OleBerg

Touchdown. The crowd is cheering.

3NT wtp? Even if partner is: ♠ xx ♥ x ♦ xxxx ♣ J10xxxx It has reasonable play. Even if partner is in the top end, 6♣ is a far shot, i.e: ♠ xx ♥ Kx ♦ Kxx ♣ QJ10xxx 6♣ is on a finesse. (If you change a red card to a club, partner is not an agressive preemptor.) Did partner hold: ♠ QJx ♥ x ♦ xx ♣ Qxxxxxx ? Finally; of course 5♣ might occasionally be right, but I'll never find out below 3NT.

I played around and learned to ride a bike and play soccer. When I was six I started in school, and learned to read, write and do math. I might have had a little grasp of numbers earlier on, so as to be able to get the maximum numbers of candy. Balloon Animals are a hoax, they are physically impossible to create. Anyone who feels like klutzes, should check this out: www.thereifixedit.com

I was reading this thread: http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=40075 In his reply, gnasher suggests that a spade discount from partner would be count. That gave me a peculiar thought: What if I didn't hold the ♠A; wouldn't it make sense to see a spade partners discard as encouraging/discouraging? And if it does, are we not playing encrypted signals?

3♣ wtp?

1) Automatic. 2) No. 3) Reluctant.

If I have carefully chosen agreements, surely I would know whether they can handle a 1♦ opening on the hand. If they can't, I shouldn't open 1♦. Anyway, had I somehow bid 1♦ without previous discussion, I would simply bid 2♠. If partner really interpret 1♦ - 2♣ 2♠ - 4♦ 6♣ as a splinter; bad luck.

Say partner bids 1NT, what rebid shows a 1NT opener in this style? Pass or 2NT.

It is part of it. But on the OP's hand, so large a percentage of our points points towards suit-play. Not so on your hand. Also, the ♠J is a notorious NT-value I wouldn't. But change the two J's to the ♦K, and I have no problem with 1♦. (In a 12-14 context.) Edit: Also, 1NT(12-14) has a preemptive value. And with 15-17 you go to game more often. Of course you tell the opponents something too, but you always do that, when you explore carefully.

Flattery will get you nowhere. (Anyway, Marshall Miles advocate this style too, so that makes two of us.) I pass. I don't consider it a problem. Of course it might go wrong, but it might go right too. Passing, and the involved risk, is a part of the pro's and con's of opening 1♦. The risk is not high, as I will be sure to play in the right denomination. A missed 55% 3NT might easily turn out good. If I face notorious misdefenders I might invite, and if I play in a field of highly varying strength, I will be more reluctant to open 1♦. But against equals, slightly worse or betters, I see no problem with a style that can choose to open 1♦

I assume this is a reply to my post. It is not because of AKQx, it is because the whole hand screams "suit-play" AND because you have no rebid problems. This is MP's, and a diamond partial might easily outscore NT. At IMP's it is another matter, I would be more reluctant to not open 1NT, as showing my strength is more importent. (Missed games are expensive, wrong partial not so.)

But you might have forgotten all the times a marginal action payd off.

Not really. The hand is very suit-oriented, and I can hardly have a rebid problem. (Especially if my agreements are, that such hand can opened one of a suit. The style is absolutely playable in pairs.) Definitely. Agree. Exchange the Majors, and I find 3♦ clearcut. Like already stated, I disagree.

Good thinking. And continuing the thought --- since partner has a biggie he will bid again over 3D, already assuming I have my share of the outstanding garbage available. And I get another chance to show the heart suit. And sometimes partner do not have long clubs because: - The play an agressive style, where preempts are made freely, and raises cautiously. (And opener is "sound" this time.) or - Responder supresses his fit, "not to give the show away". (Not my tactic, but it happens.)

The downside of 3♥ is that if we don't hit a four-card suit it will usually go down, thereby losing the benefit of staying low. Indeed. I would choose 3♦ too, but the alternative is not 3♥. It is game.

I don't think your partner made one bad bid.

Surely thats just a case of agreement. With our diamond holding, partner may have some lenght in diamonds, and might easily not be able to reopen. You have all noticed this is MP's?

Yes:) Like Finnish. Yes, quite peculiar that these two languages are related to each other, but not to any other scandinavian or european languages. But Finnish is definitely more weird. They have this word: Jäääärne which desribes a property ice can have, on the border of ice/non-ice terrain. (Or something like that.)

In principle this is a double at MP's. But you have to be sure partner is on the wavelength. At IMP's pass is clearcut.

Fried chicken.

I must say, I am quite disappointed to find out what this poll was about!

[hv=d=e&v=e&s=shdaj7542caqj10853]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] (1♠) - 2NT - (Pass) - Pass (3♥) - ???

Obviously 655321 is the most beautifull. I'm into praticality however, so 60 is my number. It is divideable by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20 and 30. There is a reason why noone ever tries to change the way we meassure time.

I do, but there are many "outs" - Partner bids clubs. - Partner scrambles, we bid 3♣. Now 3♥ (on 3♦) is not invitational. - 4♥ makes.

Actually no. Ugh that makes it hard. That's what she said!