TylerE

Find the nearest green card.

CC fees, while they vary, will generally be structured at somet like $x + y%. Typical values for small merchants are x = $0.30 and $y = 2.9% - with smaller charges it's the 30 cents that kills you. Less of an issue if you're charging $25 or whatever an NABC entry is these days.

Classic WJS hand...2♠.

No it doesn't, unless you're expecting them to be nice and lead ♠, and even then it's a stretch.

I take the low road. 2♥.

I honestly don't know what to lead, other than feeling that a ♠ is probably wrong. Leading the ♥ will at least win the post-mortem.

X and Pass. 4♠ shows a decent hand for me, but what I have _isn't_ the nuts. My general policy is to give up on slam when opponents open and respond unless I can count 12 tricks. On this hand, opposite the wrong hand I might not to be able to count 10 - something like Axxxxx xx xx KQx

The credit card thing I can understand. At low transaction levels (And low means anything less than like $10k/month), the fees on a $5 CC charge will be in the neighborhood of $0.36, maybe more, and that's not factoring in the expense of maintaining a merchant bank account, a POS terminal/card reader, etc.

There's an amount of quid pro quo there though - they expect (and get) the same respect in return. Unlike at the club level where I will frequently see crap like 2♣ - p - 2♥ (Alert) - and if they ask, a double shows ♥, and if they don't ask, a double is takeout of hearts. Maybe not the best example since 2♥ Bust is an alertable treatment, but I think yo take my meaning.

For me, in this sort of situation tolerance starts at around KJx. With the N hand I'd certainly be willing to try to wrangle 7 tricks in a 3-3. I've been in far worse partscores, and at more than the one level. Especially at MP...if it makes it's a sure top, and opposite HHx it's unlikely down more than 1, and -100 may not even be bad. Plus, given what we know about partner's hand it's rather unlikely we have an 8 card fit anywhere except possibly diamonds...assuming partner will be rebidding 2♣ here with a decent 5 card suit and bad diamonds.

Doubled of NT are almost always penalty-oriented. Doubly so at matchpoints. If parter has a hand to bid something they can. X should be either very good clubs or extras, and thus, penalty.

I would have more sympathy for W if he wasn't looking at a singleton ♦. That should REALLY alert him to the fact that SOMEONE at the table has ♦.

I'm confused...how does E get to take out his own double. Do you mean E said he wouldn't have doubled? Agree with no alert needed... pass of an artificial bid to show tolerance is "just bridge" in my book.

Properly filled out = includes names of players,

If you're going to require CC's, enforce it at the time that makes sense - when buying the entry. Require at least one valid CC to be present before a pair is seated. Done.

The problem with opening 2♠ on this hand isn't the hands you actually get to play in 2♠. It's every other hand when you cause partner to make a disastrous opening lead, or miss your ♥ fit or...

110% North. The north hand is almost a takeout X of 3♦, pass is completely unforgivable. Heck, if S has Ax instead of Kx of ♦, *6*♠ is not exactly terrible.

Defense - maybe E lead the Ace of ♣ and they're playing UDCA, so the suit was continued, generating a ♥ pitch? That's about the onyl way I can see t let it through.

I finally have a reason to use this: http://www.stickboydaily.com/images/2009/07/Ferrari-Powered-Citroen-2CV-Van-2-465x348.jpg Yes, that's a Citroen 2CV Van body dropped on Ferrari F355 running gear.

MOSCITO isn't even Super chart legal, not that Super chart events exist anyway, and isn't close to mid-chart legal.

I think the people advocating 3♠ are vastly overrating the value of the A♣ singleton. If the hand was ♠KJxx ♥AJ9xx ♦Axx ♣x that would be a lot closer to a 3♠ (although to me, still not quite there...turn either J into a Q and I'd bid 3)

Easy 2♠ for me. Not close to a 3♠ call. I like my jump raise to be good..espeically at IMPs... I want partner to feel about raising that to game frequently, which he can't If I'm bidding 3♠ on hands like this.

Surely his failing to bid 4♠ over 4♥ puts paid to that statement though?

What would a pass over the original XX have shown? I don't like my hand, could hardly be a worse 5hcp for slam with 5 clubs.

When I played a Canape system we always assumed the 2nd suit was at least equal - it's not always, but that was our operating assumption, so we needed a reason to take preference back to the 1st suit. Not always right, but tended to avoid disaster - in part because you don't spend lots of bids floundering for a fit so it's a lot harder for the opponents to balance effectively.