bid_em_up

I think it is wrong to go headhunting when I haven't shown my great support for partner's suit. 100% North for making the penalty X. I have no problem with the 2C opening. Unlike Phil, I am not as concerned about uncovering a 4-4 major suit fit when we have already established what is at least a nine card fit (and quite likely ten+ cards) fit in the minor even considering that this is matchpoints and it is never a consideration at IMP's. With LHO doubling 2D showing a willingness to compete/sacrifice in diamonds and knowing we have a 9+ card fit in clubs, the odds are too great that LHO has a club void and will be trumping the opening club lead (if he can get one) when partner is declaring in 6H. jmoo

LOL! (The politically correct version of "beating a dead horse"?)

Unless partner is an idiot, there is no way he should bid game if we bid now. When RHO leaves the XX in, he is also showing a decent hand. Do you think he is upping the ante just for fun? He expects to make 1N xx'd and probably with overtricks. You can expect their side to have more than 1/2 the deck (20-23 hcp) and partner should have 15+ for his double of 1N. How much does this leave for me to have? There is no way partner should bid game over any call I make in this position. He should know that I am broke. If he doesn't know this, or can't figure this out, then maybe he needs to find another hobby. It is possible (although from looking at our hand, unlikely) that RHO has the weak two-suiter, and it is to our advantage to find out which hand type he has first. We will be completely content to defend a weak two-suiter, the trump suit may even be one of partners suits. Once RHO shows the penalty pass of the XX, our running can only mean one thing and that is we are broke and not going to sit for this. Additionally, this lets you treat the immediate run after RHO's pass forcing XX as a weak hand and a 5+ card suit, and using this sequence allows you to show your cheapest 4 card suit (having already denied a 5 card with the 1st pass).

No, it doesn't. No, I didn't, and you cannot convince me that I did. If you put a gun to my head, I'd take the damn bullet rather than being forced to bid 1♥. Everything after this is just noise and a waste of time to try and answer. jmoo. EDIT: If I believe that I am playing with a real expert, I would expect the X of 2♦ to be snapdragon (showing spades and heart tolerance) without agreement, or possibly Rosenkranz (which is similar to a support double but promises at least one of the top three honors in the suit) by agreement and anyone who thinks it is a regular support X needs to go over to the B/I forum and ask "What is a support double?" I suppose you could agree to play it this way, but: 1) it would be silly to do so and, 2) not without discussion and, 3) I still do not have this problem as there is no way in hell that I would ever bid 1♥.

Things that make you go, hmmmmm. fwiw, I agree with tomi. Partner placed the contract. Your hand is consistent with the bidding so far, and contains absolutely nothing that would be unexpected for your opening bid. Pass 6♦ and pray.

It would be a good thing if it were true, but unfortunately, that does not appear to be the case. There was some speculation that Spanish scientists had identified a fungus called Nosema ceranae as the cause of CCD, and treated a couple of colonies with an antibiotic to kill the fungus, and those colonies then recovered. However: In May 2009, NATURE Online asked Dennis van Engelsdorp, Pennsylvania’s acting state beekeeper, to comment on recent developments in the investigation into Colony Collapse Disorder. Here’s what he had to say. Q: A new study by Spanish researchers, published in the February ’09 edition of the Environmental Microbiology Reports journal, suggests that the fungus Nosema ceranae had been isolated as the cause of colony collapse in two affected beekeeper colonies in Spain. Is this fungus responsible for the Colony Collapse Disorder in the U.S.? A: Absolutely not. We identified Nosema ceranae right from the beginning, and right away it was clear that Nosema ceranae could not, on its own, explain losses CCD losses in America. I don’t know about Spain, but there are [scientists and beekeepers] in Europe who have had high losses who are saying it’s not Nosema ceranae. What we do know is that the description of mortality described in these papers isn’t the same as Colony Collapse Disorder. I think what’s happening is that CCD has caught people’s attention and so now everything that is a colony dying is “Colony Collapse Disorder.” And that’s not true. Colony Collapse Disorder is a very defined set of traits: a rapid loss of the adult population and no dead bees in the bee yard or in the bee colonies, and that’s certainly not what this research described. We also know that in America, not all colonies have Nosema ceranae — colonies have a lot of viruses. So instead of having one or two viruses, they’ll have five or six viruses. We think they have something like the flu, and this flu is simply wiping through. The question is “Why suddenly are the bees so susceptible to all of these other pathogens — including Nosema ceranae but certainly not limited to Nosema ceranae. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/si...-may-2009/4991/

Ok, so call it very highly constructive then, in which case South has an automatic 4♥ bid.

We could agree on the 2nd auction, as the 3N bid is made under pressure and may have extra values (or tricks) in reserve that partner will be unaware of. It is also a game bid. To insist on using 2N as natural in the first auction is not optimal, imo. You already said you had 15-17 with a heart stop or two, why do you need to be able to say the same thing again and when you are only competing for a part score? Absolutely none. Better to use it to show a minor suit oriented hand such as xx AQx AKxx KJ10x where you cannot reopen with a double, takeout or otherwise. jmoo.

My choices in order of priority: Pass Double (cooperative), a close second 2N (minors), a very distant third I would never consider any of the other choices as a valid option.

