peachy

I would like to know what creates a Forcing Pass situation if a GF does not do it (for Wayne)?

Vul vs. not, this is not a partscore battle when partner could have nearly nothing, so 3H shows this hand.

Could this be unanimous. 2S for me, not close.

Double. Not good enough for a free 2S though close.

Cuebid IMO is clear.

The 2C bid was not the cause of missing anything. The 4H bid was very ill-judged. Opener should bid 3D and describe his hand.

I will Pass 2S. We might only have a 9-card fit and there is no way to know whether the Qx is pulling any weight. Two aces are nice but that is not enough for game opposite known minimum or subminimum. If I want to gamble on side fit and ten tricks, I bid 4S and hope! But I would never bid 3S. If 2S is our limit and we go down in 3S, the result will just stop partner from opening light with me in the future.

You must have misunderstood. I do indeed want to listen and I take complaints seriously. If my wish was to dictate everything, there would have been no need to raise the topic in Forums. This is what I wrote in my initial post: Tolerance and understanding are the key words as far as I am concerned. Constructive criticism is obviously welcomed. I will have a look at all posts (hopefully many) in this thread and consider once I have seen everyone's views. How you interpret this as "Roland did nok like to hear viewers' opinion" I don't understand. It is the opposite of what I wrote, what I told the unhappy ones, and what I think. Roland I was one who ventured to suggest in private chat to Roland that when a world top pair is playing, it would be nice to have English commentary at the table. Your private response to me was something like "What about the 500 Polish kibitzers?" with an addition of something like "You English speaking people have too little understanding of people who speak other languages". I don't remember this verbatim so if I have misunderstood your meaning, forgive me, but it came across to me that you thought I was being selfish or something. Which led me to believe that you did not want to hear that suggestion. Happy to have been shown that I got the wrong impression.

Instead of 1NT with only a single - but solid - H stopper, only xx spades, and slightly overstrength to boot, I would rather show a limit raise in clubs (2H). That bid has the slight flaw of being only on a 4-card support, but at least it is only ONE flaw whereas 1NT has at least three flaws.

Just a note that if 3C was Puppet, 3D showed one or both, then 4C and 4D are not natural; they are artificial bids, showing both majors, one a slam invite the other with no slam interest and asking opener to pick the suit. At least this is the way I have played Puppet for "decades". Of course other methods are possible, but perhaps those methods should have another name because IMO it is not Puppet any more.

I think it is good to have commentaries in other languages. Still, the international language of bridge is English so if there is commentary only in one language, that would be English. I guess lucky for those who speak no other language than English, but the kibs come from all over the world, not just from English-speaking countries plus the country that is playing on Vugraph at the time. Roland did not like to hear viewers' opinion on this and it is his privilege to feel that way. But how else is he going to find out what viewers' preferences are if the viewers should stop sending him chat or e-mail about their preferences? Assumedly public service still aims at serving the public and if the public has preferences, what is wrong with listening to them? I know, I know!!!!! It is a voluntary job and well done Roland! And we shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth and so on and so on.

If the Dbl is for "lead clubs" then with diamonds and clubs, I would pass the X if I don't have gameforcing values and bid 2D if I intend to bid game somewhere. If the Dbl is the same as it would be in direct seat (Dbl of a weak NT), then 2D is a weak hand with diamonds. Maybe there are other meanings existing for the Dbl. I suspect your trouble started from not having agreed what the Dbl is. Many play that Dbl of an artificial bid (like Stayman) shows the suit.

If you are determined not to Pass (the "right call" with this IMO) then bid 1NT. Why tell partner that you have short diamonds and opening hand when you don't have that.

I am not going to guess what consesus is playing various systems but in 2/1, 6m-4M weak. To play. Opener must not correct to the responder's major.

I have some doubt whether he really is an expert. An expert would set the suit first if he wanted to RKC, and certainly would not use 4NT out of the blue as quantitative when opener's hand is still undefined as to strength.

Partner shows a BIG hand. 3NT should have good chance. If 3NT does not make or does not have any chance of making then I expect this time it was partner who was very aggressive.

This auction *doesn't exist*. Quantitative, in particular makes no sense. If it did happen, I would think the bidder has not played bridge very long; therefore I would assume Blackwood and assume responder has some biggish hand and does not know exactly how to go about showing it all.

My point was to disagree that the agreement to use 3C as p/c and 2NT to "BOTH ask for the minor AND show a strong hand" is an UNUSUAL AGREEMENT. It is not unusual IMO, I have seen it used that way by others and use it myself with one partner.

Some partnerships have the agreement that when accepting 4NT invite (and the 4NT was a natural invite) then on the way we answer aces *as if* 4NT had been asking for them.

Such authority in your voice... Many play that 2NT is the only strength showing bid (while also asking for the minor) and 3C or 3D are p/c. The agreement is not unusual.

I misclicked the vote, meant to say 1H but clicked on the multi - in case anyone's counting votes :)

Do we know what kind of opponents before deciding what to do? I haven't voted.

Unpassed hand Dbl. Passed hand 2H.

Pass. At least we are in at least 4-3 fit instead of 5-0. Could even be 4-4 or 4-5. The opponents' silence could mean partner had a near GF JS - - or - - that opps both have spades and nothing worthwhile to say.

No offense intended but I think the two that passed misclicked :)