Hanoi5

Wouldn't your partner have moved on with A xxx KJxx KQJxx over 3NT?

3NT. I see the problem but I suppose partner has to help in order to solve it. We have two suits and good hearts for bidding 3NT so depending on partner's cards in our two suits slam is a possibility or not. If partner is a client who can't figure this out, 3NT anyway.

♠Qxx ♥AK7x ♦T7xx ♣xx ♠Axx ♥98x ♦AQ ♣AKJTx 3NT, they didn't enter the bidding. You receive the 4th spade lead from your LHO (at least that's what it looks like). You're missing 9TJK of spades so you play low and RHO inserts the J. How shall you continue?

So redouble is never to play?

You didn't explain what 2♦ meant. Is it natural? Is it 'tell me your other suit'? The redouble could be: 1. This is my other suit. 2. I'm ok playing in this suit if you have it (what you call support). 3. This is not the suit where I want to play in, choose between the others (What you call SOS). 1 and 2 are similar and 3 could only occur if your partner is very 'creative' and s/he has 4-3 or 4-4 in the Majors and wants you to choose. At the table I might pass unless 2♦ is natural I guess.

Double and Double. I'm not sure about the first one, apparently we have 2 tricks in defense, can partner bring 3? Maybe not that many. Pass looks better. 3♠ is out of the question.

Opening 3NT with AKQJ seventh in a minor suit is known as the Gambling 3NT. However, I have often heard people talk about how a certain bridge action is gambling, how someone is playing poker and not bridge, etc. I found myself holding: ♠AQ8 ♥K76 ♦JT9864 ♣5 I passed as dealer and saw my partner open 2NT which normally shows 20-21 balanced. I was playing with an unknown person so I just blasted to 6NT but later I thought it might be looked as a gambling action. I simulated and 6NT can apparently be made 66% of the time (6♦ from me, my other choise, 82%). And so I wondered: - Do you consider an action as gambling if it can win on certain percentage of the time (50% is gambling or any number you choose, of course the question is, what number would you choose), or - Do you consider gambling any action that surpasses investigation (normal or otherwise) in the interest of finding scientifically about the best strain/level, etc?

And I was trying to convey the idea that no matter what we think there will always be people against or in favor of it. And there'll be good and bad things coming out of it, too. And I first wanted to say that we shouldn't rely so much on the government and just try to live with the few liberties they left us. If people in the US just accepted the fact that they can't play poker legally on the internet in their country and that if they do they can lose their money then people wouldn't have lost their money. If you complain that the government should just legalize poker then they'll create a organism that will take care of it, people to manage it, secretaries, etc and then those people will get involved in some sort of corruption and suck more money from you in taxes, etc.

The prohibiton is, of course, a good idea. Prohibiting alcohol may be bad, but then many deaths have come from drunk people. Prohibiting drugs may seem good but then Amsterdam is a nice city. Killing is prohibited and yet many countries send soldiers to other countries to kill people. In the end opinions are like asses and everyone should treat their religion like their penises, but we'll continue to discuss all this all over again.

I think killing people is prohibited. And I think that's a good idea in general. Unfortunately humans cannot agree on what's good or bad, there will always be opinions in favor and against anything.

Can you ask to be euthanized while in jail in countries where it is legal?

So if 'daddy government' doesn't take care of us we're screwed? More power to the government? Although I agree that if they had taken care it wouldn't have happened, it is also true that if you are doing something illegal you are risking some consequences...

I think theoretically speaking Justin explained it all with the ending of his last post: But I also liked the point of Zelandakh: Even though all the information for chess is available (!) and not so in bridge you can learn much by reading and applying that knowledge that exists about not only theory but also practice (which could take the place of the 'experience' Justin argues about) in, for example, the Bridge World. If Cyberyeti expent 3 hours everynight reading the Master Solvers Club part of the magazine I bet his judgement would get at least as good as by playing 72 boards a day.

R.I.P. All justice systems have troubles.

East already showed 0-5, now his/her partner asked him/her to bid again and he has a 6-card suit and the Q in partner's suit and he won't move a bit? I blame East.

Maybe with 11-12 balanced and always when it won't accept an invitation in the Major.

♠KJx ♥QJx ♦JT8xx ♣xx ♠ATxx ♥Kxx ♦AKx ♣KTx You reach 3NT and receive a club lead to the Ace and a club return. You insert the Ten and lose to the Jack and another club comes back to a heart from dummy and your king. On the ♦A only small cards appear. LHO led ♣5, won the Jack and returned the 6; you can count on her not to be brilliant, she's the client. RHO won the Ace returned the 2 and played the 3, he's the pro.

I wonder if there's a point where experts 'know' what to do in this kind of hands. I could try ruffing a spade and club finesse to see what they return if it loses. Heart to the queen inmediately, heart ace and heart to the queen also seem interesting. Maybe I'm just overwhelmed by the many possibilities.

The problem I see by bidding 3♠ is that partner might pass with 3 and we're gonna get tapped again and this time from the strong and long side. We might just bid 3NT assuming partner has diamonds. Or could our partner be hiding a 4-card spade suit?

I'd win at the table and try a club to the ten. If this loses and a heart comes back, I now try the spade finesse after unblocking the ♣A. If this loses and another heart comes back, I'd start to sweat. A small spade to the table and if the Jack doesn't appear or clubs are not 3-3 I suppose I'd finesse diamonds.

3♣, earlier might be better. On the second round double is a possibility (take-out) but kinda ugly as you might land in an ugly 4-3 fit.

I thought it showed a 'preference' to spades, i.e. 3 spades. Of course it implies that opener wants to go higher so it's an acceptance of the invitation of 2NT so it should be forcing. after: 1x-1M 2M-2NT asks opener how he supported, you can choose the set of responses you want, I usually play: 3♣ 3-card support with a singleton 3♦ 4-card support with a singleton 3♥ 3 no sing 3♠ 4 no sing 3NT 4333 with 4-card support

I'd say bad luck, though leading a trump is not a bad idea against part-scores (and that would lead to the same result...)

Spades are quite good but they're not exactly autonomous. 432 might even mean JT98 was around. Anyway I think 2♠ is a nice bid to start with, if partner doesn't show great interest in spades we can later move to hearts but I definitely think spades will make a better trump suit.

The first surely shows the Majors, the second one I'm not so sure as there was a previous chance to show the Majors before. Anyway it could be 4-4 in the Majors or something like that. It might also be a weak hand with diamonds, which might go along fine with X being 'I have diamonds'.