squealydan

I was trying to come up with a "ten things it's important to be on the same page as partner about" list. A friend has found a new partner and they will be competing in a few important (at our level anyway) tournaments starting next month. My partner asked me for some advice. They have their system and are keeping it pretty simple, so I wasn't going to start "fixing" that or adding conventions. Both are working folk with families and busy lives, so their opportunities to practise and discuss things is a bit limited. I just wondered if you had a system agreed with a new partner, and had say half an hour to discuss your approach to the game, what would you like to include? If you're still unclear what I'm driving at, I was thinking things like agreeing on just what the limits of a third seat opening bid are, agreeing any requirements for suit quality when pre-empting (especially in first and second seat), agreeing what sort of hands qualify for a 3m or 3NT re-bid after a 1m-1M beginning (and therefore what range of hand qualifies for a 2m rebid)... that sort of thing. Thanks

If the question is "What scientific theories have been demonstrated via continuous testing and evaluation to be the most likely explanations for the world around us, but which I will choose to disbelieve because it's easier to say "God did it" than to actually attempt to understand the science", then I guess you'll have to tell us.

I'm 44. I think I'm basically the same person I was when I was 34, with a little more life experience. Yet I think I'm right in saying that at least 99% of the atoms in my body are different to the ones I had when I was 34. Or maybe it's just 99% of the cells, with the atoms shuffled from one place to another. So it must be true that my "me-ness" for want of a better word, is independent of the physical arrangement of certain cells within the body. I'm not sure if this is at all relevant to the question at hand (I voted yes I'd use it, with practical questions about its safety being the only ones that would worry me). But it's thought-provoking none-the-less....

The opposition bid one of four things. 1. RHO 1NT (weak 12-14), all pass. 2. RHO 1NT (15-17), all pass. 3. RHO 1NT (weak 12-14), LHO 3NT, all pass. 4. RHO 1NT (15-17), LHO 3NT, all pass. You hold ♠ T92 ♥ AQ82 ♦ A53 ♣ 864 Playing matchpoints in a fairly average field, there is a good reason to base your lead on matchpoint considerations - go with the flow or try something different. The ♥2 will be the most common lead. But independently of that, I was just wondering if folk think the 2♥ is a good lead in any or all of the above situations.

There have been very few top match-ups thus far so it's a bit hard to know what to make of these results. Think I'm right in saying that Italy have yet to play any of the other seven sides who make up the curren top 8 at end of day three (though they have played USA2), and Poland and Monaco have only played two of the other top 8 teams. USA2 have had the toughest draw of any of the sides thus far (though they did lose nearly all of the matches against sides above them, which doesn't augur too well for them). So there is plenty of scope for change at the top. I too find it frustrating not to be able to see all the hand records from a round in one easy page...

Nobody yulnerable, imps, first hand of match. Pass-pass to you. Assuming you play Standard American or 2/1, how do you plan to bid this hand? Happy to hear of any second round (or later) gadgets that you think will help describe this. (I can tell you in advance that partner does not have three hearts...) ♠ A 8 ♥ A Q T 8 6 5 ♦ A Q ♣ K J 9

Unfortunately, this seems to be a fact of life. I played tonight and a new partnership against us on the very first board began 1NT-2H. Now believe it or not there are still folks out there who don't play transfers, so this isn't a complete no-brainer for two of the older members of the club who have just spent 3 minutes agreeing a system. When the 2H bid wasn't immediately alerted the 2H bidder stared long and hard at opener, and even made a minute instinctive gesture towards her bid... her partner eventually alerted it and responded 2S, getting them to the routine 4S contract. Without a camera on every table it would be impossible to prove anything untoward went on, and with no other alternative game in town, I just shrug and carry on going.

I probably wouldn't double with south's hand, but it's close. As you say, 3C is unlikely to be a great contract, but partner will usually have five for the bid so it may not be a disaster. As to the OP's question, partner is a passed hand and I have a nice but hardly exceptional 12-count, so I wouldn't expect to get to game in any auction really, even if RHO didn't open an annoying 2♥. However, scoring up -110 is not going to be great, so it certainly pays to get involved. If south feels unable to balance due to the doubleton club, then north in balancing seat can "borrow a king" and double. I still don't think we'll get to game...

Even if GIB can't stop in 3H, surely 4H on 5-3 fit will do just as well as 2S in a likely 4-2 fit. If a human partner passed this I'd be saying "thanks, but no thanks" to another game....

I was taught strong twos (in an Acol environment) and still occasionally play them when playing in mixed-ability pairs events from time to time where a more experienced player partners a junior. (Not for much longer, as from this year I believe all juniors are being taught weak twos.) To be honest I think strong twos are great bids. Playing them it becomes much clearer who has what when the bidding begins 2C-2D-2S vs 1S-1NT-3(anything) since the 19-20 point hands with a good 6-card suit aren't in there. With developing players usually playing fairly simple natural systems, strong twos make partner's life much easier. I have often opened a strong hand 1H/S and failed to get to slam only to look at the hand record and think "gee, we could hardly miss slam if I opened it a strong 2H/S"... Of course, I am not willing to give up the descriptive and pre-emptive weak-two openings, so the solution to that perceived problem was to add more artificial bids to other auctions. But if playing in a partnership that doesn't like artificial bids in general, strong twos will certainly help the accuracy of your slam decision-making

I played at the club with a random newcomer of undetermined strength, but who claimed to have played in the top division of her previous club. So I let her fill out the card which looked fairly standard Acol, weak NT, 4-card majors, absolutely routine or so I thought. A few hands in she opened 1♥, and in a competitive auction, rebid 3♦. I competed to 4♥, which went a couple light on what turned out to be only a 4-3 fit. I checked her hand which was ♠ ATx ♥ KQxx ♦ KJxx ♣ xx Which led to the following conversation : Me - is there a reason you didn't open that 1NT? Partner - Oh, I never open 1NT when I have a four card major. Me (checking card) - .... okayyyyyy. But you wrote Stayman down on the system card over 1NT. Partner - Yes.... I don't tend to use it very much!

Uncle Tupelo, Moonshiner https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ppiol9oetOk

The average person has less chance of being randomly killed for tribal / political reasons now than at any point in time.

If the point you are trying to make is that the increase in disasters is in some way a reaction to an increase in "Godlessness" throughout the world, then the fact that God might cause these disasters also makes a few of us less interested in worshipping such an entity. to take one example, Hurricane Katrina's victims were mostly poor black folk in Louisiana and Mississippi, and I'd guess a higher proportion of them were active Christians than pretty much any other region of the country outside of Utah. 'tis a strange God who would wreak such havoc down on them and leave the likes of Las Vegas, Los Angeles and San Francisco untouched... I'm not certain of this, but I suspect there are also now more Christians on the planet than at any other point in history. Thanks to high birthrates in Africa and lower birthrates elsewhere, even as a proportion of the total population, it's still probably higher than at most points in the past 2000 years. Certainly before the European nations started building empires in the 16th centuries and beyond, the percentage of people in the world claiming to be Christians would have been fairly small. So it seems weird that the God of the New Testament should suddenly decide that now is the time to start raining hellfire and destruction down upon us.

You seriously can't see how someone might want to treat other with respect and fairness simply because it is the right thing to do? Surely the reason you behave well towards other people isn't solely because you think you'll one day have to answer to your god for it? What about answering to your friends and family for your actions? What about the simple recognition that the world will be a much better place if everyone treats each other nicely?