cherdanno

Bid the shortness on the 4 level if necessary. Or with no fit bid 3NT. Or with a fit for the minor bid 4m. I guess you are just having different experiences than I am, I like having responder's help to choose whether or not to play in the major. For example he might have singleton queen or jack of the short suit, or he might choose 3NT with Jxx x Jxxx AKQxx but choose the major with KQx x Qxxx Axxxx, etc. Yeah I guess the only case where Adam has a point is when opener has 5 cards in the other major and a perfect hand. That does not sound like a frequent hand-type to me.

I hate to sound like an a-hole here, but how do you propose to do this on a trump lead? It requires RHO to have 7 black cards and ♥J or 8 black cards, or 7 black cards and not ♥98, well maybe comparable to stablishing yourself after all, still I think that cross ruff is best. You don't have the entries to even try to ruff four clubs.

Why would a 6142 hand looking for the best strain not start suggesting what is the best strain 95% of the time? (I assume 5413 is a typo.)

2S shows a good hand not a fit.

Justin is bidding 3♦ with this hand. (Me too.)

I genuinely beleive that this actually is the worst of all worlds, as it inevitably leads to a broad superficial knowledge, and the situation where everyone thinks they know what religion x is about, but in fact they don't really know anything about any religion. Further, it is basically impossible to teach this without bias, even in a geo-political context, as to do that you have to ignore questions of faith, which are central to beleif in any religion. FYP.

We are on a Laws-related forum and everyone is cheerfully relating the advantages of ignoring the rules. I really think it pretty dreadful. Just think of the long term effects of this. People come to expect the laws to be not followed - we have all seen that - and the effects are dire. I am sorry, I am shocked and disgusted at people who want to ignore the basic rules of bridge. It is like finger signals: telling partner what you illegally have is absolutely against the basic nature of bridge and spoils it for others. It even spoils it for people who do not realise that it spoils it for them. I am sorry that you find me disgusting. But really, if you are so easily disgusted, I recommend not leaving your house and going on the internet. You might find it a scary place. Anyway, are you really thinking that asking "1430 or 3041" is equivalent to finger signaling? I am just curious.

It is never unethical to comply with the laws. This isn't the Laws sections. Jokes are allowed here, and you should feel free to recognize a post as such, and react accordingly.

I don't want to make a big fuss about it but reposting an entire article is a copyright violation. It also makes much more sense to post a link to the original article anyway.

I would upgrade for sure.

I think this is a record. You are taking back "most of the time" because it is only 75-80% of the time. Very much unlike BBF :D

Do you play transfers over 4NT overcalls?

I was assuming people were just trying to exploit their opponent's failure to pay attention. Trying the colour coup against someone with bad eyesight indeed is unethical (both in the bidge and the common sense of the word). Now we have to be judges of the eyesight of the opponents to be ethical? What do you think of the example I gave? It could also catch someone with good hearing who isn't paying very close attention. I don't remember who said this somewhere else in the thread:

I was assuming people were just trying to exploit their opponent's failure to pay attention. Trying the colour coup against someone with bad eyesight indeed is unethical (both in the bidge and the common sense of the word).

Agree with 1, disagree with 2 (I wouldn't do it but I don't mind it). I think Kevin's story would be clearly unethical if declarer had said "cash the hearts" or s.th. like that.

I agree with your bid but I disagree with the shapes you are suggesting. I think all 1453 hands start with a double, e.g.

I double a second time.

I think our most likely game is 4♠, but partner will be very hesitant to bid that unless you show him we have 6 spades. He may go back to 3♠ rather than bidding 4.

How fortunate for all your opponents! He said "how great your call was in theory", not "how great your theory about this call was".

Yes, but how were NS damaged? There could easily have been some facial expression by West indicating that the explanation "splinter" was not correct, but that is speculation. When a player fields his partners psyche, deviation or misbid it is a breach of Law 40. It does not need to be a UI case. I don't think we should look for a CPU any time someone recovers from a misunderstanding. Maybe MI, sure, but let's say I play in a pickup-partnership. Am I not allowed to guess what 3♥ meant? And revise my guess once partner bids 5♣? Missing AK of your first suit, KJ in your second suit, but being worth driving to the 5-level after showing a strong 5-5 hand is a VERY unlikely hand. Yes this is the only possible hand for partner if he really has 5-5 in the majors.

I don't understand 3♥. We have found our fit, and when we are inviting game we should tell partner about it. He will be much better placed to make a decision when he thinks we have a 6xx4 or 6xx3 16-count, rather than a 5314 17-18 count.

I thought 4♠ was close. In your sequence, I would bid 6♥. I am too afraid partner is 2425 where I would need the world to make a grand.

Has anyone given Josh a better reply than "it's this way because that's how it is"?

Ok I have extras, but don't know what to do. That's what double says.

Why is it a strong diamond raise? Is unusual vs unusual on here? (Just wondering.)