OleBerg

So I've heard. I also understand the BB has holes, as well. Holes, yes, but not to the extent that it doesn't work. Lots of theories have holes. When we plug the holes, we get a new theory. Someday, maybe, we'll come up with a theory with no holes. But I'm not holding my breath for it. No we will not. Gödels Theorem.

It has been proved, that cigarettes are the leading cause of statistics.

we have talked about the real football :blink: If it's "real" football, how come the goalie gets to use his hands? What americans call football, is a sissy's game. - Everybody is covered with extensive padding. (Wouldn't want to feel any pain at all.) - Everytime anyone has run 10 yeards, everyone stops to catch their breath. - If you are to clumsy to hold on to the ball, you get three more tries. No, take a point blank hard-shot soccer ball directly into you balls, just to have your team lose with three goals instead of four, then we might discuss it.

A Philosopher walks into a seaside hotel. "I would like a room with a point of view."

If it is to challienging for your motor-skills, try a left-handed sandwich. When you make it, simply turn everything 180 degrees, and you will experience what a lefhanded person experiences, eating a normal sandwich.

And your rebid is......? 4♠. wtf? Ok, I pass.

Haha these were my thoughts exactly fwiw. One of the benefits of penalty Xs is not to "get them" it's that you can X and then bid 2M to show a strong hand so you can find some games while still stopping in 2 if partner is very weak. It is also to ebable the partnership to compete better for partials, especially if you have one (or maybe even more?) take-out doubles available.

Thank you all for your replies. My ruling ended up along the lines you suggested. It would probably have done that anyway, but as the ruling was in favour of a close friend, it felt nice to have back-up. :(

Sounds very reasonable. It wouldn't make much of a difference here, but if there were three 50% guesses, the difference would matter. (As it would roughly amount to "getting 1½ og them right.") And even more usefull, when the numbers move away from 50/50. Still, I'd like to hear from some lawmen.

A very theoretical example, just to test if my understanding is correct. As a TD, I make the ruling that a score has to be adjusted (assume all criteria are met). I want to adjust the score, so that a pair, instead of defending a partial, has to declare a doubled, vulnerable contract. The contract is one of in toptricks, with no reasonable possbileties of misdefence. Furthermore, declarer has to make two decisions on the hand, both of which are he is 50% to get right. And both times a wrong guess will mean an extra undertrick. My adjustment would be, that he will get one wrong and one right. Right?

The bidder who is in turn (Question-marks) The opponents of that bidder. That would seem like an obvious possibilety with 2 hcp.

Thank you, hoping for more replties. The bidder in turn has 2hcp. (Opponents are competent.) Does this change anything?

Imp's: Pass - (1♠) - Pass - (1NT) Pass - (Pass) - X* - (Pass) 2♣ - (Pass) - Pass - (2♦) ??? *=Huddle What information does the huddle convey?

Imp's: Pass - (1♠) - Pass - (1NT) Pass - (Pass) - X* - (Pass) 2♣ - (Pass) - Pass - (2♦) ??? *=Huddle What information does the huddle convey?

Isn't that why it's obviously not an alternative? Potaeto, potato. Edit: And pass is higher on my list than 3♥. Edit2: And I agree with Jlall about having the ♥J. Then it is still agamble, but ar least we are assured, that if it works, the patient will live.

And your rebid is......? 4♠.

I'll make it as South too. The ♠8 is covered, and the 10 taken by South. A heart is played and ducked to West. If a club comes back, another duck, and spade switch is taken in dummy (Preserving the 7). Now it is safe to duck another club, and when a heart is led later, West cannot perservere in spades, and the skvis ensues.

1♠. Is this a trick question?

No, it is just ridiculously unlikely that both 1N and 2H are down, among the usual reasons to bid. Anyway agree with jdonn, though we could have slightly less. I find pass to be obvious alternative. The only reason I don't choose it, is because it leaves me in no-mans-land if responder acts. Like transfering to spades.

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sa432haq2dk43caq2&s=skq85hk43daq2ck43]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] You reach 6♠ vs. opponents that seem uninterested in the bidding. The ♥10 is led, and RHO follows with a low.

I quack along.

Not my style, but it certainly has it's charm.

Then raise probably? Don't pass! Don't bid 3♥

Agree, except it is certain I would have doubled. Not saying I am right, but at least sligthly more adventurous.

I find pass obvious, reasoning along the same line as Gnasher. If I somehow felt the need to do something different, it would be a direct 3NT. The fate of 3NT will often depend more on how well the cards fit, not whether partner is min or max. Inviting via 2♣, I do not fear a delayed raise or the implications of a non-raise. What I fear is a double of 2♣ or lack thereof. Furthermore, an invitational sequence invites a double if the layout is foul. Or against competent opposition, tells that a lead-directing double might easily be a winner.