bid_em_up

To me, "beyond carelessness" would mean that is would be incomprehensible for anyone to ruff a card small. While declarer certainly has no reason to ruff anything small in dummy, carelessness, via being tired, distracted, bored, not being aware of an outstanding trump, can make you do irrational (or illogical) things. While it would certainly be careless to ruff a card small in dummy thereby risking an overruff, it certainly is not inconcievable. Don't ask me how I know for certain that this can occur. ;) One trick to the defense. Advise North that, as dummy, he cannot state a line of play for declarer.

This surprises me: If there is a reason for at the end of the auction offering opponents an explanation of a call I don't understand why this call should not have been alerted at the time it was made (except when the call is above 3NT and the relevant alert regulation specifies "no alerts above 3NT")? Because, at the time the call was made, it was simply a HSGT, and the meaning of that call did not change until the 4H bid was made. See the alert procedures for the auction: 1N-2C-2x-2N* The 2N bid is alerted as may or may not contain a four card major (when playing 4-way transfers), because it does not become clear that this was an invitational hand that may not have a four card major until the 2N bid is made. This scenario is exactly the same. The intent of the 3D call does not become clear until the 4H call is made, and that is when the alert (if necessary) is given, or is explained at the end of the auction. (imo, of course).

..

Partner cannot have this holding. Hands that are only worth one bid should make the immediate raise to 2♥.

I know, and I'm goading KFay a bit here, in case you didn't pick up on it. Obviously, I didn't. ;)

Phil, I hate to break it to you.....but you are living in a dreamworld. It's called "Road rage" for a reason. The person behind the wheel of the car is not thinking rationally. They only want to run over the SOB that just cut them off (or whatever percieved slight). The person may be high or drunk as well. "A cyclist was knocked down and killed by an angry motorist after he accidentally clipped the driver’s wing mirror, a murder trial at the Crown Court in Warwick heard yesterday. Sean Fitzgerald allegedly used his car to chase Paul Webb for 300 yards before mounting a pavement and ramming into his mountain bike in a revenge attack." http://road.cc/content/news/17028-murder-t...ipping-his-wing "A driver in Los Angeles was recently convicted of using his car as a weapon against two cyclists. And the case is focusing attention on the often uneasy relationship between motorists and bicyclists who have to share the road. It happened last year on the Fourth of July, on a steep, narrow road in L.A.'s Mandeville Canyon. Cyclists Christian Stoehr and Ron Peterson were riding side by side when a doctor who lived in the neighborhood came up from behind in a sedan. "There was an exchange of words," Stoehr recalls. "He then accelerated within five feet in front of us, pulled over and slammed on the brakes." Stoehr says there was no time for them to stop. He was thrown over the car and landed across the road. But Peterson didn't have time to swerve. "And he went right in through the back window of the car," says Stoehr, adding that Peterson crashed headfirst. "I think they found his teeth in the back seat." " http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...oryId=120457877 Ok, so nobody died in this one, but it would have been quite possible. Even if the jerk doesn't "mean" to commit vehicular manslaughter, all it takes is a misstep on his part or on the part of the cyclist in an attempt to get out of the way and.....splat.

Beary Carefully.

You open 1NT*-(2♠)-3♠..... *15-17 Just curious, what should 4♠ (not 3) mean here?

Could be worse. I can't go to sleep with my door shut, else the cat scratches at it all night long.

This is what I would like to find out. How are you going to make this determination? I would say he showed out on the third card, he would say he followed suit.

yea yea. Actually, it is my understanding that the director isn't supposed to be called until play of the hand is finished.

Looks kinda like the Beatles to me.

Playing in a 3N contract, I am running a solid six card suit in dummy. I have three, and RHO shows out on the second honor from dummy. On the play of the 3rd card, both LHO and RHO show out. I scratch my head, and continue play. With about three tricks remaining, LHO starts attempting to put his card down without showing it and I ask to see his card. He shows it and each time he has followed suit. On the last trick, he quits the card face down again, and I ask to see the card and state that I believe there has been a revoke. The gentleman gives me a look like he is offended that I could say such a thing, and picks his cards up and shuffles them together. What should occur in a situation like this?

Good for you. However, I expect that after 30 minutes and consulting with two other Nationally certified directors, you would have been able to make a ruling. This one hadn't, and I wasn't waiting any longer.

Maybe Tyler remembers the auction. iirc, his hand was Jxxxx xxx KQxx A There is no way the guy knows about the trump suit (dummy held AKQx♠). This was my objection, and why I thought pass was a clear-cut logical alternative.

Huh? Hellooooo, KO Match? (with no carryover, and we were losing by infinity + 1). Doesn't that meet your criteria? Besides, I was ready to get the hell out of there. :)

Playing in a KO match in recent ACBL regional, the opponents have had a strong auction where they have bid and raised spades. LHO eventually bids 4N (RKC, 1430) and RHO responds 5♦. LHO then tanks for about 4 minutes, and finally bids 5 spades. My partner passes and RHO insta bids 6♠. Director is called, situation explained, and told to play on. It turns out that RHO had answered 4N incorrectly (thinking 0314), and that he "realized it" after he bid it. Sure he did, like during that 4 minute tank. After play of hand finished, director called back, and told of subsequent actions and result. At the end of the match, we still did not have an answer regarding this board, but we were so far out of it, the ruling was not going to affect the state of the match so we informed the director of this and that was the end of it. So, out of curiousity, is RHO allowed to "realize his misbid" which is the cause of the BIT, and then correct it accordingly?

When you're over 70, you're glad you can still see, even if poorly. :unsure:

Must be deaf.

Muse was the opening act for U2 at the concert I went to last fall. They didn't come close to matching U2's set.

This is a trick question. If my partner is "world class" as defined by BBO standards, I am forced to believe partner would not comprehend that this sequence might imply both minors and is simply bidding 6♣ to make, so I pass. If my partner is truly World Class, then 6♦ is worth considering, but I would still pass (not being World Class myself, I would not comprehend that this sequence might imply both minors!!). If it gets doubled and comes back to me, of course, I redouble. Why not, playing at these stakes I must be able to afford it anyway!!!

..

Somehow, I don't think the play problem really involves the spade suit on this hand (other than possibly entry considerations).

What was "10 words I never knew existed, didn't care if they did, and will probably never see again in my lifetime" for the win, Alex?

Just curious. What do you hope to find out by bidding 5♠ exclusion? The only keycard partner can have outside of spades is the K♦ and while it's nice to know partner has it, you've already committed yourself to 6♦ by using it. And by using exclusion, North will not be able to find out about the club king, which is really what he needs to know. jmoo.