cherdanno

American's don't watch soccer because the MLS sucks. The MLS sucks because Americans watch don't watch soccer.

That's when I really think you should be allowed to make limit raises lighter. It has a good effect on the opponents when you sound strong, and for many people you can make a cuebid and not go beyond the 2 level anyway. And I thought it's a disadvantage rather than an advantage that the 2D limit raise doesn't take up room with this hand.

It's covered by a different law. There's no law for defenders that allows them to change an unintended legal play. There is one that allows players (within certain parameters) that allows them to change an unintended call. So the laws are random and arbitrary or is there a good reason they are different? TimG gave an answer that I was already aware of and dismissed since I don't think it should matter. So TimG gave an obvious answer that you were already aware of. Your dismissal is obviously something people might disagree with (just because there are UI laws doesn't mean the laws should create more occasions where there is UI). The other obvious answer is that mechanical errors are probably more frequent in bidding than in the play. I am not sure what else you are looking for.

Look at the explanation before bidding - 3S showed rebiddable spades.

Maybe I'm missing a subtle point in this thread, but I don't understand the point of this discussion. If you work on the general assumption that (unless you have a good fit somewhere or extra shape) you need 24+ HCP between the hands for game, then if you open most 10-11 points, you need 14+ HCP to game force if you have nothing special. This doesn't seem very controversial. I think there are 2 points here - one was that most posters weren't assuming a style where you open most 10 counts, only those with a little shape (such as hand 5 and maybe hand 3). There is another point though (that awm makes quite frequently) - when you open all 10 counts then you are more likely to have one hcp extra than when you open all 13 counts. So it might be consistent to force to game with 13 counts opposite a 10+ opening style, but require 11+ to force to gmae opposite a 13+ opening style. (Not that I know anyone who plays the latter.)

We are bidding now.

Roger and I are looking for a host today, around 12pm Pacific/3pm Eastern/21h Central European time. (Grammar fixed at the request of a Dutch friend.)

yes, agree. Why would anyone bid 4S, rather than a non-forcing 3S? Is this hand suddenly a game force? Does our partner not know how to evaluate opposite a 3415 reverse?

It's quite normal to jump to 4S with, say, 5224 shape and minimal values for playing game. I assume you think that hand would cuebid, but that would be a mistake when slam is extremely unlikely and both opponents are bidding - you would rather make things difficult for them by bidding to your game directly.

Who passes with Jxxxx AKx KJx xx?

Partner isn't supposed to raise freely with just mild extras the way most of us play, I would think.

I would lead a club.

So double is better when partner's hearts are at least 5 cards long and at least 3-cards longer than his spades, and he can't bid them over 1♠, he won't overcompete in hearts due to hoping for 4-card support. Bidding spades is better whenever we have a spade fit, as we might not find it otherwise when partner has 3 spades, and as partner won't know of the big fit otherwise when he has 4 or more spades. It's also better when we get to play 1S in a 5-2 fit instead of 1/2red in a 4-3 fit. It's also better whenever partner is strong as we can describe our hand (which we can't anymore after a double). Which one is more likely?

Driving an hour within the valley? I would get to every town in the state in that time! (Ok, maybe 90 min.)

A spade looks quite obvious.

Elianna's order sounds right. It's curious that the media part, i.e. the part with which the author is the most familiar, is (IMO) the weakest part of the story. But yes season 5 still beats any other TV show.

I'd bid 3H, surprised it's not more popular. If partner raises with an ace, it will probably be a decent game, and meanwhile it makes it tougher for them to decide between 5m and 3N.

I completely agree with all of the above, but I never understand why the logic stops with K/Q. Assuming the agreements above, the queen lead becomes ambiguous, as partner won't know what to signal when holding the ten. Well, there is an easy solution to that - lead the J whenever you are leading an honor from QJ... (e.g. QJ9x). In other words, lead Rusinow. So given that Q from KQ... is now pretty much the standard lead (if you are going to lead an honor), I don't understand why Rusinow against NT isn't more popular.

I don't understand this, it sounds like you are suggesing 3♦ was indeed a good bid with this hand. 3D was not a good bid but I don't think it's terrible either. I would rather bid 3D instead of passing.

Having to download a client before every time I want to play will never be an acceptable substitute for downloading it once and being able to launch it instantly in the future. Never. There may come a time when we have to do it, if there are no competing sites to move to, but we won't be happy about it. You do know that there is such a thing as browser cache? In practice, my browser only downloads the flash client whenever there is a new version.

Why is 3D an impossible bid? 2S still has a fairly high maximum, and game is still possible. In any case, this discussion is really pointless. We have a minimum for our previous bidding. Hence we don't accept an invitation. Sometimes, bridge is a simple game.

I have never asked opponents about an unalerted 4♠ opening. Have you?

I think it has never happened to me that I pass a takeout double with an 8-card suit including 3 honors. (And a singleton in their suit.) Did 4SX= versus 4S= cost many matchpoints though? (Or do you think the TD was incompetent enough to allow partner's double in case it worked?)

Playing unusually fast from dummy at trick one is, otherwise no. (I think.)

I really like the idea, to save some space and some bandwidth. I would, however, suggest to modify it a little, to be more intuitive. Instead of AK5, I would write AK7 (that makes it easier to insert a spot later, e.g. AK97). Also, to distinguish it from the old notation. maybe it's better to write AK-7. Or maybe AK-7th, that would be more close to how people describe this in words. Actually, now that I think about it more, maybe it's even better to write AK-seventh? Then it's really impossible to mistake it for s.th. else.