OleBerg

Virginia Swallows.

655321 rules?

The Danish alphabet has nine vowels: The wellknown: A, E, I, O, U, Y and three that might en up funny on your screen: Æ, Ø, Å the first is an A and an E put together, with the right horisontal line of the A and the left horisontal line of the E shared. It's sound is like the E in "Egg" or the EA in "bread". (Bread and Egg are originally danish words, brought to you, when the Vikings conquerred half of England around year 1000.) The second is an O with a line through, much like some mathematical symbol, justy with the line at the diagonal. Watch some old Pink Panter movies, where Peter Sellers uses the sound all the time. The last is simply an A with a small circle above. The sound is like OA in the word "Goal". I have no opinion on the number of vowels in usernames.

First off, I didn't make it clear enough, that i wanted North to show restraint (3♠), not to gamble a pass. (Even though it isn't that unreasonable). Three cards in their suit is bad too, which is one major reason, that I might not double at the table. The other is, of course, the vulnerabilety. To be honest, I think I would only double at all white. If opponents were red, I'd simply hope to collect enough 200+'s in the long run. At all white, I would double with 4-1-3-5, if the hand had the right texture. If I should try and construct a 4-2-3-4 hand I would double with at this vulnerabilety, it would be something like: ♠ QJ109 ♥ 32 ♦ A109 ♣ QJ109

No. Just another game than IMP's. And with higher variance. And in my opinion a much more difficult game. Or at least a game less mastered by the experts. Don't ask me which.

In my book South could double, and convert hearts to spades. Shouldn't show anything but 4-4 in black. (Considering South is a passed hand, and it is MP's.) And North should have no reason whatsoever, to go to 4♠. The texture of the hand and the vulnerabilety doesn't invite adventure though, so I am not sure I would have the balls for it, at the table.

Pass is standout to me. The stronglooking hearts are diminished considerably facing a doubleton, and the void in diamonds is a problem too. Partner is likely to have values in diamonds, so apart from giving bad communication, it also remives the option of possible finesses. (Like in "Either clubs behaves or the ♦Q is onside".) Only good thing is, that the opponents will probably make an advantageous or neutral lead, and will very seldom be able to find the passive heart lead, that will often be right.

Slightly off topic: My teen-age daughter dragged me to see: "Twillight-Eclipse" There is actually one scene that appeals to a grown up evil-spirited person such as I.

Alan Turing.

They pumped the tubes harder. They have said so themselves.

Yes. :P

4♥ automatic. The alternative is pass. 2♥ or 3♥ is silly.

Hopefully not. it was a word puzzle, to get the name of a prominent Tour de France rider. (In Danish this type of word-puzzle would be called a "rebus", and that's what google translates it to. Is that right?) Here is the rebus again: [picture]Cat[/picture] 11's

Don't watch TV.

Pass and 4♥ wtp?

Nothing exists, it is all in your mind.

http://www.iacuc.arizona.edu/training/cats...Cat-Closeup.jpg 11's

A new type of Dbl is born: the "Fluffy Dbl". It is takeout, but doesn't necessarily promisse the other suits and just hopes you have a penalty pass. :lol: That's not new.

I once constructed this convention: Stalin III swiss: 1♠ - 3NT = 15-17 balanced and four card support (normally a 4-3-3-3 hand). I played it for two years, and didn't see a hand that fit, so I tossed it out. Even if I still played it, I would be reluctant to use it on this hand, as there are to few intermidiates in the non-spade suits. (For those still reading, the convention was intended to be able to give us unobstructed slamexploration with one hand already well-described, and to limit the number of annoying lead-directing bids from fourth hand.)

At IMP's it would be a ♦ Here at MP's I could easily be convinced to go passive. I would choose a heart. There is a slight inference from the 2♥ bid; some players would bid 2♠ with 1♠ and 3♥ (some even with 2-3), especially if the weak two's in 2♦ are six-card suits. That's not the main reason for a heart though. The main reason is, that a heart is more passive. Double dummy it is 100% passive to lead a heart, if declarer has the needed entries, while a spade could cost a trick.

As long as only a 5-3 fit is discovered, I'd always want the option to play 3NT.

Posting a beyond farfetched example where 3NT is not the best contract, does not make it any less WTP. FYP!

Is it possible to have an unfair complexion?

On the other matter: Knock 'em up. Problem solved.

My financial problems has gone from "constant" to "occasionally".