This, imo, is the wrong conclusion to reach on this hand. The conclusion you should reach is that when holding a big hand and partner preempts, you should strive to play in partner's suit whenever it is a possibility. On this hand, all of your cards will help partner (including the ones you don't have, ie. the diamond void). The same cannot be said about his hand being of any help to you in either of your suits.

The collective reflected quietly amongst itself and promptly short-circuited never to be heard from again. If Picard had known this super weapon existed, the battle versus the Borg would have been much easier. :P

Yes. Either opponent will see the explanation provided if they click on the bid. If you alert the bid, both opponents will see the alert, your partner will not. I am not certain if the non-asking opponent will see the explanation unless they specifically click on the bid, but they will see it if they do. I believe that if you enter an explanation prior to making a bid (in the alert box) that explanation "pops up" momentarily for both opponents even if the alert button was not used. No. Your partner will not see the alert (if there was one), and he will not see the explanation of the bid (with or without an alert).

Additionally, it's practically impossible for East to hold a stiff spade. If he did, he should have led it at trick two, and not the A♣.

I'm not savvy, is that the close window key? Clear chat window, it erases all previous chat in the chat area.

Who cares? Which is more important, giving them an extra call, or allowing our side to judge our assets properly in the bidding and defense? By bidding 4C or 4D (when we have those bids available), we let partner know that we are on a double fit. This can be a major difference in judging whether we want to defend or take the sacrifice. Even taking a "phantom" sac in 6M wins the board, when our teammates properly stopped in 5C. Additionally, if partner knows we have a double fit, the QH becomes a clear demand for a spade switch (in standard suit preference methods), making it another reason to show both fits. Personally, as South and having failed to show both suits at my first chance, I would bid 6H over 6C anyway. North's bid of 5S should either show extra distribution or extra strength (or both). 6M is unlikely to ever be more than minus two and thats still a good sac over 5C and a great sac over 6C (when its making, legitimately or otherwise). jmoo.

Is this a true statement? It has always been my understanding that before a house can be sold, any and all liens on the property must be paid in full. Otherwise, you cannot get a clean title to the property. If you meant in the case of foreclosure, that other lienholders might have priority, that may be true.

This is interesting? Hopefully, there is more to the story. I pass also.

Great. No real comment here, just wanted to be the first to quote you on that :D It's not official unless it's in the signature line. ;)

I would pass initially over 2♣ (as you did). There are those who will bid 2♥ here though, and that may be ok also. This may be the only chance you get to show the heart suit, and it's not like the hand is totally devoid of "features". The downside is that it will practically guarantee a heart lead (if partner is on lead) which may be bad for our side. Having passed over 2♣ initially, 2♥ after the second double is practically mandantory. Our hand is not strong enough to defend 2♣ x'd even though partner's second double shows extra strength. EDIT #1: Art, I assumed you meant after the 2nd X (just in case you think the above was directed at your initial statement, it was not). It was just a general observation that some people might bid 2♥ immediately. EDIT #2: Further consideration leads me to believe 3♥ at this point may be a better choice of calls. We have already denied a hand better than this by not bidding 2♥ over 2♣ immediately, but this hand is also better than xx 9xxx xxxx Jxx which we could easily hold when we only bid 2♥. It's a close choice and may also be dependent on your style, and your partner (and if the A♦ was the A♥, the choice becomes even closer).

If by "here", you meant where you are located geographically, you may be right. If you meant "in this auction when holding what is a normal spade raise", we can probably agree. But if you meant "in this auction when holding a normal 1N forcing hand type", then again, you may find it's more common than you think. :lol:

While they're at it, they can make all the hands played on BBO worth 1/3 the value of a club level hand. Each hand played at a sectional would be worth one and a half times a club hand. Hands played at regionals could be worth two club hands and hands played at Nationals could be worth 4 club hands. (and yes, I am being sarcastic, please don't take this seriously.)

As a general rule, the first two doubles below game level by the same person are takeout, unless a suit as been bid by our side. i.e. in the original sequence given: (1D) - X - (2C) - p - (p) - ? A second X here is still takeout because our side has not named a suit yet. As others have stated, it should show additional values as well. in this sequence: (1D) - X - (2C) - 2H - (3C) - ? X at this point would be penalty as our side has named a suit (2H) as requested by the original takeout double. jmoo.

fwiw, I would not mention the spade suit even if I am an unpassed hand. I would decide whether I consider this to be a 4 card limit raise or a GF raise and make the appropriate bid immediately. There is little to be gained by bidding spades even if there is a 4-4 fit available, and it tends to make the later auction more difficult. (You are still defining trump suit and strength, when you could be bidding game or cuebidding already). I would mention the spade suit if my heart support was only three cards, because now playing in a 4-4 fit (in spades) may yield two extra tricks (by possibly having two pitches on the 5-3 hearts), AND I have invitational+ values. If I only had 6-9 hcp, I would again choose the simple raise to 2M, instead of bidding 1S. jmoo.

eom You really prefer to be booted without a word? WoW. Who said anything about booting anybody? That may have been the intention of your statement, but I did not understand that way. Sorry for the confusion.

The one at the other side of the screen. S/he is the one who can judge whether the BIT is noticeable across the screen. Huh? How would the person on the other side of the screen know if it was his partner who caused the BIT or if it was the opponent who did? Or do they just call the director and say "hey, there was a BIT here, you figure out who caused it"?