Lobowolf

If we're playing that 5♠ is a general invitation to 6♠, I'm not buying that partner is sophisticated enough to know that he shouldn't use Blackwood with a void. That advice is more relevant for people who have alternatives to Blackwood for slam exploration. I'd guess that partner simply counted points (including distribution) and figured he thought we could make 6. That evaluation may or may not include a club void. He could have good strength in the red suits, Axx(x) of trump, and a club stiff, or an honor, or just about anything. I have no guarantee that partner even has the ♠Q, and I want no part of a grand without it, especially on the conditions. Partner's inexperience is his excuse for bidding 6; I don't have one for bidding 7. There's a lot partner didn't know about my hand to bid 6, but he was only risking the game bonus; I nowhere near convinced that I know enough about his to risk the game and the small slam bonus. Agree about the risk/reward, too. The worst-case-scenario for bidding (goes down, and they're in 6, making) is not only worse than the worst-case-scenario for passing (makes an uptrick, and they're in 7), it's more likely. It's too early for me to think about being brilliant or creative, especially since I'm not inclined to draw too many inferences from his bids or plays. Passsssssssssssssssss

Another one of those hands with a possible wide range of values depending on partner's fit. I don't think I'd have chosen to treat it as a strong Michaels; if partner'd bid spades on Qxx, he could have three losers before he even gets out of the trump suit. On the other hand, it IS a five-loser hand. I think I'd have bid 1S to start, possibly encouraging a bad lead, but there's a good chance we won't be defending. I wouldn't complain about partner's choice, if he Michaelsed. If I stepped in for someone who had a sneezing attack midway through the auction, I'm boosting it to 3♥ now, for sure. It's arguable whether or not it's worth a strong Michaels; it's certainly not worth a weak Michaels. Especially red at IMPs. Too much game potential, and even if I get us too high, neither opponent has good trump with which to whack me. I love being red at IMPs. I can rationalize all of my overbids.

lol I think the point will be revealed to be "pointed" at another thread...

Sounds like the kind of knee-jerk reaction one would have to a reporter's question as to whether he's stopped beating his wife, too. Whether or not we're in a recession, and if so, when it started, are open to reasonable dispute; however, the "R-Word" was thrown around long before it was even arguably appropriate, and it was done for political capital. I can't imagine a president in the last 50 years (except maybe Carter) in that position not immediately jumping in as yet another journalist made it a matter of record by the terms of the question that yes, it's a recession.

The economic turnaround started prior to January, 2001. It was hardly a sign of economic health that people were willing to pay several hundreds of dollars per share for companies that had no earnings, as long as they had a website. It was nice while it lasted, but it wasn't going to keep up irrespective of who won the 2000 election. Similarly, unless you seriously posit that something Al Gore would have done would have prevented the 9-11 attacks, a fair share of the 21st-century negative economic conditions in the United States were going to happen one way or the other. If 4.2% unemployment is miniscule, then 5.7% isn't all that horrible. What do you think Gore would have done to prevent China's ascendancy or America's decline? Depending on your thoughts on Global Warming, I could see the position that Gore could have done a lot to make a better country in 20 years, but as for the short term, I could more readily see a worse 2008 economy under Gore, had he committed massive amounts of federal funds (and imposed massive restrictions on businesses...you know, those entities that provide most of the jobs) in response to Global Warming. Particularly as money allocated to the budget stays allocated year to year, and the economy was well overdue for a cyclical contraction regardless of who sat in the White House.

Sorry, my typo (or my cut-and-paste-o) I was in 7♥.

I don't remember the last time I knew after one round of bidding that three keycards were irrelevant, but here's a hand from an OFFline shuffle/deal/play unit game a couple of months back: ♠KQJTx ♥AQJTxxxx ♦------ ♣------ Obviously, this hand has the STRENGTH for a 2♣ opener, but I chose to open 1♥. I was quite please to hear the auction go...(P)...2NT (Jacoby)!!. Yup, I opened a 2-loser hand with 8 hearts and caught partner with an opening bid and 4 hearts of his own. Look how cute the response is...I'm missing 4 keycards, and I don't care about 3 of them to bid a grand slam!! Not only are the minor suit aces irrelevant, but because I know partner and I have 12 hearts, I don't care whether or not he has the king - if he doesn't, it's dropping. Ended up in 7♠ after I got partner to show the ♠ace. The fun part of the hand was just seeing partner's 2NT response, and wondering if he'd pulled the wrong card.

Pretty much how I play it, except that over 6♥, I'd bid 7 of any non-spade suit to show a card (usually queen) in that suit (cheapest), which can help get to 7NT if we're greedy at pairs or concerned about a bad trump split. On your auction, 7♠ would deny all queens.

I was hoping for "I decided to be a genius, and declarer had the stiff queen."

lol I was getting nostalgic for reading Scalia.

As you might expect, this should read "After 1M - 2NT:"

Spade looks like the best compromise between safety and productivity. Hoping for the ♠J seems like a small enough wish as to not offend the card gods.

I would have splintered with the south hand also. That being said, in my regular partnerships, a jump to 4♥ would deny shortness, and north would be expected to rebid 3♦. The example hand is a good illustration of why the sky isn't necessarily going to fall because you splintered with an ace -- south doesn't like his diamond holding opposite a stiff x, and he doesn't like it opposite a stiff A, either. With one regular partner (and one former partner) I played a modified version of Jacoby 2NT that allowed you to show the minimum AND shortness, so you didn't feel any guilty twinges about showing a stiff A. After 1NT - 2M: 3♣ = unspecificied shortness with extras (3♦ asks, then opener bids the singleton or bids 3NT with a void, after which 4♣ asks). 3♦ = unspecified shortness with a minimum (3♥ asks, etc.) 3 (other major) = 6-card major, no shortness. 3 (our major) = strongest version of a hand with no shortness (about an good 16+) 3NT = medium version of a hand with no shortness (about 14 to 16-) 4 (our major) = weak version of a hand with no shortness (whatever you've got that's not worth 3NT) 4 (other suit) = 5-card suit, 2 of the top 3 honors.

