hotShot

I vote for the dog breed idea :angry:!

If partner does not think we are playing inv. minors, I'd take 4♣ as an invitation to 5♣.

OK, opps have a lot of ♥ so partner is likely to have 51(43) or 5044. This means that opps have (6)7-8 cards in each minor. No indication of a timing problem. When will a ♠ lead cost a trick or 2? Assuming that partner has 5♠, the remaining 2 can be 1-1 or 2-0. If they are 1-1 we can not lose a trick in ♠ and playing ♠ now may be the only chance to get a ♠ trick at all. If the ♠ are 2-0 we can't lose a ♠ trick, because we never had one. But we can lose a side card trick, if the 2 missing ♠ cards are AQ and opps can dump 1-2 loser, but this is very unlikely. So a ♠ lead is quite save. How likely is partner ho have the ♦A? He has got 5 of 7 missing ♠ so there is a 5/7 (71%) chance that he has the ♠A. If he has the ♠A: - the chances that he also has the ♠Q are 4/6. - opps have bid to 6♥ with only 25-27 hcp and you still have to subtract any other honor in partners hand. So it's unlikely that he has side honors and if he has, they will be badly placed. If partner does not have the ♠A he will usually have the ♠Q. This means that opps have bid slam on 29(-31) hcp minus what partner holds in the side suits. So it is still unlikely that he has side honors. So leading under the K will more often cost a trick than gain one. If partner has a ♣ honor this will almost always cost a trick.

Even if dbling aggressively partner should have seem that we are red and they are white. So I think I can take the risk of bidding 3♥.

The questions is what is the agreed meaning of 4♦ and 5♦. If you play that jump overcalls (even over preempts) are weak and nonforcing, than it's a simple 5♦ bid. But I doubt that this is the standard treatment. Usually 4♦ should show a stronger hand (=> more defensive values), so the standard bid has to be pass.

I can see that the ♠ suit is weak, but it's 5 of them and 1♠ promises only 4. Additionally there is no rebid problem.

Redouble seems the best choice.

3♥, although I think it's a little to weak if partner has to many wasted ♠ values.

In Germany there are about 350.000 registered guns for a population of 82.000.000 people. The chances that someone loses control and has immediate access to a gun are extremely low. Even considering that there may be be about 10 to 20 times more illegal weapons, the chances are low to immediate access to a gun. I agree that this wont stop someone determined to use a gun for a crime, but the criminal can hardly claim that the crime was unintended.

I'm not a big fan of the folks down at CATO (I think of them as intellectually dishonest). However, I do tend to like Greenwald's stuff. Interesting dilemma... According to this source from 2002 Portugal was not the only EU-member state to decriminalize drugs, the same is true for Spain, Italy and Luxembourg.

Partner does not have 3♠s, so the suit is not easy to develop and the values are probably wasted. So I'll stay in 4♦.

For good bidding (in any system) you need good judgment. Your judgment is based on the experiences you gain from your cardplay. So improving your cardplay, will improve your judgment and that will lead to more successful bidding. Look at the contracts you played and check: How often did you score: 3M+1, 4m+1, 2NT+1, 4M+2, 5m+1 or 3NT+3 If that happens often, your not bidding enough games or slams. You might benefit from the GF concept of 2/1. If you find that you lose at MPs because you get fewer tricks in the same contracts than others, you better work on your cardplay. If you find that you don't make enough MPs defending, you need to work on signals and leads. But to be good in defense you have to understand what the declarer is doing, and this depends on your skills as declarer.

How would you bid this hand:Kxx KJxx AQx AQx ? Most people play that doubling then rebidding NT shows a balanced hand too strong to overcall on the first round. Good point! I will probably bid the same and get in trouble. But a very weak partner will not move over 1NT, a strongish partner would have jumped over my dbl and if partner bids a 2nd suit I hope that my next decision is better.

I dbl and have an easy 1NT rebid in case partner bids 1♠.

Sometimes, especially in red, a preempt can be a maximum. Opps should remember that next time I preempt sub minimum :). So it's 3♣. (Partner might want to reach 3NT.)

If the conditions under which dumping the K makes sense are rarely fulfilled, these hands should not have a significant weight after the simulations. Since GIB operates under a time limit, complex deals (=> in the sense of time consuming simulations) might lead to very few simulations, giving an extreme weight to the simulated hands. This is the likely cause of such odd behavior, and usually if you feed GIB with the same deal again, you will get a different result because you will simulate different random deals. The other possible explanation would be, that GIBs simulations are not random enough, so that the simulated deals are to similar to each other.

