TylerE

While I don't have this particular problem, I will agree that a general dislike for the sound set is one of the myriad reasons I do not care for the flash BBO.

For some reason South East Asia has a cultural thing for mind sport games, often in ways that are not financially sound. It's like a prestige thing. Sort of like how companies there will sponsor high $ bridge/chess/go/backgammon tournies, without any real financial motivation.

But playing it like that aren't you going down whenever RHO has a black doubleton?

I'm still failing to see how that helps you

Fluffy, I don't understand. We've already lost one trick (A♠), so we can't lose another trick ever anyways. Given that, we have 2♠ + 6♥ + 1♦ + 4♣ = 13 tricks. Why do we need to ruff a ♦ ever? I suspect what this comes down to is wether you just bang down top trumps or somehow hope to deduce E has Jxxx(x).

X at least gives us a shot at getting to the right strain, which 2N essentially gives up on.

Many calls which are natural require an alert, and many that ARE NOT natural do not. So, "is it natural?" is a very poor test in any jurisdiction that I'm aware of. One of my favorite examples is that, at least in ACBLand, my 2♣ (playing a strong club system), which promises 6+ ♣ has to be alerted, but your "standard american" 2♣, which doesn't promise clubs at all, and can be just about whatever you define "strong" as, doesn't.

This isn't really a Precision vs Std question. It's yet another occurance of what I call "Oh S--T 2NT", a favored big of B/N/I players that invariable gets them in tons of trouble. Basically, if you're considering 2NT in a situation like this, think again. Either your ♥ holding is good enough to pass the X, or it isn't, in which case you REALLY don't want to ne in 2NT with no tricks. "

X for me. 2NT is terrible, regardless of what it means, on these cards.

Danger danger WIll Robinson.

Because BBOSkill is fundamentally flawed, and there is plenty of historical evidence that any sort of assigned/visible player score is a complete cancer to a playing site. (See: OKBridge, death and irrelevancy of) /thread

By the 2016 cycle, Democrats will the majority, not the minority in Texas. Isn't it amazing what 50 years of immigrant bashing does to traditional assumptions?

Find a system where you have the auction 1NT-2♣-2♠-3NT?

So yea...would it be possible for the admins to add some javascript to the page so that when using the quick reply text box the "Add Reply" button just above and to the right of it? I've clicked that instead of "Post" at least 10 times after writing a post.

1♠ for me. 1N Forcing also has a certain devious appeal....especially if opponents are balance happy and end up bidding 2♠.

Not really sure there is any B to A. I might take the money in this position too. Swap the K and A of ♦ for instance and it could easily be the same auction.

Roll it back to 4♥. Frankly, N has about the MOST defensive hand he could have on this hand, short of a ♠ void or an extra trump. The only possible wrinkle is wether 5♥ is SEWoG. I'm close to feeling that it is... don't sound like NS have more than a 9 card fit, quite possibly 8, so EW may well be off 2 tricks in ♠ alone. While I would normally be sympathetic to a desire to think, what is there for S to think about? He has already shown his hand, and he has the worst possible distribution.

Why wouldn't A!H work as well? Obv partner has to unblock.

How is there NOT something special about this sequence by definition? What system defines minor suit raises beyond 3N?

It doesn't sound like you actually have an agreement. I'd just say it shows both majors, any count.

1NT all day long.

Are the players any good? My gut instinct is to deny redress to N/S whatever I decide for E/W. Surely after getting an answer like "normal raise" if S cares he should take some action to protect himself.

Actually, I think given the description of GIB's 3♥, I would disagree. We are in a GF auction (19 + 6 minimum). The "preference" hand can just bid 4♠. 3♠ leaves the door open for cuebidding so should be stronger, given that we are in a GF.

HELLO is fine, as it is against strong NT...but X should be a good hand.

... find a new defense to mini-NT.