OleBerg

1) 1♠. Exchange ♥'s and ♠'s, and I'd bid 2♣. 2) 1♦ or 1♥, according to system. 3) 1♠ Re: 2) I don't see much gain in bypassing diamonds and introducing hearts. If it is going to be a competitive auction, a diamond-fit, that can be 5-4, is much more likely to be usefull. If we dont have a diamond fit, hearts may still be unearthed. (I have an excellent hand for for a later T-O double of spades.) If we get the auction to ourselves, hearts will surface. The only problem I can foresee, is if the opponents preempt in spades and we belong in 4♥, then we might be in trouble. But as virtually everybody plays that any bid by the doublers partner is constructive, I don't fear it.

South is on Meth. If exclusion have been agreed, it would obviously apply here. From North' point of view: If South wanted his opinion on a diamond void, he would have shown it a lower level. When South told North they had everything, not jumping to 7♠ would be silly. You could argue, that North could wonder why South didn't bid a direct 5NT, since 0 aces was enough. But if all South needed was the ♠Q, I assume this would be the way to bid. North might have needed a mild sedative after the hand.

Agree.

Hammertime!

5♠ seems easy. The contract is even rightsided.

I am not an international player, but in Denmark it is farly standard, that if you play weak jump shifts, then: 1♦ - 1♥ 1♠ - 3♥ is forcing. Thus 4NT should be free to use as quant. (I would strongly expect the bidder to be 3-4-2-4.)

My guess: Even though it is highly unlikely that you will have hand that needs only to check aces, it is still much more likely to have it, when you have long hearts, than when you have uncovered a 4-4 fit in spades. Of course if you play strong-jump-shifts, it's for spades. Edit: But I would prefer Quant.

You have: 2 X Lion 2 X Ranger 1 X Angel No summoning possible. Opponents stack: 2 X Troll 2 X Minotaur 1 X Titan6 You have the option of attacking in Brush from below. Masterboard-considrations are: "Attack if you can win". What is the right play?

Yes, and I appriciate the input, in this thread and others. I sometimes mention this, but I would find it silly to express this appriciation everytime someone replies to my posts.

I think my posts deserve what most posts here deserve*: Serious comments. My posts, and others, generally get that. And from strong players. That is what makes this place a great forum for learning (for me at least). That was also the main reason for my retaliation against Peachy: Her insult is detrimental to this learning. (For reasons stated in other posts.) If I simply had wanted to insult back, only to get revenge, I can assure you I could have found a subtle, sarcastic way to do it. Now, if you look at Clee's and Gnashers posts in this thread, you might analyze their language and find it slightly patronizing too. But they have offered advice, and the (maybe) patronizing language sends the message: "We feel strongly that we are right". This is usefull information. And as they generally offer advice I find valuable, the sligth (possible) patronization is well worth the price. *Quote, can't remeber whom: "The loser of a discussion is actually the winner, as it is he who has learnt most".

Since I have a great deal of respect for people who make the effort to run places like this, I'll try to explain: If you agree with someone, it is simply enough to say that you agree. The phrase "They offer you common sense" clearly suggests, that it is a thing I do not have. (Not that it bothers me a lot, "common sense" is overrated.) But it is still an insult. Now, if like Gnasher, Clee and others, you have made an effort to explain it to me, it is ok if you tire of me and my questions and comments. Peachy's last comment, on the other hand, apart from being insulting, also support the paradigm: "The good players are right, and the less good players should listen and learn". And it didn't add an ounce of insight to the thread. That is not my idée of what a forum is best for; forums such as this is an excellent tool for mutual learning. And the very good players will automaticly learn something from the less good players too. Many reasons for that. Some are: - As already stated, it forces them to formulate their arguments. This may lead to new insight - Even if only 1 in 20 of a weaker players idées is even worth considering, it will still sharpen the experts game. - The training in using argument will be handy, when the expert is going to discuss with his equals or peers. - It encourages young talented people to speak their mind. (Which I consider a good thing.) - Less good players may have knowledge of what other good players have written earlier. - Once in a blue moon, the less good player has actually figured something out, the good players have overlooked. Now, finally getting to the point: Peachy insulted me, maybe without knowing. I insulted back thinking it was an easy way to illustrate that. I was wrong; it seems quite a few of you didn't get the message. Not really, I was just out to insult Peachy. (I havent read the rules.) The misspelling was simply an attempt to "lessen" the insult, also hinting that there was something else to the post. You're right of course. A semantic hick-up, and a rather embarrasing one. I should have noticed. Sorry.

Indeed. They are probably more patronizing, on purpose. She made the patronizing comment for no other appearent reason. I made a rougher comment. Just because she makes the first insult, doesn't give her the right to say, that her level of insult is the limit. To bad. It was meant as a general insult. It may have had some bridgerelated content, but it was still patronizing. If she wanted to say she agreed with Clee and Gnasher, she could simply have done that. The fact that she appearently doesn't even see her own comment as patronizing, is just another sign of arrogance. And again, my aim is not to be right, my aim is to learn. And being "right" should not give the right to insult people who are of another opinion, as long as they debate in a sober way. When I am wrong, I do not deliberately make mistakes to bother other people, I do it because of lack of insight.

