Trpltrbl

Just curious what people generally think of certain conventions. I am not going to name examples, just let me know what in your eyes is the worst convention and not worth the ink it was written with. Mike :D

sigh... here we go again... i'm sure martel/stansby would make decent bingo players (to name just one pair)... mike, why do you think some world class players play it if there's "no good reason" to do so? Cause it might fit with their system structure, and they might have been playing it for 30 years. Can't teach a dog new tricks Find me a modern pair that play it. My Mom plays Flannery too, and she has been playing before I was born, she just doesn't know any better. Mike ;)

I play variable NT's myself, depending on vulnerability and seat. Either 10-12 NV in 1st, 2nd or 3rd seat. Or 12-14 When Vul. And with some I play 12-14 in 4th seat no matter Vul or not, and with few others I play 15-17 in 4th. Mike :D

Aren't they on the Norwegian Soccer team ? Mike :D

Am sure they'll do great. Mike :D

I guess I was wrong hehehe. There was a line, even though it is near zero it still counts. Mike :D

X for TO. Hopefully pd can bid 3NT and if not I can correct his bid to 5♣, he must have some ♣ fit now. Mike :D

You can play many different ways, you just have to find what works for you the best. Mike :D

I pass. My hand is balanced and probably plays better in NT and it is 1 level lower. Mike :D

Win ♥ in your hand, and play ♦ to the Q. I f west wins and he is out of trump, he has to have Ace of ♣ for the X. Mike :D

Wow, is Slothy growing up, and becoming serious :D Now I need to find another place to laugh ;) Mike :D

X; 2 unbid suits. Mike :D

I don't play the "Idon't know" X But with exapmle you gave me I would X, since I play that as a 2 suiter. Mike :D

I like to solve 1 maybe 2 problems at a time not 6 in same thread. Am sure many feel same way. Mike :D

I like to be in 6♣, since I am sure against me they will lead a ♦. Mike :D

Ducking the ♣ and pitching Q of ♦. Mike :D

I play the Ten of ♦, simply for the fact that you have to :D You need to stop the ♦ suit for 3 times to come to 9 tricks. Let's say you play the Q and it holds, you set up the ♣ and now they play back ♦ Jack. Only way to get to dummy is K of ♥ and therefore Ace needs to be onside. So East hops up with the Ace and plays his last ♦, they win 3 ♦ and 2 aces for down 1. Mike :D

I need the ♣ finesse to work for 9 tricks. So I will take it. Mike :D

Must not have played a ♣ at trick 1. Mike :D

I am not crazy about 3♣, pd might take you for equal length majors with balanced hand. I don't think anything is wrong with 3♦, at least when playing with me. I will have a good hand with 6 nice ♦. Now we have a problem, 4♥ shows better (and/or longer) ♥ then ♠ I can bid 5♦, but if pd misunderstood my 3♣ bid, which he did, we are in for trouble. Mike :D

Win, play A of ♥ and play High ♦ and ruff ♦ with the 9 of ♥ and play trump back. Mike :D

B. Even if ♣ don't break 3-3, maybe the short ♣had Kx of trump or maybe only 1 trump, Ace of ♠ can still be onside. Think line B offers more( better ) possibilities. Mike :D

If you open this with a 12-14 weak NT you might get to slam, but I highly doubt that. And if you do it is just to make up the 60 imps that you already lost on other same type hands that you went for slam and kept going down. Mike :D

I would keep my eye on South, passing 2♠. But maybe just pair of novices. Watch what they did on other brds will explain a lot. Mike :D

In 3rd seat, my pd opens about anything. If I wanna keep my pd I pass, if I wanna get rid of specific pd I will bid 3♥ Mike :D