cherdanno

this likes a reasonable action the alternative looks to be, bidding 4♦ Do you play 4♦ as forcing? No but then I don't whack weak 2 bids with trash either (i.e. a minimum opening hand with shortage in the opener's suit) Sorry, but a non-forcing 4♦ is the worst bid I have seen seriously suggested in this forum for a while. It is also inconsistent - your choice is really between a slam try with 4♠ and a non-forcing 4♦ bid? x AKxx Axxx QTxx is an obvious double of 2♠ (if you claim you don't double on this, I am not sure I believe you, but in any case it would be very bad). Given that we are likely to have diamond fit, our actual hand is about 2.5 tricks better. 6♦ is a better bid than 4♦. The heck, maybe 7♦ is a better bid than 4♦.

this likes a reasonable action the alternative looks to be, bidding 4♦ Do you play 4♦ as forcing?

I already have a bid for 3154 bid, 3♥! Having said that, I really like the idea of bidding 2N with many weak NTs.

Since the scoring is MP, I assume it is a robot duplicate, as Helene says. Still, I would bid 4♥. If I double and jump to 4♥, that probably shows s.th. a million+ total points, and GIB will put me in slam (or 5♥) too often.

This is quite a hole in the agreements of the EW pair. If the double is not for penalties, then 2♠ must be natural. If 2♠ is not natural, then double must be for penalties. Perhaps it is a hole in their agreements, but I imagine that they have lots of company in not having discussed the sequence. Well, double is a little ambiguous (between penalty and strong balanced), but 2♠ is natural, you don't need to have discussed that.

Pass.

So you would rather show your Qxxx suit, instead of your KQJ98 suit?

I suppose you also mean there was no problem with holding U.S. citizen Jose Padilla in military prison without charges, then? he can answer for himself... for me, it was a travesty... i don't see a huge push to give back the civil liberties we've lost, though... at least not yet Would you like to see one? If so, that would be something you and me agree on - in the WaterCooler, no less!

Btw, while some of the posts in this thread are a little painful to read, I have to smile every time I read the thread title - a legal opinion is never that quick, I suppose. :)

There are certainly a number in Congress whom I wouldn't mind watching go in front of the Obama Death Committee. :) what are your thoughts on this? "There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov." and would your thoughts be different had bush's white house done something similar about, say, the war in iraq - or even gitmo? And who is it from? Who is at flag? As with the Magog business on the other thread, such stupidity, if it is for real, is truly astounding and tragic. I hate to be in this position of hoping that so many things about our government turn out as hoaxes. Feel free to send this to flag. No don't. It will probably get me on a mailing list for vitamin supplements. I don't see anything wrong with that. In fact I don't understand why you have a problem with that. This is very similar to what the Obama campaign did with the "fight the smears" website during the campaign. The e-mails just helps them judging which misinformation is so widespread that it warrants a public response. Would you have less of a problem with this if this was handled by the DNC instead of the White House?

I can't believe you are writing this. This is ALWAYS Sullivan's style - if there is information that points that something outrageous has happened, he will link to it, and demand for more investigation/clarification/proof. "He is an inquiring mind" doesn't seem to fit better on anyone but him. The only reason it annoys you this time is because you personally cannot imagine that the story is true. You're right, I cannot imagine that this story is true. I can imagine Andrew Sullivan having a bad day, perhaps even a moment of temporary insanity, but I cannot otherwise imagine him thinking this story might be true either. Well, for one I find the story here not so hard to believe. Even if you think it is unlikely, I think it compares pretty well with the fake-pregnancy rumors that Sullivan was pushing?

How about: 1♦ (1♥) 1NT (P) 3♣ (P) 4♣ (P) 5♦ (P) 6♣/♦/NT 3♣ ? I agree with Kathryn, in this auction you don't have to make up 3-card suits. North can bid 2♥ to force to game. With his actual hand, however, I think 3♥ is a much better bid - it shows game forcing values with heart shortness and 6+ diamonds (with a 4-card side suit he would bid that). Over 3♥, South almost has a slam force (the minimal possible wastage in hearts and 10 nice points) - if he didn't have weak trumps. I think I would bid 1D (1H) 1N 3H 4H 4N 5C 6D I don't understand the 2♣ bidders with a balanced hand, a bad 5-card suit, and just the right values for 1NT.

so do i... it's hard to imagine him being this idiotic... let me rephrase - i'd hate to think he could be this idiotic Yeah, would be almost as idiotic as talking publicly about a "crusade" - oh wait, never mind.

On this auction, I wouldn't be so sure - it is not hard to see opener overbidding here with responder having a light 3NT bid based on a long club suit that is completely useless opposite opener's majors two-suiter. Maybe there are in a 7-2 fit where partner has KQTx of hearts. Or partner has 5 hearts.

I can't believe you are writing this. This is ALWAYS Sullivan's style - if there is information that points that something outrageous has happened, he will link to it, and demand for more investigation/clarification/proof. "He is an inquiring mind" doesn't seem to fit better on anyone but him. The only reason it annoys you this time is because you personally cannot imagine that the story is true.

Totally agree. Hard to imagine any public saying anything remotely close to this who's trying to ask another country to go to war? Doesn't jive. I find it hard to imagine until you remember that George Bush was president until last year. Have you seen the cover photos of the DoD intelligence reports to the white house? Fits very well I have to say.

Is this really so obvious? If the 8 loses and ♣A is on your right, you don't have the communication to unblock hearts anymore... Also, I think from the lead LHO is more likely to have club length, as xcurt mentioned. Seems more obvious to me to cross to hand with a heart and run the T.

No blame at all to the person who made a 1♥ overcall on ♠Ax ♥Jxxxxx ♦Jxxxx ♣-? What other call do you suggest?

I would rule that the defender who revoked first has to go and get coffee (two of them).

Does it really have that meaning? I was assuming it meant "responder can have up to an invitational hand for biddint 1NT". This is not a purely theoretical question: With Han we pass 1NT with all minimum balanced hands (partly because we are playing 14-16 1NT), but since responder could be up to invitational (both with a balanced hand or with 3-card support), we announce 1NT as "semi-forcing". This isn't perfect, but it seems better to me than not to announce.

Whatever it shows (I agree it should be 0355), it must be a much better hand than the one here. You are forcing to the 4-level!

Actually you missed my point too. I was suggesting to say s.th. like "our double is either penalty, or showing a major and a longer minor - we will tell you at the time which we play on any specific hands; feel free to ask about our followup methods if you are interested".

I assumed this thread was about how the rules might be changed, I am fully aware that this would not be allowed under current rules.

...and the strength for a takeout double.

No, the one card declarer will never play is the 8. If we assume that hearts are 2-2 (declarer chose not to play in hearts) then the only possibilities are 87-42, and 74-82. If partner has 87, he is signalling for a club, and declarer has a choice of the 4 and the 2. If partner has 74, he is signalling for a spade, and declarer is forced to play the 2. So, from the signals alone it seems to me that partner is twice as likely to have the ♠A, and I probably play a spade for that reason. I agree with your odds - if partner has a doubleton. But I assume (and cannot tell as we aren't told the auction) that it is quite likely that he has a singleton, so the signaling odds are more like 55%-60%. I figured the spades are less likely to go away then the club - declarer needs AKQ to pitch spades on clubs, but only AJx or AQx to pitch a a club on a spade.