Not so convinced about this part of your reason. Hearts still score better than diamonds, and above and beyond that, it's generally better to play in responder's weak suit than openers. The opening hand will have outside entries to potentially set up and use diamonds; the responding hand can be close to worthless if hearts aren't trump, and you don't have to bump up a level to get there.

2♥ on the vulnerability

ok, I'll bite & get creative... T♥ hoping for something like AJx in dummy opposite stiff 9.

2H here...pick your rationale based on the form of scoring. More likely to get us to game (and the right game) if it's IMPs; more likely to get us to the right partscore at matchpoints.

I think its the opposite. If you are opening 1C with 4-4m than 2D as non-forcing make sense. If you open 1D with 44m than playing 2D as non-reverse make little sense (only useful with 5C+4D weakish hands) Well, what I meant by my comment was this...if you have a minimum 4-4 hand, and it goes: 1♣ - (1♠) - X - P; 2♦ NF (because you don't have a stopper for 1NT), if partner doesn't like diamonds, he's got to go to the 3-level to get back to clubs. I'd rather have opened 1♦ and shown clubs at the 2-level, so if partner doesn't like my second suit, he can still play in the first one at the 2-level. If you are 4-4 in the minors and balanced you should rebid 1NT.... I agree; I was just commenting on the supposition from the earlier post for people that promise a stopper with 1NT.

I think its the opposite. If you are opening 1C with 4-4m than 2D as non-forcing make sense. If you open 1D with 44m than playing 2D as non-reverse make little sense (only useful with 5C+4D weakish hands) Well, what I meant by my comment was this...if you have a minimum 4-4 hand, and it goes: 1♣ - (1♠) - X - P; 2♦ NF (because you don't have a stopper for 1NT), if partner doesn't like diamonds, he's got to go to the 3-level to get back to clubs. I'd rather have opened 1♦ and shown clubs at the 2-level, so if partner doesn't like my second suit, he can still play in the first one at the 2-level.

Or, conversely, if you're going to play it non-forcing, then you'd better open your 4-4 hands 1♦.

I don't think these are comparable situations. Yes, I always transfer to a 5 card spade suit when partner opens 1NT, and I never rebid 2♠ when partner rebids 1NT. But, when partner opens 1NT his possible holdings are : 5 spades (unless you exclude these too) 4 spades 3 spades 2 spades and he won't have a singleton spade. When partner rebids 1NT his possible holdings are: 3 spades (only those hands unsuitable for a 3 card raise) 2 spades 1 spade (sure, if your 1NT rebid denies a singleton this doesn't apply) so you already know that many (I agree, not all) of the winning hands for spades are no longer possible, making the decision not to rebid 2♠ pretty easy. It's true that the most beneficial situations don't apply; however, it's probably an extremely small percentage of the time when you open 1NT with a 5-card major that partner also has a 5-card major. I'd guess 75% of the time partner opens 1NT and you have a 5-card major, he's got either 2 or 3, but that's completely off the top of my head. Simulations I've run indicate that if you knew the 1NT opener didn't have a 4-card spade suit, it would still be beneficial to transfer into your 5-card spade suit. It's a clear gain when partner has 3, and about a wash when partner has 2. Phil - I do routinely rebid the 5-card major with partners with whom I have the agreement that 1NT denies a singleton. I've found the situations where it's advantageous to come up much more often than ones where it's disadvantageous. Granted, the more often you raise with 3 as opener, the less benefit you get out of being able to comfortably rebidding the 5-card major. I get the occasional awkward hand (which even then isn't necessarily a bad board), but after 1m - 1M: 1. I never end up in NT with some cheesy 4-opposite-1 suit that doesn't stop very well. 2. I never end up in a 5-1 major suit fit. 3. I never miss a 5-3 fit. 5-2 fits break about even. The downside is, rarely I introduce a 3-card minor, and rarely I rebid a 5-card minor (when the long minor is clubs, obviously introducing the other one isn't an option). Occasionally, that results in a missed heart fit, but it's very rare.

I deliberately made the club & diamond suits neither overly strong nor overly weak. I think that the advantages to 2♣ over 2♦ are moderate enough that I'd rebid 2♦ if the disparity was overwhelming (e.g. AQJxx vs. Txx). With respect to the "fear of missing a 5-2 or 5-3 spade fit," I wouldn't call it fear so much as just a recognition of the benefits of finding those fits. After all, when's the last time partner opened 1NT and you passed with a 5-card major?

Are you sure you aren't mixing up 1♥ - 1♠; 2♣ with 1♥ - 1NT; 2♣? As I don't know anyone that says that this shows only 3. you never know, gnome, opener might be 1533 and not like a 1N rebid with the singleton. 1-5-3-3 hands are the best argument for weak 2 bids with 5-card suits, even if you're an ace heavy. The rebid problems are too uncomfortable otherwise.

Are you sure you aren't mixing up 1♥ - 1♠; 2♣ with 1♥ - 1NT; 2♣? As I don't know anyone that says that this shows only 3. Perhaps he's mixing it up with: 1♦-1♠; 2♣

Might want to count how many cashing aces you're off... One, on the given heart lead, if you can pick up trump.