vang

it's a joke man, no need for analysis ;-)

this is the reason for meckstroth-rodwell failures ;-)

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=skq10xxhxxdkjxxxcj&w=saxhqjxxdxxcakxxx&e=sjxh7xxxda10xcq10xx&s=s6xxxhakxdq9xc9xx]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv] thanks for all your answers. not much of a problem, i just wanted to see if there are people considering the small diamond return. with an expert partner, it seems there are, and with good reasons. i played this against non-expert opponents and i was quite intrigued by the diamond return (which led to a diamond ruff). but after all, for a non expert player, it may looks like a 50% guess, return diamond or heart. btw, would you have signaled for diamond (playing small club) in your expert partnership?

you play a matchpoints tourney and have in 3rd position: ♠ Jx ♥ 7xxx ♦ A10x ♣ Q10xx all vulnerable, the bidding starts from your partner (SAYC): 1♣ - (1♠) - 2♣ - (2♠) 3♣ - p - p - (3♠) all pass for some reason, you lead ♣Q and see in dummy: ♠ 6xxx ♥ AKx ♦ Q9x ♣ 9xx low from dummy, partner the lowest available ♣ 5 and declarer ♣ J from closed hand. matchpoints, you think that ... and continue with...

ask Chemla, Lebel or other french champions (they sometimes fake a 1D after 1C or 2C after 1D response). imo, inverted minors is good but not mandatory.

imo, second variant ("Takeout of opener's suit - catering to responder psyching").

i agree with the bidding so far and i double now. are there other options? ;-)

a simple 3♣ (since 2♣ is already GF).

part 2 and 3 are also there (GazzilliND2.pdf GazzilliND3.pdf). thanks!

Martens books Krzysztof Martens has recently authored five interesting books (in english): Extra Length transfer bids - 107 pages The Martens system - 232 pages Hand evaluation - Bidding decisions - 146 pages The World of transfers - 241 pages Dynamic declarer play - Virtual European Championships part 1 - 230 pages You may find a review at http://vangonbridge.blogspot.com/2006/10/martens-books.html

I suspect 4S will be a pretty popular choice. anyway, it's mine.

without agreement, i'd say splinter is with jump, otherwise bid naturalish. in the example above, 1S - 3C - (X) - 3H - 4D - 4NT etc

many experts prefer 14-16, main advantage being that 16HCP balanced is excluded from strong 1C and this leads to better notrump ranges (1C-1D-1NT is 17-19 instead of 16-19).

i don't know the laws so well, but agree with decision. it's obvious declarer would pull trump.

yeah, open with 3D are you are safe ;-)

1. 2S. presumably ask stopper for NT. if part bids 3C (without stopper), i'll still try 3NT. if partner bids 3H, i'll try 4H. i cannot be stopped ;-) 2. pas. i have done enough with 0 controls.

the chat does not have a time stamp and sometimes, you feel somehow lost (when scroll back ans stuff). i propose an automated chat message (for each table) at the beginning of each board, something like "board XX started". this will help people see what chat was before and after a board. thanks.

i'm curious too, but until people with real experience in this will gave their advice, those are my oppinions: 1. dinosaur bridge is dead. the team should be 3 pairs, not 6 people (use stable partnerships) 2. dunno 3. probably make sure the stronger pair plays in tougher matches 4. even the client should have his estabilished partnership. 5. make sure the client is confortable, i.e. plays against a pair who uses an easy to understand (natural) bidding system, strong NT etc or knows the opponents, played againts them before, ask him before the match what he prefer (he should be "protected").

i concur ;-)

can you detail a little bit what happens after 1♣ - 1♠ ? tya

i like zia/rosenberg style, described by rosenberg in his book, where you open 'what you feel like' with 3-3, 4-4, 4-3, 3-4 in minors.

table tennis too.

I have never claimed Rubens advances "solve all your problems". You have to be more careful with what you write. If you don't want to bother being careful, I suggest you simply don't write it at all. As for the superiority of Rubens advances, I will stand for it against anyone. If you want to argue against it, fine. But please let's stay on-topic because (3♥)-3♠-(pass)-4♣ is not a situation of Rubens advances, and you know it. uh oh, you are the one with an useless and offtopic* reply whereeagles. a good, long and worked post about an interesting subject and your reply telling us that rubens advances do exist. thanks, we knew. *in case you forgot, the topic is not rubens.

pass, i refuse to re-open with all honours in their suit.

The correct url, for bbo_fd_files, is: BBO_FD_Files Original version had an extra http:// . . may i suggest to make the group files read-only to anyone? right now only group members can access files and i suppose there are people who don't want to subscribe only to download files.