty in this situation. Partner told us explicitly that he wanted to play in diamonds or spades. Now I hold a hand that can take at least 7 tricks in hearts (that's what a penalty pass means). What kind of hand would that be? I can think of quite a few hands, but... Would such a hand really pass in second seat over 1♣? I don't think so. So, logic dictates that pass cannot be for penalty and simply means: "I have nothing to add to the discussion." But I think that you got it wrong too. IMO you do have something to add to the discussion. I would have bid 2♦. But my reason would not be fear that partner would take pass as penalty. The reason is that I simply want to establish a fit as soon as I can. And I don't promiss anything since partner should have been prepared for me bidding 2♦ (possibly even on a three card suit) without the redouble. Rik

If you are not happy with double dummy solvers, it is perfectly fine to feed a problem to a single dummy solver. I have often used Jack to analyze bridge questions. The problem is that Jack is not free software. Another is that it doesn't mimic your actual opponents (but what software would mimic Aunt Agatha?). On the other hand, Jack's declarer play and defense are realistic (much better than e.g. GIB). Rik

This is far too strong for 1NT for me. For me, a five card suit is a reason to upgrade, unless it is really terrible. But look at this hand! The ♥Q, ♥J and ♥T have the same value as the ♥K. Effectively, I have four kings of hearts. I am not saying that they are worth 4x3 = 12 HCPs, but they are definitely worth more than 6. Rik

For me, the difference is enormous. In case 1, the opponents are on their way to 3NT with horrible breaks. In case 2, the opponents are on their way to 4♥ and I would like to suggest a save. So, in case 1: I pass, intensing to lead a club. In case 2: I bid 4♣. Rik

The only reason why odds for slam increase by the 4♥ bid is that there seems to be a fit. (Or an other way of looking at it: The difference between contracting for 12 tricks and 9 = 3. The difference between contracting for 12 tricks and 10 = 2. 2 < 3. So if we can play 4♥ we are closer to slam than if we can play 3NT.) Nevertheless, the odds for slam (without a BIT) should be poor. Partner has seen your bids, you have described your hand (Balanced, 25-27) and partner signs off in 4♥. Partner knows that she needs very little to try for slam. She doesn't try for slam, therefore she shouldn't have that very little. When I bid 6♥ with that West hand, my partner will turn out to have the hand that the 4♥ bid actually shows: ♠Jxx ♥xxxxxx ♦xx ♣xx Then I have turned a good (but not cold) 4♥ contract into a no play 6♥ contract. So, East is the one who should suggest slam. Her bid didn't, but her BIT did. Rik

Probably I misunderstood. So, we agree that pass is an LA (and perhaps the only "A")? So, your reasoning is that since dummy cannot have QJxxxx and out (due to the BIT), the odds for slam increase and you have demonstrated that the 6NT bid could be inspired by the BIT. Do I understand that right? Rik

The facts change with the 4♥ bid, the chance of a slam MASSIVELY improves in the knowledge that partner has a 6 card heart suit. I outlined the other reason that suggested 6N over 6♥, many of the hands where 6♥ is the right slam would stem from an in tempo 4♥. The facts did change by the 4♥ bid... But not in favor of bidding 6NT. That is easy to see since the actual dummy provided 0 (zero) tricks in hearts. The fact that 6NT made was due to dummy's values in diamonds and dummy's length and values in clubs. I do not believe that 4♥ showed those. If dummy would have shown up with ♥QJxxxx and out (3 more HCPs than he promised) declarer would have gotton what he deserved: An absolutely silly and unmakeable slam. In that case, 6♥, would make on a winning diamond finesse and a bit of luck in the breaking of the other suits. Rik

That potentially cold slam you also had the round before... yet you chose to bid a non-forcing 3NT. The problem is to demonstrate that the hesitation suggested to bid 6NT. The problem is not to demonstrate that pass is an LA to someone who was willing to play 3NT the round before. I can see only one reason for bidding 6NT: If West doesn't know the meaning of 4♥ (natural/transfer ?!?), then 6NT is a reasonable shot to run from a disaster to something that just might work out well. But then I would expect West to tell that immediately to the TD. Rik

