OleBerg

2♠ and 3NT if partner signs off. Expect partner to make a move with AKQxx + an ace or AKxxxx + an ace.

At the table, 2S would be one of those WTP bids. Policy. Passing or bidding 1S would be taking a position I can't justify. Agree 100%.

"Stephen Hawking suggested earlier this year that aliens almost certainly exist, but cautioned humanity against making contact. He warned that extraterrestrial nomads could be “looking to conquer and colonise whatever planets they can reach.”" Really gives the show away.

I hardly ever quant, (my system allows me to misbid my hands at a lower level.) but this makes sense to me: Replying to 4NT, you can: - Pass - Accept and bid a 4-card suits at the 5-level. (Then bid up the line.) - Re-invite with 5NT - Accept with a fivecard-suit at the 6-level. - Accept with 6NT.

3NT

Someone should have bid 5NT at some point. South instead of 4NT and North instead of pass.

I would be tempted at MP's if they were red. (I would do it.) At IMP's I wouldn't double even if one of my opponents were Ole Berg.

When my grandmother was a young, it was a usefull skill to be able to milk a cow. Now we have a machine for that. When my father was young, it was usefull to be good at calculus. Now you just need the rudimentary. There's a machine for the rest. When I was young, it was usefull to be able to remember phonenumbers. Now I have a Nokia for that.

Uhm, Ken Rexford is a lawyer.

Wouldn't it have been easier to broaden the definition of "approximately"?

No. We can even be happy, that we opened our best suit.

When Gutenberg invented the craft of printing, it had a huge impact on our thinking. When movies were invented, it had a huge impact on our thinking. When radio broacasts began, it had a huge impact on our thinking. When TV was introduced, it had a huge impact on our thinking. If you want to waste your time, you don't need a computer. (Trust me, I've wasted time since 1983.)

Diamond at trick 2, where I guess right.

If they don't go back on the deal, I think it is fair. The countries that supplies the rest of the world with their natural ressources, like oil, takes full money for it. If we want Ecuador to retain their natural ressource, for our benefit, we have to pay up.

2) Yes, three of a minor with 5 cards and a good reason. 3) Diamonds. 4) Doubleton in hearts, almost always with an honour, and a hand suitable for a 5-2 thrumph-suit. (Which often means a hand with few intermidiates.) 5) Last train, still doubt about the final denomination. I wouldn't bet my head on 4 and 5 with a pick-up partner.

Brown sticker = A male homosexual that [comment removed by moderator].

Offline bridge = A railroad bridge on a small branchline.

Two-way Staymann. = A bisexual person that stays put.

Slothy = Referring to a play made by the hand sitting over dummy. When you play a card two ranks lower the the card you hope to finess dummy for, instead of playing third hand high. Partner leads the ♠2 vs NT. You hold: ♠ Q93 and dummy holds ♠J76. When dummy plays low, you slothy the nine, hoping partner has led from the ten.

Especially if you HAVE to go, real bad.

I've never been into organized crime.

I didn't say it was impossible, I said it was "impossible". Normally, you would not expect a hand that could bid only 1♠ on the first round, to be able to invite, just because partner confirms that he has his bid, and 4, not 3, spades. So it must be a maximum 1♠, that has grown immensely. In-very-deed.

If 3 ♦ shows this... What had a vulnerable 3 ♠ shown then? xxxxx,xxx,xxxx,x? Well, both 3♦ and 3♠ are strange bid. But 3♠ would be something like 5-3-4-1, and one usefull highcard. A hand with 5 small in a potential thrumph-suit, increases immensely, when it is ascertained, that partner has 4-card support. The weaker the 5-card suit is, the more it goes up in value. I cannot see any other justification for making the "impossible" bids of 3♦ and 3♠.

♠ Q10xxx ♥ Kxx ♦ xxxx ♣ x With a little luck, we might just make 9 tricks.

Slightly sidetracking. In this sequence: 1♦ - (2♣) - X - (4♣) -x - Pass - ??? how about simply letting 4♦ deny a 5-card major? To solve x-5-x-x and some 5-x-x-x Where opener might pull us out of a 5-3 fit. To a lesser extent, this also applies to: 1♦ - (2♣) - X - (3♣) -x - Pass - ???