masse24

Groundbreaking stuff, this. Who knew? http://i65.tinypic.com/2cde9w6.png

Timo, can you contact Jeff Meckstroth for his address? I have some books I'd like to send his way. :D

That post included the original "DOUBLE" in a voice like thunder" comment, which has since become famous. Good memories! ;)

Assuming a standard, strong 2♣. I think 4♣ was the sanest "human" bid at the table. In other words, I too would expect partner to have ♣s.

It's a good thing when your partner "makes some noise."

Will not happen. Electors are, for the most part, pledged to vote for the party's candidate. My dad was an elector in '68 (I was a little kid). Mom tells me that had he voted against the party, he would have been run out of town on a rail.

And from the comments below MikeH's link: "People are entitled to their opinions, no matter how wrong those opinions are. They don't, however, have an automatic entitlement to be taken seriously."

Never? Yet your partner still persists in his/her desire to treat it as non-forcing? If my partner ever passes a forcing bid --- he had better be right. All is forgiven when partner's judgment proves correct!

After the positive Puppet response, North owed South a 3♠ bid.

This.

I agree. Additionally, as South, staring at ♥Qx in my hand, letting the double sit would not cross my radar.

Splinter, yes. But a self-splinter? I would interpret it as a splinter showing ♠ support. Though I suppose (with prior agreement) you could specify it as a splinter for opener's suit.

Unsure why this is directed towards me, but . . . okay. :blink:

Interesting -- I had not heard of this previously. Do you still use 3NT for something somewhat similar? Solid, long suit?

Agree with Helene. 3♦ (Jump-Reverse) = Splinter. Either a Mini-Splinter--forcing to 3♠--or, occasionally a stronger version. However, there is no reason it must be limited. This allows the 4♦ call to show a void with enough to bid game. Since a 2♦ reverse is ostensibly unlimited, there is no reason for 3♦ to show a super-duper strong reverse--though I know two pairs who play it this way. :blink: With the hand you held, I'll simply reverse with 2♦.

3♥

I think you misread the question. [c] 3388 is hardly a very, very, very large number.

Wow!

If I went this route (via 2♣) I would want partner to know that my 4NT "asking" is for ♠s. So, after 2♠ . . . let partner in on it with 3♠. An immediate 4NT could be construed as vanilla Blackwood sans suit agreement.

With all due respect to Mr. Cohen (and your detailed analysis) we'll have to agree to disagree. Cohen's version does not make the distinction between a "minimum" (12-13 and 3 ♠) and a "maximum" (14 and 3 ♠) hand. Both ranges are bundled into the 2 ♠ response to NMF. Therefore, it logically follows that an invite to ask opener "which do you have?" is required. However, your description (and that in the OP) made the distinction between a "minimum" 12-13 and a "maximum" 14 opening hand. You even stated it was "standard." I agree. So, if opener, in response to NMF, shows the lower range of 12-13 with 2♠, there is no need for an invite. Again, it logically follows that a subsequent 3♠ call by responder is a GF. If opener's third bid in response to NMF is at the two-level or three-level based on strength then I am sure that Mr. Cohen would agree with this logic. I see others have made the same observation. My earlier suggestion (upthread) to play 3♠ as suit agreement and slam-seeking was based on this logic, that 3 ♠ as an invite when 2♠ shows 12-13 is superfluous. Is NMF best? Heck no! We're in complete agreement there.

What are you using 3♠ (after 2♠) for? Why not use it to set trumps in search of slam?

Responder bids 3♣. Yes, Muppet is fine here.

1♥

Bad

To be continued? :blink: