cherdanno

Except you can never show 4-card support when you do this - often crucial for opener's evaluation.

Given there are 8 sequences starting with 3♥, it seems natural to have 3♥ show a 4333 or 5332 hand. 3♠ could show spades and a second suit. etc...

I play s.th. like this. Non-serious splinter would typically be 10-12 hcp, assuming a typical 5431 shape - maybe a slam unsuitable 13 too. Good splinters would be about 13-15. Don't ask automatically when partner shows the non-serious splinter - sometimes you can just rckb and tell them dummy's shortness before the lead. Obviously, don't sign off opposite the good splinter just because you have wastage - as always, try to imagine typical hands.

Yeah I finally have more than a hundred masterpoints!! Thanks all. Celebrating my birthday in my new home "town", America's Best Place to Avoid Death Due to Natural Disaster, with the first two classes in my new job.

I presume there is substantial tolerance for conversion by partner so it is really a DSIP X Yeah, I usually have 2 spades and 14+hcp for this double.

I'm getting crazy, where did you quote this? It's in a signature - maybe you have turned signatures off? (There was a good reason to turn off signatures a while ago...)

If this is a pair of advanced players, I would expect them to alert their doubles and overcalls.

Which tournament was stronger ? Vanderbilt and Spingold.

There are no direct money prizes for achivements in the BB. Maybe particular national federations or their sponsors pay bonus in case of success. B-Z resigned from the national team after +- 20 years of playing. Many in my country get away with criticism and judgement on this, forgetting how much these both players have done for Polish teams and development of the game in Poland during past decades. Robert I also find it a pity that so many of the world's strongest pairs are missing in the BB - but I don't meam that as a criticism of H-H or B-Z. Just as a regret that the most prestigious world championship isn't even the strongest tournament taking place this year.

I think the cuebidders are neglecting the fact that even when we are not off ♦AK, cuebidding might gear opponents to a successful diamond lead - imagine partner with ♦AJx and ♣QJx. Anyway, in US standard methods, you can't initiate cuebidding with one-suited hands without shortness - and I have to admit I can live with these inferior methods. In any case, if you told me that opponents have ♦AK, I wouldn't want to be in slam (and I bet Justin wouldn't either), but it's close - and that doesn't mean that using an uninformative auction where we occasionally get to a slam off ♦AK is inferior. (I am sure Cascade could quickly find out what "occasionally" means precisely here - I would think it's way less than 5% of all hands for partner. So if we go down 60% of the time when we are off ♦AK, we are talking about less than a 0.1 IMP loss on average.)

Actually, I did on this one. Of course, I realize that any efforts I make to play Devil's Advocate are completely superfluous; I've been assured that the forum here is essentially moderate and represents a societal cross-section. It's a cross-section where 11 1/2 times as many people supported Obama vs. McCain in my BBF poll, vs. the, what, 7% more who supported him at the polls, but why quibble? Well, your effort at playing devil's advocate is really a waste in this case. Winston's implied claim is that the WP is getting played here by its anonymous sources. Even if you think the Holder decision, and its timing (I still completely disagree - Obama got a lot of criticism from both sides on this decision, and no that doesn't mean that the Independents appreciate it) is convenient for the Obama adminstration, what does this have to do with the question whether a news outlet might have been played by its anonymous sources? It seems like your reflex when you seen any criticism is to find out whether the criticized person belongs to R or to D, and then bring up s.th. else done by someone belonging to D or R, respectively, that is also worth criticizing. Even when the original poster wasn't even trying to blame Rs or Ds. Even when that something else has nothing to do with the original post. Yes that is kind of superfluous, and a waste of posts (compared to other posts by you that I almost always find worth reading).

You are truly impressive. Looking for "well they did that but the other side did that" whenever possible. I think it's truly obvious that the timing of the WP article is no coincidence, this has nothing to do with Winston-style conspiracy theories. Do you really think the anonymous sources in the article don't have an agenda? The decision by Holder was a pretty obvious one, and one that doesn't help Obama with anyone. I think Ambinder's take sounds pretty much on target to me: http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/08/th...ut_politics.php . But probably you didn't really mean what you wrote anyway. You were just raising this to score some rhetorical points, of which I hereby I award you 3.78. Satisfied?

In your sequence, I would find it obvious that 3♦ can be bid with 4135 hands - one of the reasons I prefer 4♦ over 3♦.

3♣ is a second suit, not a cuebid. You need to discuss how to make a slam invite with a 6322 hand with a major (1N 2H 2S 4S in US standard). You need to realize when you have a slam force opposite the appropriate number of keycards (East can bid 1N 4H 4S 4N=rkcb in US standard).

If the crowd wins, does everybody get a bottle of wine? :) Cheers!

2♦, wouldn't have occurred to me that there is an alternative.

May I suggest bidding 4♦ rather than 3♦? Shouldn't this show good trumps and slam interest, i.e. exactly what you have?

Btw, I wouldn't ascribe some highly descriptive meaning to 3♠. When you superaccept, you don't want to give LHO to bid 3♥, so usually you should bid 3♠ when superaccepting.

The idea that ♥Axx is better than ♥xxx here seems very strange to me.

Bermuda Bowl: Winner: Italy Finalist: USA2 SF: USA1, Norway QF: Netherlands, Chile, China, Germany Venice Cup: Winner: China Finalist: France Semi-finalists: USA1, Germany QF: Sweden, Italy, USA2, Denmark Seniors: Winner: USA1 Finalist: Poland SF: Canada, Indonesia QF: England, Sweden, Japan, USA2 I will go out on a limb and claim that lsllsl won't get a single final right. Well, maybe he doesn't need the bottle of wine anyway.

Vulnerable, I would never consider an overcall in a AJxx suit. You get just too many horrible results from going down 3 or 4 in your 4-2 fit in 1♠ on a partscore deal. Non-vulnerable, I wouldn't mind a 1♠ overcall on your first hand, but I wouldn't do it. On the last one I would overcall 1♠ at any form of scoring and vulnerability.

This makes sense to me at NT, where partner might have to find the switch to your 4-card suit. In fact, all my partners have found out about this the hard way :P Against suit contracts, I don't agree. Usually when you lead passive, you are just assuming that declarer will have to lose his tricks to lose anyway, as long as we don't do silly things like leading from Kxx into his AQx.

You have to look at your hand in the context of the bidding. Had LHO preempted 2♥ and partner bid an invitational 3♠, I'd be a lot happier to bid 4♠. On the other hand, had the bidding gone 1♣-(p)-1♠-(3♥)-p-(p)-3♠-(p), I would pass as the minor suit honors may not all be working. You have 12 hcp. Partner around 10. That leaves 9 on average for each opponent. The 1♥ overcall says LHO has 8+hcp, and more likely they are in hearts than anywhere else. (In fact, given this is non-vulnerable at MP, I know some opponents who would bid 1♥ with only 6 hcp, if all of them are in hearts!) RHO has also promised a few hcp, and not as many of them on average in hearts. This really doesn't change all that much about diamonds. I think you are really way off if you want to downgrade your [D] holding here so much that you are considering passing 3♠.

Agree with all that. I would add: 4. Even if partner raises 3♥ to 4 we won't know that we are in the right contract.

Pass. Can go wrong, of course.