I do indeed listen, but I do not consider this forum a competition, where the object is to post hands the good players will agree with me on. And I believe you learn more from discussing, and using arguments, instead of establishing a hieracy, where the strongest players simply tells the others what is right. (The strong players might learn something too, as they have to formulate their reasons, which will give them more insight. And newcomers might learn not to bid like me.) And I value when Gnasher and others take their time to argue with me. And having made this effort, their patience with me will eventually earn them the right to make a patronizing comment, when they finally tire of me. But Peachy, whose posts are worthless, shouldn't really make that kind of comments.

Are you just pretending to be surprised about this or what? No, I am calling the moderator silly, because that what I think he/she is. How could you possibly think deleting your post was silly? You made a post that contained nothing in it except an expletive directed at another forum member. I mean, if you are really as smart as you think you are (apparently you are much smarter than me and gnasher!), then this shouldn't be too hard to comprehend. You're completely of the mark. The reason I read this forum and post here, is to try and learn something. The reason I engage in a debate with you, Gnasher and others, is because I value your opinion. If I didn't value it, discussing with you would be a waste of time. I don't post hands to promote a smart bid I made, or to get the upper hand in a discussion with partner. I post hands where I am genuinely in doubt as to what is right. And I go into the depht of the argument to learn something. In this actual thread, I early admitted, that my viewpoint might very well be wrong, but I still wanted to discuss it. To learn. Peachy on the other hand, did nothing but call me stupid in a patronizing fashion. So I returned in kind, only in a straightforward way.

True, but J10x Q10xx x Q9xxx would, I assume, be a 2♠ bid, followed by a pass, followed by another pass. Do you actually know anyone, in Europe or elsewhere, for whom the lower limit of such a raise is "(5)6" when it contains a singleton? A few. <_<

Are you just pretending to be surprised about this or what? No, I am calling the moderator silly, because that what I think he/she is.

It's my trademark. And artistic freedom. Just like calling a movie "Kalifornia". :)

Which silly moderator removed my straightforward comment, but not peachy's patronizing comment???

I play the double much along the lines suggested by Gnasher. It sends the message to partner: "If you are in doubt about whether to take further action, do it. It is highly likely my values will be usefull." This need not include good defence against one or both minors. (But it will include decent all-round defence , as well as some offensive values.) Anyway, if 2♠ is a classic european (5)6-9 raise, I still double. It is simply to likely that declarer will have to much "work" on his hand, even when partner is dead minimum. I take my -670 with a shrug.

Raise

1) It makes it much more likely that spades may not come in. 2) Had partner forced to game, he wouldn't be limited, so up to app. 13 hcp would be possible. This would make it much less attractive to stick your neck out, hoping the spades have enough texture. OK, so changing my earlier question: If partner had transferred to spades and bid 2NT, we'd have bid 3NT without thought. Why does the fact that our system compelled him to bid 3♠ instead make 4♠ more attractive? No, I would have considered something else, like 3♦, figuring partner would bid 3NT with good clubs, and something else with open clubs. It doesn't solve all problems, and it might not be right, but at least it is consistent. (And it is definitely better than taking the wild stab I did. Hence my ironic comment on my "expert-system".)

Unfortunately the distribution is unavaiable to me for the moment, and may not surface, hope you don't mind. With all white, North dealt and opened: North East South West 2♦ - 2NT - 4♥ - Double All pass. 2♦ was both majors, at least 4-4. 2NT was natural. 4♥ to play. After the blind lead, South inquires about the double, and is told it is penalty. The contract is -1. After play, it turns out, that the doubler is 4-2-3-4 with two small hearts and scattered values. 2NT overcaller has Kxx of hearts. I was called to the table after the hand. South claims that there might have been misinformation. South claims, that if the double was meant as take-out, and had been explained as such, he might have made the contract. EW both claims that the double is penalty. There is no written documentation on this or similar sequences. EW are good players, they play an intricate strong-club system with a lot of gadgets, and generally know what they are doing. Is there any grounds for adjusting? (How to adjust is relatively uninteresting for the moment.) If you have the energy, please elaborate on your thoughts. And I'd be interested in considerations in whatever jurisdiction you are in.

1) It makes it much more likely that spades may not come in. 2) Had partner forced to game, he wouldn't be limited, so up to app. 13 hcp would be possible. This would make it much less attractive to stick your neck out, hoping the spades have enough texture. For all of you: I'm not so sure 4♠ is right, but I do think some you brushes it off much to easily.

The red suits are securely stopped, but it is 16 out of our 17 points, and still only 5 tricks, admittedly with dvellopping potential. But any time partner lacks the ♠A and we have only a single clubstopper, we are in trouble even if the red suits come in for 6 tricks, while 4♠ is often a walk in the park all the times partner has 109 or Q10 of spades.

Forgot to mention that South will declare both contracts. So at least I didn't hog the hand. B)