FelicityR

Cannot fathom what's going on here whatsoever. Pass seems the least disastrous option. Partner bidding (balancing in some way) twice after passing on the first round - when he/she could open 3rd in hand light at favourable vulnerability (but does that even come into their remit?) - seems completely ludicrous. If there are 10 tricks in ♠s between the two hands I very much doubt, but miracles do happen :)

Except if I have a 4♦ bid available on my convention card as a form of modified Leaping Michael's showing specifically 8-10 HCPs and 6/6M with a void in ♦s, I'm just going to bid a paltry 1♠. I might mention ♥s later if I feel in an optimistic mood...:)

To be honest, I've never come across a balancing 1NT double of 11-14 HCPs. How has this come about? Whilst it is acceptable to make the limitation of a 11-14 HCPs 1NT bid in 4th seat after a 1st seat opener and two passes, this is only make after a suit opening. Doubling a 1NT opener with a similar point count as the opener just seems asking for trouble.

No further comment on the strange bidding (as everyone else has commented.) I wouldn't want either East or West as teammates on my team if they were this timid. 'Little old lady bridge' comes to mind, and whilst I am perhaps seen as a little old lady myself these days, I don't underbid this badly.

Thank you for that interesting article, Winston. Sadly, the British press generally sensationalise everything these days without having good quality source material that this article represents. I have no problem with factual information reported in newspapers, but I get tired of all the 'spin' and hyperbole they inject into an article just so it is read. I agree, having read this article (which was only published yesterday) that coronavirus represents a serious challenge to all nations. I am a former NHS (National Health Service) nurse with many years experience, so understand fully the implications contained in this article. I am aware (as far as I know) that transmission of viruses through breathing contaminated air has only been recently identified in the last few years. Previously, it was thought that viruses were spread by contact, or inhaling viral particles from an infected person who has coughed or sneezed. But, even given this information, the most important way of keeping this infection under control, beyond distancing yourself from other people, is good personal hygiene. Washing your hands frequently, etc. I still shudder when I see people sneeze into their hands and then wipe them on their clothes.

What I am saying, hrothgar, is as humans we cannot adopt a nuclear bunker policy and hope that in six months time we can emerge into the wide world and hope coronavirus is gone. Life has to go on. Even if there are certain restrictions made on our movements. In all the posts I have written about coronavirus on here, I have never said that it should be taken lightly, or for the medical profession to bury their necks in the sand. Like Donald Trump. Even our Queen in this country has said "Keep Calm and Carry On". This phrase was used during WW2 and recently has been resurrected. What can we do other than "Keep Calm and Carry On"? Various medical professionals and the government are proffering advice on a daily basis. What annoys me wholesale is how the media through their sheer ignorance are making matters worse. The way coronavirus is being portrayed is like some Doomsday scenario, and whilst it is a major contagion, the negativity of the journalism is making matters worse, I feel. We should all adhere to the recommendations that both the NHS, WHO and various governments around the world are making, but that is not going to stop me waking up tomorrow morning, walking the dog, going to my local store, and maybe playing bridge at a bridge club in the afternoon. Only when I am told to stop doing these things will I actually do so. And yes, I am being as vigilant as the next person, as all of us are trying to do, but I am "Keeping Calm and Carrying On." Just like our wonderful Queen.

Thank you for clarifying that, MickyB. I transcribed the auction exactly as it was conveyed on Vugraph. (I might add that I watched a number of games over the weekend and there were other Vugraph errors I noticed on other boards, too.) I hope you are feeling better. You were not the only one who was surprised when partner passed 7♦. C'est la vie. Next hand.

A recent report from China shows that 80% of coronavirus cases are mild. We are all being drawn in by mass media hysteria and really damaging journalism that is frankly obscene. I actually loathe the Independent newspaper at the moment and its negativity about covid-19. Yes, as I have said before, we shouldn't treat this contagion lightly. But, in the same breath I say that more people are killed on a daily basis on our roads than die from coronavirus in the UK. That's a fact. For people to stop their lives wholly and go into some form of self-isolation so that they are less likely to pick up coronavirus is frankly absurd. Think of terrorism and terrorist bombs. If we give in to their threats and do not carry on with daily life, then the enemy has won. It's the same with covid-19. What we all need to do is improve our hygiene regimens, and for people with health problems to think about in what environment they are going to. I think the last place you would pick up the coronavirus would be in a bridge club, except if a number of members have come back from a cruise or a foreign holiday.

