PhilKing

Well it depends what hands go through 2NT (mine does not include strong balanced). Transposing the hand I include with your strong balanced hand, the structure would be, 3♣ relay, then: 3♦ = a normal balanced hand (I guess 19 or good 18) 3♥♠NT = GF with 6+ clubs, showing feature (so on the actual hand you would bid 3NT to show both unbid suits stopped, 6 clubs and about 19-20 points) Bids other than 3♣ (or 3NT) are natural, showing extreme distribution. IMO, the convention is not very good to start with, because it is tactically right to respond on weak hands sometimes, but in your system you can't, because partner now forces to game with a balanced 19.

It seems odd that you play 2NT as forcing, but do not have any means of asking partner why he has bid it. Should there not be some way of finding out? I don't want to get into methods, but I play something similar and would have been able to ascertain that pard had circa 19-20 points, six clubs and red stops after this start. There's not really much point playing it otherwise!

I think the data overstates the case. For instance, the statisitic for bidding 3NT with a combined 23 and 24 count with one five-card suit are not representative - they are just cases where one team decide to bid up with those values, usually for a good reason. If you look through the hands, generally the hand without the five-card suit was bidding up on the basis of good intermediates. Board 1 in the 24 point group and hand 13 in the 23 point data are good examples. As to the difference, I suggest that the opening lead is the main difference, since it is the first blow in what is essentially a sprint race. When we are 4333, the lead is less critical.

On the basis that we are requested to assign the most (rather than greater) blame: North - infinity South - infinity plus 1 (cue flaming by mathematicians) Which is pretty fair imo ...

I agree with all this in any game, but would add that asking for a ruling in a speedball is the height of folly and doubtless detracted from the enjoyment of those hoping for a nice quick game. No doubt I will be told I am rude for saying this, but I think it is particularly rude to reject the ruling when one knows one does not know the rules. However, OP did ask for comments and observations, so here they are!

King for unblock is pretty standard expert treatment in the UK, though the ace is still the card at rubber bridge.

I would definitely lead the ace. Since the ace is often a "fishing" lead, partner will not start unblocking. Low will sometimes be better, but the combined chances of dropping Qx in either hand or pinning Tx on table or leading through declarer's Qxx or finding a switch add up to much more than partner having Jxx and declarer misguessing.

Someone has hacked into Wank's account imo.

Five weak spades and five clubs NF? :rolleyes:

Yikes - I'm glad I don't play these tournies.

What are you talking about? OP said he called the director to check for damage - why on earth would you call the director to check "for future reference". I stand by the remarks - if you think this kind of director calling is OK, then that's your prerogative, but my view is that is a complete waste of everyone's time.

I overcall 1♦ because we may belong in, er, diamonds. I'm pretty surprised at the amout of support for double. After an overcall, we can emphasise our strength and probable major suit length pretty well by doubling 1NT or 2(3)♣ at our next turn. Doubling first is just less accurate. Whenever pard has a nondescript hand with 3 diamonds and some scatterd values, double rates to lose out, and if he is 4-4 in the majors, doubling will cause him to overcompete.

1NT if 15-17. This can work particularly well when they play a conventional double ... Oh whoops - just noticed this is the novice forum. You can reasonably get stuck in with 3♣ but I prefer going big and opening 4♣. If one is considering making one's first ever psyche, never do so in a very short suit. Experience shows that a really clever bid such as 1♠ tends to work spectacularly badly.

Why on earth did you waste everyone's time in this fashion? Since you did not bid 5♣ and go for a number there was no possible damage unless you claim your lead was influenced by the misexplanation.

I have given this thread one star.

The way I do it, double shows a strong hand with 4 hearts and 2♥ shows 5-5+.

But not all five card suits are equal. If you add on a point holding KQJ92 added half with KJ753 but nothing with 65432, you would probably be about right - and it might even match the stats from real play if they were broken down further.

The simulations are not bridge: 1. Real opponents do not unerringly lead your doubleton - the lead is less likely to be critical when we are, say, 4333. In actual play, the stats show that "declarer advantage" occurs mainly on the opening lead. 2. Real declarers don't get 100% of 2-way finesses right or pick the correct suit to establish when they have a 4333 opposite a balanced dummy. In actual play, decent defenders drop fewer tricks after the lead than decent declarers when compared to simulated perfection, and this is particularly true on hands that require good guessing. 3. Real opponents occasionally throw the wrong thing when we run our five-card suit - these are the kinds of hands where declarer advantage still applies after the lead. In response to the second question, without wishing to state the bleeding obvious, the fifth card is a potential extra trick.

Had you alerted the 1♠ response as showing specifically 5 bad spades you would have been better placed ...

My bad - that's how I play it. :ph34r:

I don't think West was conservative - the ♦K looks useless and pard can be expected to compete to 2M if he has a pulse. Over the obvious 2♥, I would content myself with a raise to three, and then he has an easy 3NT call.

But it only differed on the first card. :D Yours. He eventually lost to ♦Qx with the hand counted.

You are correct. B-)

Interesting. Tom Townsend followed the Mike/Gsgazes line, but I prefer the RHM and Fluffy lines. Could it possibly be that I am a result merchant? (though I did reject the Hanoi line, which works on the lie).

You know there is zero chance of getting a slight twitch agreed, right? Just let it go and move on. Sometimes a (sub)conconscious advantage is gained, but there is really no point calling for a ruling.