masse24

If I open 1♦ do Nancy Sinatra and her high steppers appear? :rolleyes: If so, can I change may vote?

Does partner have a sense of humor? ;) No matter...I'm still passing.

Does 1NT deny four ♠'s? I would prefer a 3♣ rebid (GF) by South rather than 2♠. But, I suppose if you have a special meaning for 2♠ in this auction it can work. So: 1♥ - 1NT 3♣ - 4♣* [insert favorite RKC gadget here] ...to 6♣ * = Agrees ♣'s shows slam interest. :huh:

3♦ not necessary (as 4SF) since 3♣ is a GF. Also, East hardly has "extras". :)

At the table... [hv=pc=n&s=saqjhkjtd4caqj974&n=s973haq864dj732c6&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=p1cp1hp3cppp]266|200[/hv] :D

[hv=pc=n&s=saqjhkjtd4caqj974&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=p1cp1hp]133|200[/hv] Do you take the High Road or Low Road? Thanks! :unsure:

Actually I had no intention of "sharing" (humiliate never crossed my mind) these results with my partner, so I choose "question I needed to ask". :mellow: I was just curious. Thanks!

[hv=pc=n&s=sqjt86543hj6d985c&w=sak9h32dcakjt8732&n=s72hkt874d7642c96&e=shaq95dakqjt3cq54&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=3s5cp6cppp]399|300[/hv] Teams Pick-up partnership. Both East and West had other bids available. Who gets the blame for missing the grand? What is your suggested auction? Thanks! :rolleyes:

This. I absolutely transfer with this hand. Why give up on a potential 9 card fit (or even 10)? Why give up on exploring slam were opener to super-accept? Would be shocked to see any other answer. :blink:

North can foil your plan by ruffing his partner's ♣ winner at trick 5 and returning a ♥. If you don't ruff in dummy, you presumably dump a ♣ and must ruff in hand. (Meanwhile South jettison's a ♦) You can never get rid of your ♣ loser. :( Granted both North and South must be on their toes for this defense. A somewhat unusual play by North to ruff his partner's "winner". Unusual vs. Unusual? :rolleyes:

1♦ - 1♥ 2NT - 3♠ 2NT = 18-19 balanced What is the standard meaning of 3♠? Assuming NMF is available, it must deny 5 ♥'s, so does 4-4 majors sound right, and GF? It has been suggested that another use for it is a "stopper ask". :blink: What do you play?

1♥ - (X) - 3♠ Splinter? WJS? Other? I see no strong reason to prefer one over the other. If you do, can you please explain why? :unsure:

West doesn't know what's going on. Your partner wants you to pass. Pass.

Yup. This one. :rolleyes:

1.) 18-19 Balanced (of course with ♥ stopped) 2.) 18-19 Balanced (of course with ♥ stopped), and 2 or 3 ♠'s. 3.) 18-19 Balanced (of course with ♥ stopped) 4.) 15-17(ish) with 4 ♠'s. (A little wiggle room allowed since it is possibly based on distribution) Must say I like Aqua's alternatives. So may look into them. B-)

It sure sounds like a bidding misunderstanding to me! :rolleyes: Attempts at a quantitative NT and opener responding as if it were Blackwood? Anyway, since partner doubled this freely bid slam, and without our side bidding, my lead is a ♥, which is what I assume the double to ask for.

As Dave alludes to in his reply, let me clarify "PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN, The LoTT", you're a Beginner. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HX4MydrcO1k THE GREAT OZ HAS SPOKEN! :angry:

Braver than I would be. I assume the first double shows an ability to penalize one or both of their suits, and the 2nd double confirms this. But, with most of my "muscle" outside of those suits and a flattish hand, it doesn't feel right. Also, as mentioned, you have no length in declarer's suits. I would be more inclined to pass, and, when 3!C returned to me, raise to 3!D. :unsure:

[hv=pc=n&s=saqj2hqdq8632ct32&n=s83hajt972djcakq4&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1hp1sp2cp2np3hppp]266|200[/hv] Obviously someone scared to pull the trigger. Who saw the snake? (ATB) ( ;) Apologies in advance to DaveHarty for hijacking your snake)

I sure hope my partner had that second cup of coffee and is appropriately caffeined (meaning: pay attention partner) for my "leap to game" in his first bid suit. :rolleyes: It sure seems the only scientific route to the grand....but, EKCB in partner's suit carries some risk.

A nice waiting Pass stands out. ;)

As an FYI... I asked this same question (Does BWS2001 (Bridge World Standard) need to be revised?) of Jeff Rubens at The Bridge World 6 months ago. His reply: "In brief, no. The usual motivation for a new version is the perception of significant changes in standard practice. There have been some, but apparently very few, since the last version." :D

Find a new partner? ;)

I would suggest studying hard so you don't need to guess... :rolleyes:

This