To protect us (Western and Central Europe) against the Middle East, we would have to put up a missile shield in Greece and Bulgaria/Turkey (Cyprus would need their own shield then). A shield in Poland/Czech Republic must be intended to defend us against Russia or Belarus. I just took a map and checked the line from Tehran to Copenhagen, Berlin and Stockholm and therefore I disagree with your geographic reasoning. I also disagree with your implied physics. The flight path of ballistic missiles depends on their speed, so it is impossible to catch up with them. The missile you start to destruct another missile should fly towards the attacking missile, the best moment to hit the target is when the rocket fuel of the attacking missile is used up and the flight path is entirely based on ballistics. The launching point is therefore close to the target and not close to the start.

If partners 3♦ implies shortness in ♦, than my ♦K is a wasted value. My hand has 7 loser, so I would need 6 covers from partner to make slam. Even holding that monster hand ♠Qxxx ♥AKx ♦xx ♣AKQx 6♠ can be down.

My impression from the bidding is that both red suits will split badly. RHO seems short in ♥ and probably long in ♦ something like a 4144 shape. LHO passed 2♥ but can bid 5♣ now, maybe he would like us to play a ♥ contract. Holding 3-4 ♥ and 5-6♣ would not be surprising. So I tend to think that 5♣ could be a makable contract. On the other hand, ♦K is likely onside and I could ruff partners ♣ with a little luck he can dump his ♠ on ♦. I guess I would try 5♥.

I don't understand why you want to LOL your RHO, because he suddenly found a 2♦ bid. If you think it's so bad, why don't you dbl it? Your RHO found a way, to preempt a cheap ♣ support and your 1NT bid. He kept you from bidding 2NT without a ♦ control. He probably helped his partner to find a good lead in case you can repeat your ♥ suit. He made you and your partner assume that he has more points than his partner, so maybe you will finesse him instead of his partner. Of cause you are not impressed since you have ♠ support for your partner. I guess you have to bid 3♠ with that hand, but I think it's an overbid.

To get to some reasonable contract, your partner needs a 5 card suit and 7-8 HCP. Now compare that, with the requirements for a reopening. Your LHO would be to weak to bid. So if you pass now and your partner reopens, everything is fine. If your partner does not reopen or LHO is strong enough to bid, you can be glad that you did not bid and that you gave no helpful informations to your opps.

1♠ was from RHO not Partner. :rolleyes:

You have a small advantage in competitive bidding when you can find 8 card fits at the 2-level. Acol player know that from auctions like 1M - 2m -? With 3 cards support responder needs to know if opener had 4 or 5 cards in his suit. Playing a 5 card major system you are vulnerable to sequences like: 1m - 1M - ? With 4 cards responder likes to know if opener held 3 or 4 cards. Some solve this problem by opening 2+♣ to ensure that ♦ is 4 cards. Since you only open 4432 shape with 3 ♦, you will usually find partner with 4♦, if you add those shapes with 44 or even 45 in the minors the fraction in 3 card 1♦ openings gets even smaller. So opening 44 with ♦ has about the same advantage as a 2+♣ opening without losing the 3 card length in ♣.

If LHO is short in ♦ as promised than we have a ♦ fit, but there might be a bad split. I would need 3 covers from Partner to make 5♦. ♠Q, shortness in ♥ and ♦ Q or extra length in ♦ could be enough for that. If LHO has 4♥ (he should have at least 3) than partner is left with ♥ single, so we are very close to makeing 5♦ here. So pass is not really a choice. We would need a forcing bid that suggests ♦, but there is no such bid. We don't want to make a bid that encourages partner to bid ♣, so dbl and NT could lead to diversion. 1♠ is a misdescription of my hand. This leaves 2♦, although nonforcing it hope it does not end the auction. ♠xxx ♥x ♦xxxx ♣xxxxx is to weak for even a weak ♦ raise, but with ♦ 2-2 5♦ has chances.

You are (by law) allowed to make the choice your side benefits the most. You gained knowledge over the North hand, that you're allowed to use. If you decide to leave the auction as it is, your partner will get an explanation about North 3♦ bid, that does not fit his hand. This could make him guess wrong about whats going on. Your opps are on a highway to hell, you might get a good score. Both player on the other side of the screen know of cause that the TD was called. I think I would allow the change.