EricK

Instead of wasting your time at the start of each round finding out irrelevant stuff like the opponent's NT range etc, you should engage them in conversation about their reading habits. eg ask them about Rodwell. If they mention "The Rodwell Files" then be cautious against them. If they think you're talking about a tennis or basketball player, bid up.

But it does have 4 of the top 8. One of the problems with playing overly-disciplined weak 2s (and passing those which don't quite make the grade) is that when you come in on the second round partner doesn't have much idea exactly why you decided not to open in the first place. Your spades might be too weak, or you might have a 4 card major on the side, or 2 Aces, or whatever other feature you consider to be a flaw. So you have frequently lost the ability to get the first blow in in the auction, without gaining that much by the extra definition (as even when you do get to open your weak 2, partner's response is often not really helped by the knowledge that you have a pure weak 2).

Why does NS give you a better game of bridge? Is it because the less mobile people get there early to grab a NS seat, and they are generally weaker?

Pair A might want to sit opposite to the strong players because they want to challenge themselves on individual hands against the better players. Pair B might want to sit in the same direction as the strongest pairs because they wants to see if they can beat the strongest players over the evening, and the only way to get a comparable score is to play the same hands in the same direction as them.

Against a lot of opponents can we not combine our chances by looking for a count signal on the first 2 rounds of ♦ (or even the first round)?

You also have the option of passing followed by raising to 3♥

I'm dealer? Then, 1♠ or 4♠ depending on how I am feeling, and what I know of Opps and partner. At these colours, 3♠ would miss too many good games I reckon, and could force me to make the last guess if opps bid to 4♥ anyway.

In general, I like raising on 3 card support with a minimum unbalanced hand, but here, the only reason you opened this hand was the good ♦ suit, so you have to rebid it to let partner know. If you do play a style where opener frequently raises on 3, then in response to the asking bid, opener's bid below 3M should show 3 cards in the major; while higher bids promise 4. So in your sequence, if you have chosen to raise on a 2362 hand, then 3♦ shows that sort of hand (3♣ would show something like 1354; 2NT something like 4351). With a x45y hand you bid 3♥ if minimum for your raise, and something higher if not-minimum.

I'm aware of that - but that doesn't mean that you need to reserve 2♥ and 2♠ as natural bids. You can include natural among the other meanings, of course. So after 1♦ (P) 2♣ (X) 2♠ (P) responder can still show the 5/6-4 hand by bidding 3♠. But it seems rather a waste of the 2 cheapest bids to reserve them for natural on an auction when we know that our 4-4 major, if one exists, is going to break 4-1 or 5-0

What do 2♥ or 2♠ mean now? Since North has shown both majors, and partner decided to bid 2♣ instead of 1M, isn't there a good case for using them for some artificial purpose? eg initially stop-showing probing for NT, but may turn out to be an advanced cue-bid if bidding develops that way. If responder is still desperate to look for the major suit game even though advised of the bad break, he can still raise with support for opener's major.

I thought the OP was going to be about using 2NT to show 5/5 in majors OR 5/5 in minors. It fits in well with using a multi 2♦, and 2♥ and 2♠ to show 5M5m. And it's not so easy to defend against this 2NT than one which shows just the minors (or just the majors).

These slams come home more often than not if you avoid pinpointing the lead. So well worth bidding at any form of scoring. Last night we had this unopposed auction 1♣ 1♠ 3♠ 6♠. LHO didn't find the lead of a ♥ from Kxx to his partner's Ace, preferring his ♦ sequence, so slam rolled home. On the given hands, a sequence like 1♥ 1♠ 2NT 5♥ 6♥ would give you good odds to make the slam, I reckon.

I would take it as a NT probe, asking for help in ♥. Responder can't have 4♥ on this sequence and opener won't bid like this with 5♥ so I see no reason for this to be natural. The auction after 2♠ is GF and opener can support either of partner's suits below game, so there is no need for 3♥ to be an advance cue-bid. Opener can bid NT himself with the ♥ well stopped. So there really isn't much left, as far as I can see.

But in each case, the final 18 teams have played each other once each and their final score is determined by the total VPs won against the other 17 teams. It only seems random because you are taking into account the extraneous information about how well those teams did against teams who never made the final. If there had been some entirely separate tournaments which determined who the final 18 were, and then they did a round robin, you probably wouldn't be concerned with how those people did against teams which never made the final.

But if he wants to actually do the multiplication rather than just get the answer (and judging by the OP he does) then what does it benefit him to cheat? Does the student realise how long the multiplication of a 160 digit number by a 80 digit number will take?!

174104052846943546074674132671837392418712648437400344812505854633694085663543521 x 638187964577653444444445082632409022097888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888250700924311235444444443806256479866791 consists of 240 1's I used the very handy big number factoriser from here http://www.alpertron.com.ar/ECM.HTM (it's worth checking I haven't made a copy/paste error)

I would open it as a balanced 22 count

I would open that 1NT - I am 4333, my "long" suit is weak, and I have 2 Jacks which aren't pulling their weight. Having opened 1♣ I would rebid 3♥. I wouldn't have cue-bid on South's hand either - it seems very unlikely that opener, with a balanced hand, can cover enough of our losers. But most of the blame goes to North, by a vote of 2 over-optimistic actions to 1.

Is it mathematically feasible that the safe plus in 2♠ outscores the chance of possible game bonus in 4♠ so it figures it doesn't pay to bid on; whereas the risk of going down in 3♠ if it competes, tips the odds in favour of going for the game bonus? That doesn't justify the bidding sequence, but it might explain it.

How light does GIB open in 3rd seat?

North's hand is closer to an immediate GF than the sub-minimum response he showed.

I understand that. But my question is whether you can claim you have disclosed your "tactical" proclivities in this scenario simply because you have mentioned you sometimes upgrade hands into 1NT. And as well as being a tactical game, bridge is also a game of full disclosure (or at least it's meant to be).

My (very limited) experience is that vulnerable at MPs it is better to agree to open this sort of hand at the 2 level. Not so much because it works better on this sort of hand, but because opening at the 2 level on much weaker hands tends to work out badly. So it allows you to pass those hands and still keep the same size range for a weak 2. Conversely, NV I would want to open them both at the 1 level. Not so much because of hands like this, but because I want to be able to open the weaker hands with a pre-empt, and want to keep a tightish range for the bid.

Is there a difference between bidding 1NT on a 14 point hand because we feel it is "worth 15" in some sense, and bidding 1NT on a 14 pt hand because we feel it is a better tactical opening bid than 1♣? If someone said they upgraded a hand into 1NT I would assume they meant the former, not the latter. So I'm not sure if disclosing that you upgrade hands counts as full disclosure if the bid can be for tactical reasons in a potentially contested auction rather than because you genuinely value the hand as 15 and hope, thereby, for a more accurate constructive auction.

You seem to have a lot of room playing a natural system: 1♦ 2♣ 2♠ 2NT (2♠ is GF so can afford to just show nature of hand at cheapest level) 3♦ 3♥ (3♦ extra length, 3♥ cuebid showing ♦ support and ♥A) now with a hand more suitable for NT, North can sign off in 3N. But with solid ♦ and plenty of controls controls, North should continue cue bidding. At pairs, you should be playing a system which allows you to eventually sign off in 4NT if necessary on these minor suit, borderline slam hands.