effervesce

What's so bad about playing 4♦ here as any two-suiter instead of both majors? You retain the ability to show natural clubs.

2♣. I don't like the chances of us beating 1♥.

Meh. Tough luck changing things. Is it suprising that the regulators choose regulations that they themselves prefer? Like Jdonn has said, no matter what you choose, some people will be unhappy. But it is ridiculous that there currently are basically no events where people can play whatever they want.

On the contrary, the problem is that 1♦ might have a 5cM but might not. You could play that 1♦ was 12-15 with a 5+ major and just pass the 12-15's without. If partner will open his 8-11's opposite a passed hand you won't miss much. Very interesting suggestion! And swap pass and 1♦ and you'll then have plenty of space to relay out the 12-15 5+M hands.

Transfers after the X are definitely preferable - it allows you to describe most hands better at the slight cost of not having a natural 1NT response

Lol, I don't think you have been playing assumed fit preempts much. Partner is extremely unlikely to have a 6-5. From what I've encountered, most of the time time assumed fit preempts are 4-4 or 5-4. 3♣ rates to be the best fit the majority of the time.

Try again. It is not asking for kings, neither number nor specific. And diamonds has been set for thrumphs. A cuebid? Geez, partner could have bid 4♠. Specific suit ask? If partner really meant that as a specific suit ask without prior agreement to using specific suit asks, he should be shot.

5♠ is a misunderstanding-asking-bid asking you to roll a dice to decide what to bid next. Unfortunately, the dice you hold is lucky enough to have the same answer on all the faces. If it's a specific king ask, 6♣. If it's asking for number of kings, 6♣. If it's asking you to pick between diamonds and clubs, 6♣.

If partner can't diagnose your club shortage with that particular hand, nothing can save you. Partner should know you are singleton/void in clubs already, and should have already taken that into account when bidding 4♥.

If partner does not have the club A (or has stiff club A) 3NT won't make. There are hands that 3NT will make, eg Axxxx xx Axxx Ax, but I think it's odds-against. I bid 3♣.

I rebid 2♠. The spades look really poor, but the problem with playing in 1NT is that you won't ever be able to set up the spade suit. Partner is more likely to have 2 spades than 0 or 1, and you will usually make more tricks in 2♠ than 1NT (in my opinion anyway). If you believe that the hesitation might be because LHO has some spades, you might pass on that basis - though LHO's hesitation could be any number of reasons.

Playing Ogust, then 2NT is an inquiry as to whether the preempter has a good vs bad hand, and also suit quality. Eg, after 2H-2NT 3C = min poor suit (no top 2 of 3 honors) 3D = min good suit (2 of top 3 honors) 3H = max poor suit 3S = max good suit If partner shows a good suit (2 of top 3 honors), 3NT is practically cold.

Bid 3♠ if you want to go for a telephone number. Even if 3♠ is making, partner will raise 3♠ on quite a few hands like Kxx Kxx xx Kxxxx

2NT for me. It's MPs - never allow the opps to play in a 8 card major fit at the 2 level if you yourself are NV. It's made even more attractive given both opponents are limited - responder is a passed hand, and opener has limited himself. I don't think it's even close between 2NT and pass, but that's just my opinion.

Safe to assume Jacoby 2NT (you did say SAYC didn't you??) The ones below are safe to assume given playing basically ANY system: Neg X Splinter Michaels Unusual NT Grand slam force (though really, given the abundance of Roman Key Card this isn't as useful as it used to be as most hands you can just keycard) Stopper ask In general, a cuebid should almost certainly be treated as a stopper ask if you and partner have bid more than one suit, eg in your given auction 1D-1H-1S-p-2H. However, 1H-1S-2S is likely to be a cueraise. 4&5 are simply partner's style

First hand I bid 4♦ - 5♦ is too much given you need quite a bit from partner. I don't like 3NT. If partner has Kx or Qx you wont be getting a trick in spades - you need either Qxx or the spade ace. Second hand I double - I don't mind partner jumping to 4♥ or 5♣ - in fact I'd love it if partner jumped to 4♥. The hand is simply too good for an immediate 4♠. If partner jumps to 4♥ it makes it so much more likely that partner holds KQxxx of hearts for example, and simplifies exploring slam since you can keycard for hearts. If partner responds 4♣, I'll simply bid 4♠. When you have spades, it makes it alot more safer in this case and many other situations to double then bid since you have the boss suit.

