cherdanno

Assuming you can show no honor/one honor/two top honors in reply to the GSF, I would interpret - double as no honor, - pass as one honor, and - bidding as two honors. Trying to get to 6NT opposite a GSF is too complicated for me.

Mmmm, if gnasher has a cheap bid to show a minimum, several less cheap bids to show maximums, and a very expensive bid to show a real minimum, then yes, I read a lot into that expensive minimum bid. I trust that gnasher doesn't play fast arrival here, but would bid 4♠ only on the least slam-suitable hands in range.

I think double is clear, the only question is whether to bid 5♣ or 6♣ over 4♥. It seems to me 5♣ is enough. I think we should forget the dreams that partner is raising, 5♣ has a much lower minimum than what we have. I just think that the odds of 6♣ making are slightly below 50%.

yeah but he could have used just 4 letters to say the same thing....K.I.S.S. :) I didn't say that all that Mikeh said needed to be said :)

I like dbl. It would suck to pass and hear something like: 1♥ pass 1NT pass 2♥ ? 1♥ pass 3♥ pass pass ? 1♥ pass 2♥ pass pass ? happen; I think it's better to double now and be done with the hand. I would be more worried about these auctions if I had doubled, as partner may overcompete. If we had 4342 I would understand the urge to double. As it is, there is a very good chance that we should not compete if partner can't act by himself, and I don't want to make him play a 4-3 fit with this ugly dummy.

Here is a related lesson that B/I's should take away from this hand. If you are defender with Axxx (or AHxx) of trumps, dummy has xx of trumps, then most of the time it is right to duck the first round of trumps (and almost always when you are trying to force declarer). Once this has become automatic for you, I think it becomes easier to find the right line as declarer on this hand.

Mike said it all.

Maybe it would help you psychologically if we make the clubs xx? ;) Seriously, I think the only cases where Qx will take a trick is where partner has singleton ♣K or ♣Kx - neither of which is likely at all. On the other hand, the queen dropping doubleton makes RHO's hand purer than he thinks, and also increases the odds that partner's hcp are useful on offense. So if you want to double, please leave the poor queen of clubs free of all blame...

Rainer, Andy specifically said 4S showed a bad 23 hcp hand, not just any 23 hcp hand.

I would lead a heart here, surprised not to have more company. I will think about it more.

Kxx Kx KQ9xx AKT What is he supposed to bid with that hand ? He can overcall 1NT. Having bid 1♦, bidding 2NT with this over 2♣ is suicidal.

Partner's sequence does not exist.

East should not try for slam opposite a passed hand, so he can just jump to 5♣ over 3♥ and not risk a misunderstanding. Even if West thinks 4♣ is non-forcing, he has a supermax opposite a partner who showed extras twice.

2C 2D 3D 3N 4H 6H ?? 4H should be forcing to 4N. Then South has a huge hand, I think a jump to 6H is about right. I think North is worth 7H over that, what can South have for the jump if he cannot make a cue?

If you want to bid with 2245, then you should double, in case partner can pass. But the percentage action is probably a pass.

This seems an overreaction. If a declarer plays to a trick, and then when he is finished, asks me to show the card I played to a previous trick, I would refuse to do that. (And I would be insulted if an opponent would volunteer to show me his previously played card when he thinks I may have forgotten it.) If in this situation I had the impression that declarer has not noticed the previous discard, why should I help him? I will make any attempt to make sure he does not misunderstand my explanations. But if you miss that a defender already made a pitch on the previous trick, well it's part of bridge to notice and remember discards, and if a declarer is about to miscount the distribution because he missed a discard, then I won't help him just to make sure he does not misunderstand the signal partner is giving me. (To make things simpler - say declarer pulls two rounds of trumps, partner following with 76, and me following with the 5 then pitching. If declarer asked you what the 6 means, would you also tell him "high-low means he is signaling for hearts", rather than saying "we play suit preference in the trump suit, in this case telling me his preference between diamonds and hearts"?)

North makes a limit raise, South shows extras with 2S, north also shows extras with 3C. That auction is game-forcing for me. I like 3H over 3D, we have spade shortness and a club holding that doesn't scream 3N; whatever 3H says, it must be reasonable description. Over that I would continue 4D 5D I think.

Well, my point is that hrothgar is more consistent than that. He thinks federal law should trump state law, and should be allowed to regulate the economy in general. He even supports that principle when it doesn't work towards his favored outcome in this specific case. Such consistency is rare enough (apparently even on the Supreme court, as you point out), that I thought it worth mentioning.

Agree with Han.

The password is: Abortion I don't think so. Abortion is a federal issue because the supreme court ruled on it. Hrothgar on the other hand is defending the power of congress. Liberals generally believes that legislation can improve people's lives, and a lot of such legislation is better done at a federal level. (One Federal ADA is easier for everyone to handle than 50 differents ADAs over the country. Also an ADA passed by Congress in Washington is probably better-thought-through legislation than an ADA passed a randomly picked state.)

While that may be true, it is probably a matter of taste. Go, on the other hand, strictly dominates chess.

Why is opening 3♣, then later volunteering 4♠ a complete misdescription? What kind of hand would you expect?

That is some awfully creative (and utterly ridiculous) rationalization... I think it's pretty consistent: "The constitution doesn't allow congress to meddle with this (unless you change the constitution)."

I don't know standard bidding of the 60s, but at least since the 90s some form of splinter is standard.

But defender explicitly and intentionally lied, in a situation where it was obviously beneficial for him to do so! You can't lie about your signaling just to avoid reminding declarer about what happened on the previous trick. If you don't give a PP for this explanation, do you ever give one for intentional misexplanations?