jjbrr

I would expect a 2♦ rebid to show six on this auction ( or maybe a really good 5) and having already limited my hand and shown a [probably good] ♥ stopper with 1NT a three ♦ raise is protection against partner having to bid 2♦ with a nearly 3♦ raise. Right. And 2♥ is protection against us having the same tricks in 3♦ as we do in NT. Or us having the same tricks in 5♦ as we would in 3♦, but I think that's a little less likely.

I think ideally I'd want it to have a third ♦, but I was hoping it would should a good ♦ raise. Better than 3♦.

Is 3NT defined as some 16-18 5332 hand? If so, why is south bidding again?

In real life: Everyone is NEVER satisfied A team NEVER reaches the level of success that the country expects (you hope to reach a level that is tolerated) Sending a TEAM is sometimes the most you can hope for! ;) Well, if your list is true, then this entire discussion is completely irrelevant. It should be noted, though, that I'm American. Point two in your list is a problem, do you see why?

This seems like splitting hairs. Perhaps in a theoretical world this is a possible distinction that the selection process can account for, but in practice I think everyone is satisfied with sending a team that is most likely to achieve whatever expected success the country aims for.

Having thought about it a little, does anyone like 2♥ with this hand if the auction goes 1♦ (1♥) 1NT (p) 2♦ (p) ?

sick takeout double by south lol

How is counting HCP in the long suits different from counting tricks/losers/overall appearance? Correct me if I'm wrong, but lots of HCP in your long suits is exactly the same as fewer losers, more tricks, or better appearance, right? I then go on to say it's much better to have aces and kings and good suit combinations, ie the things that reduce losers, increase winners, improve appearance, than to have cards outside the long suits. We're saying the exact same thing, and yet you dont like my suggestion? I even explicitly said that using HCP alone to determine the trick-taking potential of a two-suited hand is silly.

Found him http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/4484/pokeyf.png

1♠ and rebid 2♠. The suit isnt great. I have some Hx's. I suspect the outcome will be another good argument in favor of Gazilli?

excellent read

I can't help but wonder if you even read my post. Reading comprehension is tough, I know.

I believe it is much more common now among experts (in America at least) to bid Michaels with any strength. One of the problems with counting HCP for determining whether or not to bid Michaels is that HCP don't really do a good job of reflecting trick-taking potential. Honor placement and quality is much, much more important for determing the strength of a two-suited hand than bean counting alone. I attended a lecture given by a friend at a regional recently and he discussed this topic. He advocated instead of using Weak/Strong as your criteria to use what he called, I believe, the rule of 7/9/11. Just like the rule of 2/3/4, his rule used vulnerabilities as a consideration to how weak the hand can be to make a Michaels bid. That is, white vs red, partner should expect at least 7 HCP in the two long suits to make a Michaels bid. At equal vul, partner should expect a minimum of 9 HCP, and at unfavorable, partner expects at least 11 HCP in the two suits. I think this is a pretty reasonable agreement to have. It's good to have a bottom limit because of the risk involved with bidding all the way to the 3 level without a known fit. Obviously the chances of having a fit are good, but they're no guarantee. And the idea behind 7/9/11 is that the honors in your long suits are much more valuable on offense than HCP in your short suits, which are better for defense. Obviously it's important to put a premium on aces, kings, and lots of touching honors in the long suits. Playing in a BBO indy, everything goes out the window and you just have to look out for yourself. It's impossible to give you rules for what random people will do. Also, I believe it is becoming more and more common for experts to play a convention over Michaels to improve their bidding accuracy. When the auction goes (1M) 2M (p), many experts play 2NT= inv+ in either minor 3♣ = pass/correct, to either play 3♣ or 3♦, depending on partner's suit 3♦= inv+ in partner's major 3M = NF, preference, preemptive if it's a jump

A very solid response given the 100% cat avatars before this post. Hershey Bar's bravery is clearly a reflection of his owner.

Let's implore the jet stream a return to normalcy. Edit: Canadians love lots and lots of snow, am I right?!

It's a tiny feline sombrero imo

Thank goodness spring is right around the corner. This winter has been nuts with all the bad weather.

I'm a dog person myself. I've had golden retrievers pretty much my whole life. I recently moved into an apartment and my roommate has a cat. She's the first cat I've ever lived with, and she's completely nuts. She's not allowed in my room because she likes to tear things up, so every morning she hides right outside my door and when I open it she either tries to sneak in quickly or she bolts in the opposite direction. I guess this is supposed to keep me guessing every morning about what she intends to do. It's funny that when I was much, much too young to understand anything about life, I thought cats were female and dogs were male. Now that I'm older and still don't know anything about life, I've come to realize that cats and women both are impossible to figure out.

Not to be a troll or anything, but has the fact that two women have said there is some grain of truth in Fluffy's statement made you reconsider? Perhaps you're being way too sensitive? I'm positive Fluffy wasn't trying to offend anyone.

Sounds right. To me it seems you will likely survive regardless of your decision now to bid 2♠ or to splinter in ♣, which I think are the two best options. You're correct that if you decide to bid 2♠, you aren't worried about showing your strength now because you'll bid more later, like 4♣ over 3NT or 5♣ over 4♠ or whatever.

Nice bump

I think it's wrong to call partner's 2♦ a "nonforcing bid." Partner is bidding despite your lack of action earlier, which means you could have 0HCP in your hand. Obviously that's unlikely in the context of this auction, but you still have 2 aces (one of which is Ax in partner's suit) more than you promised already. That's a HUGE hand and passing is very likely going to result in missing game. I disagree that he is limited to either 6♦ or 14 HCP. With that said, I would have overcalled 1NT originally and raised 2♦ to 3 if partner rebid his ♦.

3♥

It's ok that you thought he had 0 since he bid again after your signoff, right? right?

ez game