OleBerg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KH2UE6ufER8&feature=related

If a player has shuffled his cards, before a result is agreed upon, I would consider the revoke to be established without second thought or discussion.

They taste like chicken, you know?

The value of the Euro will rise and fall, compared to the US$. In the end it will not matter. Just my 0.42 €

Up shows the gradient of the gravitational potential of the Earth. It is easily generalisable to any gravitational field. That wouldn't give it an intrinsic value, as gravitational fields vary. (It is assumed.)

7.th Heaven.

I hear this often, can you give a few examples? Just about everything they say.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wynF1_efJNM

At another glance: At IMP's I would never play 4-card major. At MP's I would have no problem at all with it. (And I would open Major before minor, or maybe ♥-♣-♠-♦ if someone provided good arguments.) EDIT: And NT-range (MP's) is simply "Against the field". If I am better than the field, it wont matter, and if I am weaker, it will give me the chance to get lucky. In a short tourney, where I considered me and my partners declarer-skills to be superior, I might switch to "With the field".

In Denmark (especially in Copenhagen), 5CM and 12-14NT is widespread at the highest levels. It is played in a "not 2/1 context" however. At a glance it would seem to me, that it could work as well in a 2/1 system.

No. Nobody knows that.

Wednesday is a construction, it doesn't really exist.

This is my third chance to bid hearts. If I don't do it now, I din't think I'll get another chance.

Up is a relative concept. It has no intrinsic value.

http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/pho...d=1503106181183 This picture is genuine. If you project the trajectory of the ball, you will clearly see, that it will go much more than 5M. And it did pass the goalie. (Unfortunately the puddle playing goalie that day, is not in the picture.)

3♣ seems obvious. If I do not bid this, the last insignificant reason for not playing 2♠ artificial, is gone with the wind.

Amen. Obviously all this "Evidence" is planted by the "Flying Spaghetti Monster", to test our faith. Being benevolent in nature, it has of course left enough evidence for us to scientifically research the truth. One example is the reverse propertionality betweem global warming and the number of pirates in the world. Statistics never lie.

Yes.

Yes

No. I have arcane knowledge I will never share.

Mine wont, but he is well-trained. :blink:

Not really. the non-linear nature of the IMP-scale is oncooperated in partners decision too. (Unless of course, my math is off as usual.)

I know the original post is somewhat messy, but somewhere in it, you will see, that NS had no agreement about the difference betweem a direct 5♥ and a pass and pull.

But now you have no entry in a threat suit to the dummy's ♥winner. The play has gone: ♠8,9,10,K South wins ♥x Q x x West wins ♣x x Q x East wins ♠x x x A North wins So far everybody wins. Now you can, for example, duck one more ♣ and cash the minor winners leading to a 4-card ending in which you endplay W to score your ♠7. But you don't score the ♥K, so you lose 2♥ and 3♣. After ♠A I duck another club. Any switch is taken, and another heart is led towards dummy (North). If West rises, he will be skvised, if he ducks, he will be stripskvised. (Third round of diamonds is taken in dummy, spades is communication back to hand.

This is simple: 1♣ - 1♦ 1♥ = "15-17", any shape except balanced. (And play your checkback-structure.) All other bids remain the same. So a reverse or a jump to, say, 3♣, is always full fledged. Likewise: 1♣ - 1♥ 1♠ = "15-17", any shape except balanced. (And play your checkback-structure.) For MP's you might also consider: 1♣ - 1♥ 1♠ = 4-card hearts, forcing for a round. (Discovers a heart fit that might get lost otherwise.) 2♥ = 2½♠ (Sometimes you will get away with responding light.) What to use 1♣ - 1♦ 1♥ for in this context is not obvious, but 4-card diamonds should at least be easy to remember. (And thus 2♦ as 2½♥)