OleBerg

1) 5♠ ready to accept blame. 2) Easy X

Always bid four spades over four hearts ... It is doubtful that this phrase will ever reach equilibrium.

Eight ever, nine never. 8 people is not one to nine. ROC ~ 8 and 9 to one person. China - 8 and 9 per person. China - 8 and 9 per person.

See no evil, hear no evil, bid 3 no trump. ,, Trump bid, please refer to the three evil hear no evil. , Bid cards, the following three evil Please listen to the evil one. , Bid cards, three of the bad please listen to one bad one. , Bid cards, three Please listen to one bad one bad. , Bid cards, listen to three or less bad one bad. Card bid is a bad thing worse than listening to three or more. A bad thing worse than listening to bid more than two cards. A bad thing worse than listening to two or more bids card. A bad thing worse than listening to two or more bids card.

A man is put in a room with Hitler, Stalin and a lawyer. He is given a gun with two bullets. The evil deeds of whomever he shoots, will be undone. What does he do? Hidden answer:

#2: They're stage-magicians.

Under what Law? Quite a good question. And a quite educatinal thread, at least for me. Initially I thought, that Law 12C1B applied: If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by wild or gambling action it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. The offending side should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the consequence of its infraction only. However, there is a trap here (nasty David :) ): There is an irregularity after EW has made their "wild and gambling action", namely the double of 4♠. So if you rule that the double is illegal (as I would, it is one of more LA, this one (strongly) suggested by the UI that South has misunderstood 2NT.), EW gets compensated. Quite logical actually; EW made a wild gamble, but it paid of, as North has a tremendous hand in support of clubs.

Sometimes you might get the key for free. Assume a relay-system with this response-scheme to ace-asks (Taken from Viking-club): 1.step = 0 or 3 2.step = 1 or 4 3.step = Suited aces 4.step = Minor or Major aces 5.step = Hard or soft aces Anytime a 16+ hand has asked for aces, and partner ha replied step 3, 4 or 5, you have a free encryption for your further relays. Come to think of it, this corresponds to the 4NT - 1 Ace, 5NT scenario described earlier. But since I've made the post, I'll post it.

Go.

I believe transfers have some merit. I would however do it in quite another way: Pass: Weak or 15+Bal. X = Transfer to diamonds. 1♦ = Transfer to hearts. 1♥ = Transfer to spades. 1♠ = Transfer to clubs. Edit: Naturally this wouldn't apply to openings in fourth hand. This would cover all constructive hands. 1NT = Both majors. 2♣+ = Preemptive. As they will quite often have 12-14 bal., this is another possibility: 2♣ = "Perfect" takeout double of 1♦, 11-16 non-forcing. 2♦ = "Perfect" takeout double of 1♣, 11-16 non-forcing. I have some experience with these kind of bids, and when you make them, they are quite efficient, especially if you are well-organized (jump in a new suit preemptive, while better hands "cue" in the opponents alleged suit), putting advancer in an excellent position. The relatively low frequency is somewhat an argument against these bids.

Simple suggestion: Treat it as natural. Agree to overcall aggressively. (Use Clubs as "their suit", for cuebid purposes.) Reserve 2♣ for a natural overcall and 3+♣'s for preempts.

This sort of sounds like NS are due a bonus because their opponent made a sloppy claim. I don't think assigning a normal result to NS is "harsh" at all. Just like you sometimes get a bonus (good result), when someone makes a sloppy play. Actually, a claim is a play. This is quite normal; your opponent ***** up, and you cash in. (Much to often the other way around for me <_< .) More likely than not, but not for certain. Enough doubt for me to favour NS.

When I downloaded "Firefox" it came with a spellchecker. (American-English, says "Colour" and "Favour" is wrong.) It was real easy, almost spam-like, to download.

In Denmark, a claimer will have to play "careless" but not "senseless". So if I were to judge (in Denmark), I would give the defense two tricks. The pregnant silence may have alerted declarer to the fact that there might be a problem. Declarer could have miscounted thrumphs, in which case I would not judge it to be senseless to "cash" the ♠8 before the other tricks. Harsh, but 1 trick is harsh on NS, and I'd rather be harsh on the false claim, even though it is much harsher. Edit: Had declarer said: "Claim, unless thrumphs are 4-0", it would have been another matter entirely.

