cherdanno

I think these arguments on the specific hand are beyond the point. When folks open 6♥, they aren't sure to make it, they are taking a shot. If they were sure to make 6♥ they would try to find out whether they can make 7. If Josh's example doesn't convince you, make it more shapely so that 6H-1 is more likely to be a good save vs 6S. So I wouldn't expect partner to raise 6H with the ♥A alone, but I certainly would expect him to raise after 2C-xx-6H. Of course there may be a 5m preempt but then I don't think we are worse off than after opening 6H.

Why that? If we make a free club bid later it looks like we describe our hand as good as possible. But yes it's certainly not a big problem if GIB bids 3♣ here.

You should feel lucky it did not pass.

I don't negative double with support in most partnerships, but I use 3♦ to show a low ODR raise and usually three trump. 2N is a higher ODR raise with usually four trump. Both are limit +. So if I called this a 3 card / low ODR raise, I would definitely make a forcing pass (if available) with this since I have zero wastage. Phil you are really off-base here to make a forcing pass. Yes AK in side suits can be neutral in terms of ODR, but here - you have the worst possible shape, and - the worst possible trump holding, and - Axx in their suit! Either they have 9 trumps only, or you have A in their suit facing a void with partner, both of which would be screaming for defense. xxx AKxx xxx Axx would already be a much more reasonable forcing pass (but still a double in my view).

Please explain why Memphis is unable to provide consistent guidance whether a 2♠ that promises 5+ Spades and a 4+ card minor is GCC legal or not. Lol. Maybe you can explain why Michael Schumacher made a comeback in a second-rate car?

Let's see: At the one level: Kaplan inversion At the two level: 1H 2H 2S = unspecified shortness, 1H 2H 2N = spade game try At the 3-level: frivolous 3S/serious spade cue 3N At the 4-level: kickback At the 5-level: beats me

Wow what happened to that plan? I didn't follow BBF much for a few weeks and now I don't even know whether Jdonn or Jlall surpassed inquiry first!

I think if partner passes 3NT, they make a trick ruffing a spade?

His point that a splinter is not very often useful here is valid. His claim that it is better to waste 3 levels of bidding to set clubs as trumps is not.

Someone should teach xyz to The_Hog...

They are red/white? I would pass, if partner can't double we should rather save. He might bid with a 12-card suit, e.g.

So what? 4♣ doesn't compel us to bid slam. It's true that 5♣ is a worse game than 4♥, but that's what happens if you construct a hand where none of his minor honours are in clubs. If he had AKQ AQxxx x AKJx we'd be better off in 5♣ than 4♥. I think the scoring is matchpoints. I would raise to 4♣ at IMPs but at matchpoints raising clubs almost seems like betting we have slam. Last time I thought about this auction I thought 3♥ should show a fit. The difference to the jump shift auction is obvious - we are much more likely to have a heart fit (as we couldn't raise hearts before), and partner is unlimited. I think showing a fit here is really important. Maybe I would bid 3H anyway, or I would bid 4C and hope partner can bid 4H (which I would pass), I still don't know...

Hah! I should revive this thread just to tell Han I disagree on passing a 2H raise with advancer's hand. But since he doesn't read too much forums these days he might miss it and it wouldn't be fun.

The 3NT bid was just wrong.

Are people really playing Lebensohl here? Opposite a passed-hand double (which has a narrow range in strength) a scrambling 2N seems much more important to me.

Oh, I don't know. This is an example of what used to be called the "pro question" or perhaps the "Kaplan question", where a player asks a question not for his own benefit but for his partner's. I can understand, given its provenance, why the belief might persist that such questions are permitted, and I would hesitate to fine even an experienced North who so believed. Hmm. Did Kaplan really advocate to (or raise the question of whether one should) ask questions as dummy? I would have thought the "Kaplan question" is asking a question during the auction while it is your turn to bid.

Yes I am tempted to bid 5♠ only but would bid 6♠. The cost of biding 6♣ is that we might get to 7♠ opposite KJxxxx A QJTxx x. Btw, one reason I am reluctant to say what I am bidding is that I find it highly likely that partner has 55 shape or more, and that I rarely see my partners trying for game with that shape - they seem to bid 3♠ or 4♠ in a competitive auction. So I really don't know what partner has.

I think LHO is unlikely to have more than 5 clubs, just because 6-6 hands are so unlikely. And that RHO might well raise to 5♣ on (12)55 hands, and certainly on any hand with 5 clubs and a void. So just looking at opponents actions a 10-card club fit does seem quite likely (RHO having 5 clubs is just sooo much more likely than him having all seven remaining clubs, for the same reason that a 10 card fit is, a priori, soooooo much more likely than a 12 card fit). But of course we also need to take partner's actions into account - if he has one heart, the suit almost has to be exactly 6=1=2=4 around the table, and a void is basically impossible. But if he has 2 hearts, he almost certainly needs to have club shortness - I can't imagine everyone having enough values for their action when he is 5=2=4=2. I wouldn't try for a grand - for it to work, we basically need LHO to have the right 7-5 or 7-6 shape, as we need a heart void from partner.

"Just plugging in 18-19 balanced, and giving West a One Spade overcall" certainly tells you the parameters exactly. No, it doesn't. We used to have posters who would inform us that they had run a simulation, and the correct bid was therefore X or Y. But when they were finally persuaded to post their code, it was very clear that their idea of - for example - a One Spade overcall was so far from the norm that their simulations were of no value. Or perhaps there is a big hole in the definition of 18-19 balanced. Garbage in, garbage out. In another post lamford also claimed that he required a spade stopper for the 2NT bid.

I assume the methods given in the original post. If you have more information about the OP's methods, then you could have let us known. It seems clear that the OP's methods gives you a choice whether to show 3-card support with 18-19 balanced. With an ace rather than a slow stopper and KQx support it would seem obvious to me stress the support rather than the stopper. If you report about a simulation but don't tell us about important parameters, then reporting about that simulation is useless.

-850 vs -300 is not possible? So in my mind, pass is an option, as well as 5♠. Is this a FP auction? I wouldn't think so. Plus no consideration as to who the opps are. If Meckwell were playing this would X still be so clear? Yes I think double is obvious against anyone.

I hope that this was typed at 6 am after an all-night party, as that seems premature in the extreme. Just plugging in 18-19 balanced, and giving West a One Spade overcall, gave the following %s. 9 tricks 4%; 10 tricks 12%; 11 tricks 31%; 12 tricks 41%; 13 tricks 12%. Stefanie would be most unhappy when I put down AJx KQx AKxx xxx and I commented in my usual boorish manner: "sorry, pard, I should have upgraded to 18-19 with the 3-card heart support." Transferring to hearts and continuing with 3S would be my choice. If partner does not bid 4C, we know it was Straker that did it. I hope this was typed at 6 am after a heavy party with lots of alcohol. With ♥KQx, I assume Stefanie would make a support double and later offer NT. And a simulation that ignores the fact that partner opted to bid 2NT when he had alternatives is worse than useless.

So? My understanding is it still has. Of course, many states decided to offer payments through abortions from their own funds. I gather you are against such a sweeping expansion of state rights? that isn't what i said, arend... medicaid was passed with 'no abortion funding' as part of it... and as for "sweeping expansion of states rights" let's see how this all pans out when 30 - 35 states 'opt out' of this legislation... we'll see then whether any states rights arguments are tongue-in-cheek Then it's not the same language as the executive order. I guess you haven't read it.

So? My understanding is it still has. Of course, many states decided to offer payments through abortions from their own funds. I gather you are against such a sweeping expansion of state rights?

That's what I would think too.