Statto

Thanks for that. I think making on 1 in 3 deals opposite a 10 count is good enough to justify 1NT here. DD analysis of course assumes opponents will find the killer lead, which they may not. And opposite a 10 count we are only looking to make 3NT on a fraction more than 1 in 2 deals anyway. It's not just the preemptive effect. Even if opps don't stick an oar in, if we start with 1♣, rebid 1NT, and end up in 3NT, they are more likely to find the right lead.

Interesting, I have always played 2NT as a 2nd negative, and it seems both pairs would have been better off with that here B-) But I agree with Agua, this is not a 2♣ opening for me, with 3 possible suits that may be the best strain in a hand that is hardly a rock-crusher.

Declarer can play the next trick whether you've turned the card face down or not. Keeping the card face up means you can ask to see the previous trick, but not if partner has already played to the next trick. So I wonder if the fact that you kept the card face up would make any difference with respect to AI or UI from the break in tempo on trick 2...?

At club and possibly regional level, there does not appear to be much difference. It's only when we look at the very top echelon we find they are mostly men. One suggested reason for this is that men are more likely to dedicate a lot of their time to reaching that level, whereas women tend not become so obsessed. I like Yu's idea of mixed events, but wouldn't restrict it to pairs - mixed teams could also be offered, though whether that should mean each partnership must be mixed, or a team could have a male pair and a female pair, or how it should work with a team of 6, I don't know.

Pre-emptive raises seem to be the norm these days, and probably for a reason. There a lots of potential bids available to show a good raise: various splinters, and a non-GF 'Jacoby' 2NT amongst the most popular.

1♠ 2♥ 4♥ 4♠ Holding ♠A, I mistook partner's 4♠ as a DGR, when in fact it was a cue bid showing a void, much as I dislike cue-bidding a void in partner's suit. With nothing more to offer, I passed to play in a 5-0 ♠ fit when we had a 6-3 ♥ fit. Strangely, it didn't work out too badly, as I managed to make 9 tricks, whilst 6♥ bid at most other tables also went 1 off with ♥AJx offside.

3♥. We have excellent shape and prime cards in the right places. And there's just a suggestion if we don't bid high enough that opps may be able to find a 4♠ game, as it could be a double fit for both sides.

4♥ would be a splinter for me. And the 3-level fit jump shows values for game, even from a passed hand. But apparently YMMV :rolleyes:

Opening 1NT light in 3rd seat is very risky, even non-vul. I'm opening 1♣ even if playing WNT. We do however have being non-vulnerable to compete.

At IMPs those 4-6 IMPs can be valuable. Competing the partscore at IMPs is just as important as at MPs, though you have to be more careful to avoid a big penalty against, not that there is much danger of that on this hand.

Did North only have Pass cards in the box?

Um, the bidding? How did we end up in 6♥ on a 4-2 fit? B-)

Aim to ruff 2 ♦. But comms are an issue so I will start by ducking a ♣.

I would have thought that the TD will only adjust the result if the non-offending side have been damaged. So if the offending side have lost out by taking an unethical action, there will be no adjustment. (I agree with the rest of your post and the sentiment of it.) The poll seems to strongly suggest 3♦ was a LA.

Partner asked for ♦K which we don't have. However, we do have 2nd round control in ♦ and an extra trump, which I think is as good as having ♦K, so I'll bid 7♥.

Having embarked on this line, we are presumably hoping to bring the contract home on a cross-ruff. I would not cash ♣A until it was clear that I won't need the ♣ finesse if I need to change tack. However, I would have started by ruffing more ♠ earlier.

The meaning for the X is highly unusual. Even so, I don't think it's that likely partner will be able to provide 3 very quick tricks outside ♦, so I'll bid 5♦. When partner doubles 5♠, I'll take the penalty.

I overcall 3♦ on that hand.

If 1NT is absolutely forcing (as I play with 1 partner), it can include stronger hands that want to hear the rebid before deciding what to do. If it is semi-forcing (i.e. 6-12) then it could theoretically be passed and is not suitable for this hand.

Yuk, that's an awful ♥ suit to start with 1♥. The ♣A is not the ♥A and neither has the same value for the bid. And such a powerful hand too.

hehe :P

Interesting, I play with one partner a strong ♣ system at teams, thinking it is better for finding games and slams in that environment. But you suggest it's also better at MPs too :D

I would agree after a 3 level or higher pre-empt, but after a weak 2 we still have a fair amount of space to establish level as well as strain, in conjunction with Lebensohl. So I would think that starting with X would imply a stronger hand defensively (i.e. much more HCP).

I think partner is suggesting penalty, and with ♥K, ♦KJ, ♣AJ9 sitting over opener I see no reason to disagree.

I don't think we will get away with 3m undoubled. Partner probably has shortness in ♠, but chose not to double, so should have good ♥. Sit, but It's close.