nigel_k

Pass. I don't expect to collect a big penalty but this doesn't seem like a good hand to play a NT partscore. Bidding 2♣ immediately would be my second choice ahead of 1NT because partner may play me for less if I bid clubs after passing.

South 90%. South overbid as he should know the minor suit cards are close to worthless and he doesn't have much to cover partner's major suit losers. I don't know if North is worth a game try but it is not unreasonable. However if spades are not 2-2 it looks like opponents are close to making 4♦ or even 3NT. If spades are 2-2 you have some play for 4♠.

1. 4S. Very close though. If you pass you are essentially betting that partner has misbid and I hate to do that if the alternative has any merit at all. Also, if partner is bad enough to double with four defensive tricks and nothing else, they are bad enough to double when they think they have four tricks but actually only have three. 2. 3♣. I bid more than most people in these situations so no problem for me. Obviously we might concede a penalty or partner may bid 3NT and go down when 2♥ would also have failed. But I don't think this is more common than the hands we gain. I would even prefer to bid 3♣ and pull partner's 3NT to 4♣, rather than pass throughout.

I agree with jdonn. It is not normal to ruff with the higher trump when you think the opponents have none. So by law 70C3 declarer cannot lose a trick by any normal play. The fact that 'normal' includes careless or inferior plays isn't relevant here. It is careless and inferior to miscount trumps, but ruffing with the ace would be abnormal regardless of what trumps are out.

I haven't watched US network TV for ages though it always seemed to me that people like Dan Rather had at least as much left-wing bias as Fox has right-wing bias. I did see just the other day Wolf Blitzer thought it was a good use of his show to 'fact-check' a Saturday Night Live comedy skit because it made fun of Obama. Which seems an odd thing to do without political motives. Then you have the major papers, especially the New York Times which I think any fair-minded person can see favours the Democrats. Anyway I'm not sure completely centrist media is desirable or even possible.

We use stop cards in New Zealand. I have mixed feelings about them but on balance I think they're ok. Most people use them but some do so randomly and some just don't use them at all. I have never seen anyone get a procedural penalty for it. I do think you need to penalize people who don't stop when the card is put in front of them because it's just too easy to pass UI otherwise. But when the card is not used, the fact that the next player's tempo is no longer UI should be penalty enough. The actual time people leave the stop card out varies a lot and is usually less than ten seconds. Since I am naturally impatient I don't put it out if I expect an automatic pass and I also sometimes pull the card back before ten seconds if it's an auction where they are likely to pass but it's not automatic. I think the main reason for stop cards is that you are never going to have people taking ten seconds every time there is a skip bid if stop cards are not used. Well maybe you could eventually penalize people into submission but even then I think some would still forget. So when the opponent calls quickly (or slowly) after a skip you really don't know if he has transmitted UI or not, which is not a good situation. If someone forgets the stop card, they may lose out as they have no redress if the next player takes ten seconds and passes with a marginal hand, but usually it will be no problem. My biggest problem with stop cards is that my calls generally take either less than one second or more than ten seconds. So the stop card uses up time with no benefit (did I mention I am impatient?) Obviously it may be different for other players.

IMO this would have more weight if your hearts were QJx instead of Axx

Wow - 30 day zero tolerance suspension for foul language. I'm not saying it is wrong but if you did that where I play there would be people getting only 12 sessions of bridge per year. Of course it's not usually directed at someone in an aggressive way which I guess is what you mean.

Pass. I think partner will be better placed to decide than I am.

I wouldn't attach much weight to the bad language. You can be just as insulting and certainly violate 74A1 or 74A2 without using foul language so I wouldn't assume the person using bad language started the argument or is the aggressor. Nor would I require them to apologize to one another since I am a director not a parent or schoolteacher. I would require them to stop arguing and play the next hand. If one refuses to do so then the other would get 50% (partly at fault) for that board which might be a bit more than they deserve but I can live with it. If I did give a disciplinary penalty for arguing I would probably penalize both players. I would also consider further disciplinary action against a player who refused to play a hand.

[hv=d=s&v=b&n=s962ha10876d3ca1063&w=sj10875hkq53d1052c7&e=sak43h92d98cj8542&s=sqhj4dakqj764ckq9]399|300|Scoring: IMP 1♦-P-1♥-P 3♦-P-3NT-AP[/hv] 3NT -1 and 5♦ makes.