It's a lot easier to avoid the grand slam if partner opens 1♥ if you are using a 15-17 1NT opening. (The South hand doesn't look good to upgrade. Kaplan & Rubens put it at 13.05 for the record.)

I think you're find that the expression is '6-5 come alive' (My apologies for being pedantic.) But that doesn't mean that with any 6-5 or for that matter 7-5 hand you should enter the auction twice. Suit quality and vulnerability must always be taken into consideration. Also, entering an auction twice after a initial pre-empt can be awkward if the shorter suit is higher ranking as delayed preference for the first suit has to be given one level higher.

I have seen Precision convention cards where 1♦ is described as 1+. The standard 2♦ Wei Precision hand of (43)15, 4414 or 4405 has been superseded by either a weak two in ♦s or a Multi 2♦. But just because it states 'unbalanced', it doesn't mean it can't have a good ♦ suit.

This happened in the Camrose match between England and Northern Ireland. 7♦-5! (At the other table 6♥ was made.) [hv=pc=n&s=saha9752dkj3ck972&w=s863hjt83d72cqj63&n=skqt7hkq6da65cat4&e=sj9542h4dqt984c85&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=p1cp1dp1np2dp2hp3hp3np4cp4np5cd5sp6cp7dppp]399|300[/hv] Obviously, 1♦ is a Walsh transfer for ♥s, 2♦ a game force or re-transfer. But how did they end up in 7♦. 7♥ or 7NT I could understand. Can you enlighten me? I am thoroughly mystified.

Who am I to constructively criticise world class players and their bidding? But... ...3NT is unlucky but it's also a leap in the dark. Zia's 1NT promises, in my humble opinion, 8-10 HCPs. His hand could be ♠Axx ♥Qxx ♦xx ♣Qxxxx. With 6-4 distribution I believe it is right to introduce the second suit with 2♥. However, whether that bid would be construed as game forcing is another matter. The difference between the bidding of Brink/Drijver and Zia/Meckstroth is that of an established partnership with bidding tools at their disposal, and two world class players who haven't had the luxury of playing together for many years.

Both tabloid, broadsheet and online journalism have to sensationalise something. First Brexit, then Megxit, now Crexit (My husband's term for the absurd amount of absurd newspaper column inches devoted to what basically is a nasty strain of flu that will kill off a sizeable amount of the population who are elderly and/or have other medical conditions.) Yes, we should all be concerned with coronavirus, but not disproportionately so. Flu kills thousands every year, not just in the UK but all around the world. If Africa can deal with numerous Ebola outbreaks until they are brought under control, then many of the first world countries with their top notch medical facilities and isolation units and public awareness through social media should be able to do similarly. We all just need to be more careful hygienically and take sensible precautions. EDIT: Just read this article online this morning. At least The Guardian hasn't been so sucked into the mass (media) hysteria. Coronavirus will kill thousands but it's not the Black Death of 1348 - thankfully... https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/coronavirus-nine-reasons-to-be-reassured/ar-BB10RvyV

I have to say, Peter, that I wouldn't be amused either. At some time in our bridge careers, we have all defended a small slam contact where the opponents have been off the ace and king in a suit but the contract makes due to the lead, but defending a small slam contract where the opponents are not only off an ace and a king in a suit, but also an additional ace (!) would rank as a true disaster. Better luck next time :)

Thank you Stephen and Helene for your posts. I assume, if this time using Bergen responses to 1♥, and the bidding goes 1♥ - 1NT - 3♣ - 3♦ shows this hand shape (6+♦s weak or similar), or am I wrong? Bidding 3NT instead of 3♦ here seems criminal.

I was watching Vugraph and this hand turned up or thereabouts [hv=pc=n&n=sj864h6dajt7542c8]133|100[/hv] If partner opened 1♥ in first or second position, playing the 2/1 system, without the opponents intervening, and without your partner using Flannery as an opener, or without you playing Bergen as a responder, what do you feel is the best bid for this hand? 1♠; 1NT (forcing or semi-forcing); or 3♦ (weak not Soloway jump shift) And how would you justify your bidding after opener rebids? (Btw I watched quite an amazing (in my opinion) bidding sequence where responder bid 1♠ and opener passed!!! [surely responder could be unlimited here...]