Just my two cents on responding to 4SF: There are 6 cases that I need to show: 3 cards for partner a stop for NT extra length in my first suit extra length in my second suit four cards in the fourth suit I have none of the above Unfortunately, we have only 5 bids available, if we don't consider jump bids. That means something needs to give in. For me, the priorities lie with what partner most likely wants to know: showing support for partner and showing a stopper for NT. If I have either of them, I will show them up-the-line. I don't want to mess with those, so these bids can be relied on. If I have four cards in the 4th suit I will show them, but I may show them as a stop when I am minimum (and conceivably even as "nothing to show"). So, a raise of the fourth suit is also reliable. (It 'd better be, since it is "expensive".) That leaves the 2 rebids of my own suit for the remaining 3 cases. For me, out of those two bids, the cheaper one includes "nothing to show". This means that the "nothing to show" always is the cheapest rebid of one of my own suits. On this auction that would be 2♠. But if responder's red suits were reversed (with hearts as his suit and diamonds the fourth), it is also 2♠, despite the fact that 2♥ would be cheaper. This means that 2♥ can be trusted to show three cards. Rik

But wouldn't it be good to have a regulation that tries to minimize the amount of UI, rather than one where you also need to indicate that you think it isn't natural? Rik

None, but if you have to add: "I don't think it is natural." it does make a difference. Rik

I agree with Pran: This gives UI and it doesn't solve a problem. It is still MI and the opponents are entitled to redress if they are damaged. After all, the correct information is either of: "We do not have an agreement." "We do have an agreement and it is... " I would prefer an alert (if it could be alertable) and -when asked- simply followed by: "I don't know." The last part also is UI, but it contains all the relevant information and nothing more. Rik

SE is for really, REALLY, REALLY gross errors. So, yes, you are too intolerant. Analyses such as "but this play can't possibly gain" do not describe an SE. They describe laziness, carelessness. An analysis of "How the $&@%§$ could he be so &$@^~* stupid to do that?" does describe an SE. SEs are revokes, trumping partner's trick, playing the Q from AQ when your opponent has played the K, etc.: Things that you do right if you simply pay attention to the cards that are played. As soon as an error requires thinking or analysis to prevent it, it is not an SE. (With sincere apologies to anybody who has ever committed a true SE. ;) ) Rik

Don't you think that there is a difference between spending money to solve a problem (if not a crisis) like Bush and Obama did and spending money simply to favor a couple of rich folks "because you can", like Trump wants to do? Rik

But how are you going to spend 2% of your GDP on defense if your federal tax revenue is only 0.0008 % of your GDP, as Blackshoe proposed? Rik

How is this really different from each individual paying: 1.96 % city tax 0.0392 % state tax 0.0008 % federal tax And how do you propose the USA would fulfill its NATO requirement of spending 2 % of its GDP on defense if it rakes in only 0.0008 % of the GDP? The point of devising a tax system is not how much each individual is willing to donate to the authorities. The point is that the authorities get the revenue they need to carry out their jobs. So: You determine what all the government needs to do. This is called politics. Then you determine how much money is needed for that and you add it up. This is called making a budget. Then you make sure that you get the needed money by deposing taxes. It seems generally accepted that the stronger shoulders should carry the heavy load, first of all because they can afford it and second because they profit most from the government (rich people use the roads and airports more than poor people). This is called progressive taxation. So, your proposal is leading to a structural major budget deficit, because your number of 2% is about a factor of 15-40 too low (depending on what all the government needs to do, but defending the nation, maintaining roads and other infrastructure, policing, providing education and a legal system seem absolute minimum requirements). And then in addition you propose linear taxation which is unrealistic and unfair. I would have expected a larger willingness to contribute to the government from somebody who has been paid by the government during his professional life. Rik