I think the suggestion was that Roman would help with this hand, not a claim to playing Roman. Oops yes you're right. Playing standard or 2/1, bidding 1♠ is correct. The hand given isn't good enough for a jump shift. Playing standard or 2/1, it's tough. 1♦-1♥ 1♠-2♣ 3♣-3NT 4NT-6♣ is possible, though whether opener should bid 4NT quantitative is another matter - opener doesn't know there is a club fit. If responder raises clubs instead of bidding 3NT, it should be reached. However, given the 3♣ bid could be on a fragment I think 3NT is correct. In contrast, in fact I think it's easier after the original auction's unsuitable jump-shift the slam should have been reached, since opener knows responder actually has clubs. After a jump shift by opener (which is game-forcing) there is no need for 4SF - you're already in a GF situation so bids should be natural. 1♦-1♥ 2♠-3♣ 4♣-4NT 5♠-6♣ Mind you, if responder's hand wasn't quite as good, 5♣ or even 4♣ could already be too high (or 3NT could be better) - that's why 2♠ is a poor bid.

Given you play a Roman 2♦, isn't the hand a textbook 2♦ bid? A 4441 with 17-24 HCP. Or are you referring to a mini-Roman 2♦ or a different point range? The bidding 2♦ - 2NT* 3♣* - 3♦* 3♠ - 4♣* 4♠* - 6♣ 2NT asks 3♣ shows minimum, stiff major 3♦ asks for long major 4♣ asks for AK controls 4♠ shows 6

3♦ is a massive underbid, while 2NT and 3NT show completely different hands. 4♦ is a possible bid, pretending to have have 6 diamonds 4 hearts. I think 3♣ is best though. If partner can bid 3♥ we can raise, if partner bids 3♠/3NT we can bid 4♦ or 5♦. The biggest problem with 3♣ is if partner has clubs, in which case you'd want to be in 3NT. However, 5♦ may still be ok.

2NT looks normal.

It looks like there is a good chance the opps should probably have been in NT, not 2♦, given partner's silence. The hearts just aren't good enough for me - I'll pass. Partner didn't double 2♦ too. Partner's likely to be 2335 if he's got values, and if not, it's the opponent's hand. Bidding 2♥ is assuming partner didn't know how to bid. It may work if partner didn't have a pass, but if you keep doing this, partner won't learn how to bid, relying on you to bid for him/her. This may be good in the short term, but in the long term for your partner's bidding. If you should be in hearts, then partner should probably have made a X of 2♦.

-8.40, -3.45 for me. Looks like you guys should have voted for Ralph Nader :) http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008

Free. Happy birthday! :huh:

It is not simply trying to make cars more expensive. Using the carbon tax to subsidise efficient cars will make efficient cars cheaper. If all the carbon tax money is used in the subsidy, then there is no net loss. If x inefficient cars pay y dollars in carbon tax, then the $xy dollars can be used to subsidise z efficient cars. The z efficient cars would therefore be $xy/z dollars cheaper. There would, therefore, be a great incentive for car manufacturers to design and make efficient cars, not only consumers.

The reason why people say there is a benefit is that it would increase efficiency. If releasing CO2 into the atmosphere costs nothing to an individual, they do not care how much is released. It's basically a 'tragedy of the commons' situation. Say an item (eg a car) has a price of $x, releasing y tonnes of CO2 over its lifetime. The CO2 release into the atmosphere, if the climate change people are correct, has a real cost, but one not immediately born by those who release it. Say each tonne of CO2 will have an environmental cost of $z dollars. Then the real cost of the car is $x + y*$z dollars. However, the real individual doesn't care - they pay $x dollars, while the y*$z dollars is shared out over the rest of society. Hence, carbon taxes may serve to in fact reduce the overall cost, by driving people to buy cars that release less CO2. Ie, to buy cars that in fact cost society less. If the carbon taxes are used such that taxes from inefficient machines subsidise efficient machines, society simply gains. All the carbon tax does is to make consumers pay for the real cost to society of releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. As the carbon tax is used to subsidise more efficient machines, there's no loss of money to consumers-it is simply pricing things as they should correctly be priced.