cherdanno

How can you give a partscore double problem at MPs without giving the vulnerability? In any case, I wouldn't like to double for penalty at my first opportunity with an undisclosed 6-card suit.

I understand 3D and I understand 3C, planning to bid diamonds next. I don't understand 2S.

Obvious opener. A AK!!! with two great tens!!! Roth-Stone would have opened this in any seat.

Why is this hand a 5C bid, but x xx AKQxx KJTxx is not?

If declarer is 1165 without the ♥A and with the ♣KJ and no diamond loser, then we have to cash our three tricks right away. So a low club loses right away, and after the ♣A we still have to guess.

I would rather keep google out of here.

I think this is a raise - LHO has diamonds and RHO has clubs so our finesses rate to be on.

I think Multi should be made either GCC-legal, or banned in all ACBL event - really no intermediate position is logical.

And that style is to pour a 50-years-of-normal-cholesterol-intake-incorporated-into-a-single-serving-sauce over EVERYTHING. What an idiotic post.

But so would have keycard by South! FYP I don't think North can bid the grand in the actual auction with the ♣Q - why couldn't South have xx AKxxx AQx AKx? However, when South bids 4S-4N-5C-5N (♥Q and no king), South can try again with 6♣ and North can easily bid the grand with the ♣Q. Anyway, hard to see anyone bidding the grand on the actual hand without one partner knowing the exact shape of the other hand.

As a general rule: when - you previously had the chance to bid NT, and you didn't, and - partner has kepts passing, and - now you are bidding NT at a higher level, then NT is not natural. Instead it shows additional shape, and more particularly a shape that you couldn't show by just bidding a suit. (Here if you were 5-5 in the minors you would bid 3C, if you were 5-4 you should probably pass or reopen with a double, but with 6-4 you need to bid and don't want to just bid 3D either.)

I think you are misunderstanding. Most 3S bidders don't assume that 3S shows a limit raise, just that 3S includes a limit raise as a possible hand. I think most would also bid 3S with Kx Kxx Qxxxx xxx. Anyway, I would also bid 3♠. But I also think it's quite ugly - having a limit raise opposite a jump shift is one of the worst auctions in standard IMO.

I would pass. With KQxxx xx Qxxx Ax I would bid, though.

This isn't really about free-market versus regulation. ISPs are a very heavily regulated market, and they benefit heavily from that; in many local markets they have monopolist structures (and in many more duopolist with just two broadband providers). Net-neutrality would be a way to prevent them from exploiting their market position as ISPs to gain advantage in the market of content providers, to the further detriment of the free market in other segments.

You didn't read the explanations, 4♠ was kickback. But I think I like the auction you understood (North making a spade cuebid) better than the one that actually happened (North keycarding).

No it will tell him that you have a spades, but longer diamonds.

The problem with agreeing hearts is that it won't give any new distributional information. (Clearly you would like to know whether partner has 6 spades, or whether he has 5 hearts.)

Josh I think a bigger problem with your plan is that opposite 5-5 in the majors, you will want to know about he ♥K not the ♠K. Well I guess you mentioned a similar hand in your first post, but the difference is that if partner has 5-5, we can easily find such slams after bidding 2NT. At some point in my life I had the agreement that over 1S 2C 2H 2N 3N, the bids 4C and 4D are slam tries in hearts and spades, respectively. With these agreements I would think 2N is superior, otherwise I think it may be close.

I like to play 1N as 17-19 when playing 14-16 1NT. Obviously it is more useful with that range, both because the range is wider, so invites are more useful, and because stopping in 1NT with 17 opposite 6 is really useful. I would add to Roger's list that it is usually better to put doubler on lead when we play 1NT. To me, his point 2) is a substantial downside, though.

No reason to expect partner to have some clubs. I think his most likely holding is a singleton (with LHO having a doubleton), followed by having a doubleton. I guess if RHO would frequently open 3♣ with a 6-card suit than a doubleton is more likely, but still there is no reason to think 3 or 4 clubs with him are likely at all. I wouldn't double with a minimum (24)61 hand. Oh and the downside could be -500 instead of going plus, and that's with partner having extras (KQxx KQ AJxxxx x).

I recommend not redoubling against clee, his doubles are fairly sound.

It seems at least probable that declarer has the club Queen: he is off an Ace, he used keycard and didn't ask for the Queen. While it is still possible to come up with layouts on which the heart is the only losing lead, giving declarer AQ or KQ of clubs greatly reduces their number....for one thing, we need a far more robust and unlikely club holding from partner in order for us to have a club winner. Why should he ask for the queen? I don't know anyone who could stop in 5NT after asking for the ♣Q, even if he could maybe he didn't fancy playing 5NT, and maybe he had enough hcp to expect 6NT to have play in any case. Anyway, if you assume RHO is good I would expect very strong red-suit holdings, otherwise he had no business placing the contract in NT without consultation. This increases the risk of a heart lead.

Easy 3NT opposite Fluffy, I am not quite strong enough to try for slam.

I think passing, then pulling a double to 3H is a better description than a direct 3H. It shows shortness, but a reason not to bid 3H directly, so probably a bad suit and/or interest in other strains. I also think it's better than passing partner's double, assuming partner plays clee-style doubles. If partner plays awm-style doubles, then of course we will pass his double, but we have a bit more of a problem when he bids s.th. other than a double; I guess we will bid 4C over 3S.

Interesting points Adam.