mr1303

My partner has a severe problem in remembering our 1NT structure. We play 4 suit transfers, so that Stayman followed by 2NT is the natural invite, non-promissory. The trouble is that she always forgets that 1NT - 2NT is a transfer to diamonds. She forgets this so much that I can't remember the last time she actually had diamonds when making this bid. As a result, we have the auction 1NT - 2NT - 3C/D - 3NT on average once per night. I now have taken to alerting the 3NT bid as "oops I forgot" rather than a mild slam try with diamonds. Surprisingly I haven't had a director call on this one. Any suggestions on what the correct thing to do in this situation is?

I beered the third overtrick in 3NT today. Unfortunately the bar was closed (sobs)

Yay MisIry We have not heard about this in a long while. Funny how conventions come in and go out of fashion. I think I bid 4C here, not overly liking it.

Agree with Frances here. In certain situations it is reasonable to play xx as suggesting doubt, e.g. after a jump cue bid (1S) 3S (P) 3NT, but I don't think that would apply here.

Just game on both. Don't hang partner for putting his neck on the line and making an action with spade shortage.

Well, when the traveller came round over half the room had bid and made 6D. I was wondering if there was some future in rebidding 3D after 2D? After all, you do have 150 honours. Especially since 2C 2D 3NT is such a bad bidding sequence.

Well, that actually sounds perfectly reasonable? Why should a client pay money to play with person a when he could play with person b for free. Surely the client should realise when he actually plays with person b about his ability, and if he isn't as good as person a and he wants to play with someone who is as good as person a then he can start paying person a again.

Well what about 6D? It appears to have reasonable play.

My feeling is that if you want to do it, do it. If you consider more people knowing how to play bridge a virtuous thing that gives you an intrinsic good feeling, why shouldn't you do it. If the teachers who charge for their services are good teachers, then their students will be happy to pay for the service. If members of the public wouldn't come to a pay bridge session but would come to a free one, then you aren't stealing anyone's customers. Not that there's anything wrong with this in a free-market economy anyway.

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sxhj10xxxxdxxxxxcx&s=saxhk9xdakqj10cakx]133|200|Scoring: MP[/hv] How do you get these hands to a sensible contract? You don't play the Kokish relay (so if you want to show 25-26 balanced you have to bid 2C 2D 3NT).

A question: Does anyone have any experience of an increase in UI etc situations in matches played privately? In my experience 1) In a club or a congress or similar, it is very easy to get a tournament director's ruling since there is one in the room at the time. 2) In a match played privately (such as in the Gold Cup etc) a tournament director is not freely available. Whilst I am aware that there is a TD list with telephone numbers, a lot more effort is required to gain a ruling. As a result, unless the use of UI etc is very blatant, some opponents may not bother to seek a ruling, particularly if the incident occurs late at night etc. Any thoughts?

I cue-bid 3S. This does not show any extras, because partner can now either bid 3NT (serious) or cue-bid in a minor (non-serious). Failure to bid 3S would completely deny a spade control. This is how Fred recommends it in his write up.

When I had auctions like this with David_C, we agreed that it was forcing, and given that responder didn't bid something over 1S, agreed that it must show a penalty pass of 1S. So spades but a good hand with spades, not just KJ10xxx and out.

I like 2C here. If partner has 4 spades I'll play 4 spades otherwise I'll play 3NT. I don't expect 1C X to be a profitable place to play. Either they run to somewhere better or they can scramble enough tricks to be better than our game.

Last time it happened I had a heart void and had a very long thought about it. With any serious partner I make the agreement that 1S 3H is a splinter and 1S 4H is to play.

I like Heston Blumenthal. He got an honorary degree from the University of Bristol at the same time as I graduated there, and he did a lecture on the science of cooking. Really interesting.

Did no-one notice that Frances was described as a he?!? (name was misspelt as well, but we can gloss over that)

Well, unsurprisingly, 4S was too high. Partner's hand was: [hv=s=sakq10xhxdkxxcj9xx]133|100|[/hv] Auction proceeded: 1H 1S 2C 3S (my choice) 4H 4S all pass 4H and 4S were both 1 off. Can you fault partner for bidding 4S over 4H? It seemed perfectly reasonable to me.

[hv=d=w&v=e&s=sj9532hqj6dqjcq62]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] 1H 1S 2C ? How many spades (if any?) do you bid. All players seem sensible so far to you, standard agreements in place (3S = pre-emptive)

In the UK, where "everyone" plays Acol, I prefer strong NT. Online, where "everyone" plays some version of standard American, I prefer weak NT. Maybe I just like being different.

At Total Points scoring, pass is very clear.

If I can open 1H (or 1S) I open, if I have to open 1C I pass.

It is one of my pet peeves where people just quote law numbers as opposed to what it actually says. I do not have a copy of the laws next to my computer, and I'm sure many other people don't as well.

Whatever happened to the transferred king? 3 low in their suit = ick. 3D for me.

What about the 1NT opening? A prime 18 count B) 2NT is ultra sick