cherdanno

That seems like a bad idea. If you have a balanced hand with QJ9xx of a major, then there are a lot of gains from responding: - You partner might play get to play 1N instead of 1♣ in a 3-2 fit. - You might find a fit and make 2M or 4M instead of watching partner play a 3-2 fit. - You might make it hard for opponents to find their 25 hcp 3NT game. Meanwhile, the main drawback in standard of responding is that you get too high when partner has 18-19 balanced without a fit. You don't have that drawback so you should make use of it.

In that case the second double is penalty.

Hmm is the book line really better than the finesse at trick 3? The finesse loses against ♠K singleton with RHO. The book line loses whenever RHO has ♠Hx and at most 2 clubs (he should ruff the third club low). Edit: I guess the book assumes RHO will ruff high when he can. Well from Kx is is really obvious to ruff low. I think from Jx good players will also find it without giving anything away.

Ari, can you maybe write a script that automatically checks all the explanations for correctness? (At least their suit lengths?) I would think you would find more errors. Here is another one that looks incorrect: 1H (X) 2H (X) is described as responsive, including 4 spades. The last time it came up GIB had 2155.

I don't see anyone in this thread belonging to Mikeh's camp 1 or 3.

I am a little surprised about the opinions expressed in this thread. Let's assume for the sake of the argument that the borrower is someone who is well-informed and bought a house he could afford and still can afford. I assume the mortgage contract doesn't say the "borrower can choose between continuing his payments and going into default". Rather it spells out an obligation how to repay the loan, and what will happen in case the borrower is unable to keep his obligation. I would also claim that this ethical obligation is also priced into the original loan. A business that starts a subcompany which later defaults has to pay higher interest for the loans it obtains.

I have strong reasons to believe that LHO cannot make 7 of either major. I would would double - we just need partner to have one out of three aces to make it right in theory, and I think he will usually guess right in practice.

We are talking about a pair that bids 1H 1S 3H 4H 6H. A hand that is too strong for 4H may well be not a borderline slam try, but a clearcut slam try where responder doesn't know how to try for slam (except bidding 4NT).

Maybe I misunderstood your post? I am not aware of any reference to Law 16 from Law 12, neither express nor implied. I quoted a reference from Law 16 to Law 12. In any case, I really don't think we disagree about anything.

I don't even understand what you are disagreeing with.

I think 2♦ is clear. I don't think partner can have a balanced 19 count for his double, so except when he is 4=4=4=1 exactly diamonds will be an 8-card fit. There are several possible shapes where hearts could be a 7-card fit (4351, 4360, 3361) so even though some of them might bid 2♦ they do seem more likely.

[hv=d=e&v=e&s=s742hk65daq43cj74]133|100|Scoring: Total Points (1♠) P (1NT) 2♣ (Pass) ?[/hv] GIB passed.

Neither line loses to ♠Kxx in West. After ♠A, dropping the jack, you cross to hand, ruff a diamond, and lead a trump from dummy. But cashing ♠A loses to ♠KJx with West.

Really? Law 73F.1 says: I think you will find that this is not in the current Law book. Thanks for pointing that out. Still, the current laws (16B1a) have the same phrasing ("could demonstrably have been suggested"), which is implicitly referred to in 16B3 ("The Director shall assign an adjusted score (see Law 12C) if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in an advantage for the offender.").

I guess once we get to the point where someone argues that one of the most frequently cited sentences of the laws is so poorly phrased that it does not mean what it says it means, the discussion has officially become ridiculous.

Really? Law 73F.1 says:

I would choose the ♣2 but I am very interested in your simulation and Meck's choice.

I don't understand double. Well I know it's convertible values or responsive or s.th., but I just think partner will hardly ever pull. Normal takeout shapes can't have a lot of additional offense, so unless he has a void, or maybe when he is 6331, he will leave it in. We can tell from our hand that a void pretty unlikely. Do we really want to defend their 10 or 11-card fit doubled when we have no aces?

I think you are taking the "double them on invitational auctions with suits breaking badly" thing a little far. Yes LHO made an invite but RHO is unlimited, he could have 18 hcp. I admit it could go down 2 or 3 which improves your odds quite a bit, but I just see no reason to assume they can't take 5 club tricks and 3 major suit tricks off the top after winning your diamond lead.

I would bid 5♥. I have hopes it works exactly because partner has not announced slam interest. It should show a hand that is exceptionally well suited for slam in case partner just needs cards in the majors. I couldn't think of a more perfect hand matching this call. Maybe partner has Qxxxxxx Qxxx x A.

Pass is not forcing. I bid 5♥ if pass is not forcing. I bid 5♥ if pass is forcing.

♠Q also wins when LHO has ♠A87.

No. Never say never. It is possible that this is the layout. Whether North should double 4♥ is a matter of partnership agreement. Everybody who said this hand is not possible was assuming normal partnership agreements, where a double of 4H is s.th. between pure takeout and convertible values. So if partner has this hand he has to pass.

Yeah it seems just reading through this thread you already forgot its poll question :) :D Anyway, for me it wouldn't make a big difference because I am already taking 15 minutes for every play.

I would bid (4N). Maybe they bid 5♠ anyway.