Regarding a possible PP: If the standard of the players is not quite high, I wouldn't even consider it. You don't have to go lower than "advanced" level (whatever that is) to see players suppress fit and make penalty-doubles without much in thrumphs, as soon as they feel they can beat a contract. There is a world of difference between making a bid illegal because of UI, and to give a PP. (Well, there should be IMHO.) As for the "having already shown his hand" argument: If you can beat a contract, you are entitled to double it. True story (told before): ♠ xxx ♥ KQJ10 ♦ Axx ♣ xxx I opened a 10-12 NT, and the opponents sailed to 4♥. I doubled, even though I had already shown my hand, and had a minimum. (It made. My clueless partner, (because of his flat zero-count, mind you) led a black suit, and the diamond disappeared.)

Quite well put. There is some merit to the argument, that 2NT=Minors, makes it more likely that partner has a real fit. However, the less unreasonable you make 3♠, the more silly you make 4♠. If East means he has any freedom to bid excessively (because of 2NT and the way of scoring), this freedom should be incorporated into Wests decision. In my book, 3♠ alone is enough to not want to compensate EW. 4♠ is not completely crazy, facing a "real 3♠"-bid. Of course 3♠ shouldn't exist, but if partner bids it, you have to handle it. I would expect a 3♠ to look something like: ♠ QJ109xx ♥ KQ109 ♦ xx ♣ x

Please let us follow the Laws. There was no fouled board, which is when it is changed between two tables, and all this 60/40 stuff was fine in the 1960s, but has been illegal and unnecessary over here for thirty plus years. Not being native to English, I thought "fouled board" meant something like this: "Well, there's 12C1{d}, regarding results "numerous or not obvious ", but I would not apply that here. " As far as I remember, giving 40% under that Law is allowed in DK. Anyway, it might still be to lazy, so for NS it is 5♣ doubled or not, -1 or -2. I will settle for 5♣X-1

And if partner shows 2? Are you SURE that he's void in spades?? Oops, miscounted (Maybe that's why I don't believe in RKCB, to hard to count those high numbers :rolleyes: ). Have to contend myself with 5♣. And no, I am not sure he has single (or void) in spades, but it is very likely. And anytime he has, we have to play some number of diamonds. And if I pass (and respect his double), we will not do that all the time.

I am not a strong believer in RKCB, but this seems like the perfect hand for it. (And of course defending is an option in this sequence. Though naturally not on the actual hand.)

One thing I am quite sure about: I would never compensate EW. After the incorrect explanation, their combined efforts are very silly. (Maybe it is correct to get real technical, and award EW 60%, minus the difference between defending 4♣ making and the achieved score? I don't really think so, but would like comments.) As for NS, things are a little more complicated, but I would probably declare fouled board, giving them 40%. As for the PP; being somewhat paranoid, I have no problem envisioning North's double as an attempt to put partner back on track. This is far from certain however, so I probably wouldn't do it (depending a little on the level of the player). If I had the time, I would give North a friendly lecture.

I don't agree. My argument was, that if N/S was a strong pair, North has declined the option to bid 3♣. So for me it would be interesting, how many strong players that would bid 3♣ with a good raise. Thus I'd have to poll this hand, and another containing a stronger raise.

You are only telling them, that they might push you to 4♦. And 3♣ also makes it more likely that 3♥ will be doubled, when right. So I disagree with your diasagreement. :) Edit: I agree that bidding 3♦ - 4♦ has some merit (maybe a lot), but when you choose to bid unilateral, you might get in trouble when partner conveys UI. Edit2: Not that I wouldn't want to inform my partner about the values, but 3♣ shows nothing about the club-suit. It simply shows a good raise, as it is the only good raise available.

A interesting aside: If N/S is a strong pair, it can be argued, that North had already made his decision not to compete to 4♦, as he could have shown a good raise with 3♣ over the 2♥ bid. I am quite unsure if this, if it was taken serious, would have any legal implications? Edit: Just came to think of: It is probably an argument in favour of pass being a logical alternative?

Why? The "D" could be misinterpreted as a bid of 0♦, accepted by next hands 2♥ bid. I would have thought D = 1D = 1♦, just like in the good old math days... Please don't use four letter words. (Like math.)

Reminds me: Patient: A have a friend who has a problem. Doctor: Pull out the friend, and we'll look at the problem.