I think we can all get bogged down in the minutiae of hand evaluation and whether it is a 2♣ opener or a 2NT opener, and whilst this thread has seemed to exhaust every possibility, the reality of the situation is if partner has nowt or near to nowt in his/her hand, the player holding this hand will have great difficulty making any contract as they will have to lead away from the strong hand regularly. The OP asked our opinions: we gave them. If we play kitchen bridge it is a simple decision to say it is 22HCPs, and if we open all hands that have 22HCPs+ with 2♣ then that's what we will open, no ifs or buts. Admittedly, it is a close decision, but so are many other decisions in bridge. I see the hand as good 21 count and a mediocre 22 count whatever the table position and vulnerability. The danger here is that partner has a hand that fits awkwardly with the opening bidder but is worth pushing towards game or slam. That's why I am a little bit cautious here.

I'll be honest. It's more likely that we will reach a small slam than a grand slam, then again we haven't got all the sophisticated bidding techniques or relay systems that other players have. Make the ♠J the ♠Q and it's far easier to get there.

I respect both your own personal comment, Mike, and obviously, yes obviously! the advice a great player such as Jeff Meckstroth makes, but I tend to agree with Cyberyeti here: do you want partner to bid game on a fairly flat average four count? When Mr Meckstroth gave you his sound advice, did he also say that both table position and bidding opposite a passed partner applies, too? As there's a big difference between describing a bid accurately in one bid and overstating the strength of your hand - or, maybe more conversely, understating the slight weakness of your hand - by opening 2♣? Especially here it's more unlikely that the hand will be one where you will be in any 'catch up' scenario: the opponents have already passed vulnerable. Slam is a long way off, and it will only be on a smaller selection of hands where partner has a 9-10 HCP count, or unusual distribution with a lesser HCP count, where slam will be achievable. I'm more concerned that partner will be pushed towards game with meagre values if you open 2♣ rather than 2NT.

What I perhaps meant to say here when I say "a 2♣ opening is overstating the hand" is that the hand is 22 HCPs but it doesn't mean you should necessarily open it with 2♣ regardless of other factors. First it is not a classic 'partner needs very little for game to be made' hand. A red suit king might add one trick to the tally, but it would still be difficult to make 10 tricks in a major or 9 tricks in no-trumps, obviously depending on what partner has precisely. I was also always taught that a 2♣ opener should have 5 quick tricks available: this one has 4 and a half. And obviously again, distributional hands can be opened 2♣ without the requisite 5 quick tricks, but the nearer a hand is to a balanced distribution as this is, I would downgrade it slightly because it doesn't fit the quick trick criteria. The forum poster asked all of us whether he felt that due to number of factors this hand, despite its 22HCPs, is worthy of a 2♣ opening? Looking at all the different ways of evaluating, I would still opt towards opening this 2NT (20-22) instead of 2♣. Others might state they see no reason why it shouldn't be opened 2♣. That's what bridge is all about: a matter of personal opinions :) And, it would be interesting to see the whole hand, and what the outcome was.

I would never open 2♣ and bid ♠s here. It's a 2NT opening - if 2NT is 20-22 HCPs in your system - every time in my opinion. I look at the ♣KQ doubleton as the equivalent of ♣A. It's more 21 HCPs than 22. Opening 2♣ here is overstating the strength of the hand.

I would never open 2♣ and bid ♠s here. It's a 2NT opening - if 2NT is 20-22 HCPs in your system - every time in my opinion. I look at the ♣KQ doubleton as the equivalent of ♣A. It's more 21 HCPs than 22. Opening 2♣ here is overstating the strength of the hand.

I like this, too, given the range of options available. Two losing cards in the opponents' suit ♠s, and everything else covered with controls, gives partner the information he/she needs in one bid whether to progress to slam. The other reason why I like this is that a 4♦ bid allows them to compete in ♠s with a 4♠ bid easily. Now it is more difficult for the partner of the pre-emptor to judge whether 5♠ is a viable option.

No. But then I don't know every convention out there.