A few points: 1. Nominations for the Nobel closed on February 1. You would normally assume that setting a closing date for nominations means someone will be judged on their actions up to that date that are detailed in the nomination. I guess the committee must have considered what has happened since then, but maybe they did give it to Obama if it is just for being black, left-wing and getting elected president. 2. Don't forget the people who vote for this thing are European socialists and Obama's view on foreign policy is a european socialist's wet dream. Whether he will actually change anything much compared to Bush is yet to be seen. But I would expect the committee made the choice in the expectation that it would influence future events. Socialists want to exert influence, not merely recognize merit and reward it. 3. I don't understand why half this thread is about Afghanistan when Obama has essentially continued the previous administrations strategy there. 4. As people mentioned earlier, since the award was given to Yasser Arafat and Al Gore is has been devalued to the point where it is little more than a joke. The best thing Obama could have done (in his own interest) would be to turn down the award and tell them not to consider him again until his term as president is over. 5. There are plenty of more deserving people so it is not a 'slow peace' year. The prize should go to a Chinese dissident such as Hu Jintao but that would conflict with the socialist multilateral approach to peace, which is essentially to avoid doing anything that might upset anybody and to wring their hands and pass lots of resolutions if people nevertheless fight one another.

You can cue bid 2♣ with a good hand and support for partner's suit. Plus if you have a balanced invitational hand after the overcall, 1NT or a new suit is not forcing so they are not good choices. Those two factors mean it's a different situation and it is more useful for 2NT to be natural in response to an overcall.

If you don't bid 4♦ West is declarer and you can't beat it. Another reason to bid I guess.

You are welcome to visit my planet any time. I'll cook you my delicious Martian tunnel frog stew.

3♥. Partner would have probably have doubled if they are not making and I'm reasonably confident of avoiding -300 and +140 is very possible. Even if we beat 3♦ for +100, they have balanced vul vs not which other tables may not do so there could be a number of 110s or 140s our way.

Double and try 3NT over 3♠. This is a good hand in the balancing seat so I think we have to do something.

1. Double. -140 won't be good anyway so try to get 200 to beat those scoring 140 our way. 2. 4♠. Could obviously be wrong but looks better than passing. 3. 3♦. 2NT protects the ♥K but I don't like it with so few tricks in view. Pass could be right as well because maybe they don't make or we go for 200, but I think it is too much of a position with four card support. I really don't like the support double especially playing strong NT - would prefer to raise with three and be able to double with 2254 and better than minimum. I would be happier passing if I knew partner had either a weak notrump or a bad hand.

Definitely 3♥. I would compare this to passing a takeout double of 1♠. They're a level higher but you expect RHO to have more spades and partner a singleton at the very most. And it's game if they make. You basically need solid spades to pass this.

1NT. If you pass LHO may well bid 1NT and I'd rather play 1NT than defend it even both vul. It doesn't seem like the kind of hand where having the opening lead is going to be enough of an advantage to outweigh the benefit of being declarer.

Agree with the others. Passing is certainly not a LA. The least you can reasonably do is Blackwood and bid slam unless off two aces. If it is pairs then 6NT could be an option but I don't see how the slow 4♠ suggests that will be wrong. If anything the UI points towards 6NT not away from it. Investigating grand after partner failed to cue bid is also unreasonable.

On the issue of reverting to 3♥X, isn't 3♥ a superaccept? As in this case when other bids are unavailable, it's spade support and a better hand than a 3♠ bid. Even if East happened to have five hearts why on earth would he bid 3♥ without spade support? So West passing 3♥ is not a logical alternative. As to the final double, South clearly had enough information to work out what had happened. But that doesn't end the matter as the opposition actions made it more difficult for N/S. If the transfer had been alerted and completed it is easier for South to bid 3♥ over East's 2♠ and if East jumps to 3♠ then 4♥ is still a more attractive choice than on the actual auction. I think N/S were damaged and if E/W cannot establish that the explanation was correct I would probably adjust to 5♥X-1.

Yup 1NT. I'm not as keen on these stopperless 1NT bids as some people seem to be but there isn't really a decent alternative here.

He might penalize the previous holder of the cards or just warn them. Assuming it's not the first board the sorted hand might imply that either the hand was passed in last time or there was a claim at trick one. If that could affect the bidding or play at your table the director might rule that the board cannot be played so you'd get average plus. Anyway you need to call the director as the opponents could be disadvantaged.

All he has to know is the following: If he bids 4♣ directly his partner could well decide to show aces. If he bids 3♣ then 4♣ his partner is barred so will pass. Therefore the infraction could well allow his side to play 4♣ when they could not otherwise do so. 4♣ could well be the best contract for his side. Taken together, these mean that the insufficient bid could well damage the non-offending side.