effervesce

Option A by a mile. 1♣ followed by 2♦ is a massive overbid-this is nowhere near good enough for a reverse.

I would _not_ overcall 2♣. If I do, I expect the auction to be over. If I bid 2♣, partner will not expect a hand with so many playing tricks which can be a disaster when he and the opps pass it out.

First hand I bid 3NT. Second hand I pass. If partner has a strong hand he can double again after which I'd be glad to bid 3♠ (or perhaps four if partner is a sound bidder). My problem with an 2♠ is that it's a 'free bid' so should have some values. It'll almost never be passed out in 1NT given their fit. If partner has a minimum takeout double they will surely make 4♥ over which I'd be happy to sac 4♠ but I don't want to help them reach that in the first place. If, in the unlikely event it goes (1♥)-X-(1NT)-p-(2♥)-p-p I can still bid 2♠.

Not me. I'd prefer to have the cards in front of me, just as if I was sitting at a real table.

True modern method (and probably very good for MPs) is probably to play it as NF; but it is 'standard' for new suits to be forcing on BBO...

the funny thing about the 5-6 majors is having to bid the spades at the 4/5 level. Expecting to get tapped I could hide spades forever on this deal, but I don't like it so much, it seems so antinatural for me, and I0d just bid 2♠ I don't mind having to bid spades at the four level, or five level for that matter. Partner made a vulnerable overcall, RED vs WHITE; how crap a hand can partner have? At this vulnerability slam is soooo extremely likely. I'd sooner bid 2♥ and then have to bid 5NT over 5♦ pick a slam, or 4NT over 4♦ 'two places to play' than start misdescribing this hand's potential with 2♠. I think 2♠ is just lol. Partner is so likely to have KQ to 6 clubs; give partner the A of spades and either a heart control or singleton and slam rolls. Or alternatively something like A Kx xxxx Kxxxxx. Lots of hands where bidding 2♥ first will help us find the right strain.

2♥, rebidding 3♠ over 2NT or 3♣, then bidding 5♣ over 4M or 4♣ over 3NT. Partner should take this as 6-5 in the majors as with 5-4 you can just double first.

5♠ for me, although 4NT (2 places to play)-> 5♠ is also possible.

Eh? I thought 'old fashioned standard' was non-forcing. I guess I must be crazy too.

jjbrr, where's your pictures? I miss their cuteness.

I'd have bid 2♠ over 2♥. The XX is forcing to at least 2NT.

Double looks auto to me. 2♥ response also to the X. West should double 4♠-you won't be unhappy if partner leaves it in or takes it out.

Spade values look to be wasted in 4♥. 3NT for me.

Since you don't have a gadget for 5-5 minors, I'd transfer to clubs and then bid diamonds. Which doesn't show the 5 diamonds, true, but the diamonds are pretty poor anyway.

Gwynn: Did you end up playing that system? How did it go?

Club 4 - dummy's got the points and declarer may duck in dummy. Tough hand, anything could be right really. If one gets it wrong, lets get it wrong in style ;)

2♠. Hate X as we can't lead trumps, and we have hardly any defensive tricks so partner will need alot to set 2♥X. If a gun was held to my head to choose between pass and X, I'd pass.

Game-forcing auctions normally have X as penalty; with other hands you can pass or bid.

Whats the scoring? If its MPs I'm definitely bidding 1♥ - I don't want partner to lead a spade from Kx for example... At IMPs its closer. The problem with bidding spades is that it may bury a heart fit. I'm guess I'm bidding 1♥- the hand looks more 4-5 to me really.

Damn I hate mozzies. No repellent around =(

No, 2♠ is a gross overbid as it is game forcing jump shift. The hand is far too weak to force to game. A typical jump shift has 18+HCP, showing sufficient strength to play in game opposite a minimum hand. This hand has only 13. If partner has a minimum 6HCP hand with only 4 hands, you're going to go many down in game. If partner has something like AKQJ in diamonds and AQ hearts there would be no stopping partner from bidding slam either.

Erik Verlinde is a well respected theoretical physicist along with his twin brother Herman Verlinde. He is currently a professor of physics at University of Amsterdam (previously was professor at Princeton and Utrect). As for random bloggers... scientificblogging is a blog website specifically for scientists - Johannes Koelman has a PhD in theoretical physics...

While browsing the net I found some interesting discussion on Erik Verlinde (string theorist) proposing in his paper On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Motion that gravity is not a fundamental force. also discussed at two blogs. In summary (using my limited science knowledge), Erik Verlinde proposes that gravity is simply an emergent property, and is simply an entropic force (as well as space and time being emergent phenomena...) The abstract of the paper reads "Starting from first principles and general assumptions Newton's law of gravitation is shown to arise naturally and unavoidably in a theory in which space is emergent through a holographic scenario. Gravity is explained as an entropic force caused by changes in the information associated with the positions of material bodies. A relativistic generalization of the presented arguments directly leads to the Einstein equations. When space is emergent even Newton's law of inertia needs to be explained. The equivalence principle leads us to conclude that it is actually this law of inertia whose origin is entropic." He uses the holographic principle (explained well in this 1 hr ), which describes space as being encoded on a boundary of a region - which if extended means that the entire universe can be seen as a two-dimensional structure and the world is in effect a hologram. So perhaps there is no Higgs particle? Are we in for some new breakthroughs in physics? Do we really live in a matrix-like universe after all? Or is it simply alot of speculation with no real substance. Time to bring out the dusty physics textbooks...

Pass, and I'd consider myself a light opener. The hand is quacky, balanced, QJ tight and Qx doubleton...

3D is game forcing unbalanced, basically without ♠ support (if balanced you can bid 2NT). This one of the problems in polish club because 3D response is high and it's difficult to bid precisely after it. There are some solutions as multimeaning 2♦ relay but we don't play them and they are not standard. NO/YES. 4♦ is slammish. He can also bid 3♥ as values to NT or cuebid in ♦. In polish club if you open 1♣ with strong hand (18+) and hear anything else than 1♦ you are forced to game. Partner can't pass 3♦. If you mean : 1♦ 1♠ 3♦ 4♦ we play it as invitational to game. Partner can bid 3♥ or 4♣ if he wishes to investigate slam in diamonds. 1♦-1♠ 3♦-4♦ as invitational?? Are you sure?? I think 4♦ here as slammish is much more useful than an invite to 5♦. 3♦ is already limited in strength in polish club making it even more preferable to have 4♦ as slammish compared to standard.