The_Badger

Personally I don't like 2♣ as 18-19 balanced only. Just my opinion. It covers too small a percentage of hands. If you want to use 2♣ as some multi-coloured bid, in a similar way that Acol has a Multi 2♦ then I feel that would suit it better.

Personally I would have led a trump myself. My partner led ♦A. Declarer's hand was ♠AJ8xx ♥AJ98x ♦xx ♣x, Dummy's was ♠KQx ♥void ♦QJxx ♣AQ10987 Thanks for all your replies. The contract is always there with correct play, but on principle I just wanted to see how other players would lead. I'm not keen on leading an unsupported ace in a suit contract (even in the suit that the opponents didn't bid)

Now that is LOL :D GIB getting itself into trouble instead of a player

Hello Kapi. Welcome to the forum :) An honest opinion. Inventing a system around the 'destructiveness' of very weak bids when non-vulnerable might scare a few older folk (and even some of the younger guys too) at the bridge club or inexperienced players on BBO, however it will probably get countered more often than not by seasoned professionals. But you will get tops your way admittedly. However it's your bridge game, not mine, so play what you feel comfortable with. You have to have a bid available for big hands, be it 1♣, 2♣, or 2♦ so replacing your 2♦ Acol bid with an Ekren-style weak bid means you have to incorporate your big hand bid somewhere else into the system. So, in theory, you can have a 2/1-based system without an Acol 2♣ or 2♦ opener. I had a quick look at your profile Kapi and yes, when I was your age I was always trying to tweak systems and conventions. Make my convention card more exciting. But certain systems and ideas in bridge do stand the test of time, so do bear that in mind too. And good luck with your bridge. And as I say to many players: Winning is great, but enjoying the game and the friends you make is even better :)

Good try Nige1 but then East hasn't got an opening bid. Lol :rolleyes:

It's IMPs (apologies for missing that info.)

Given your skill level as per your BBO profile, let's keep this as easy as possible. Stayman and Jacoby transfers are usually only used by a responder, not an opener bidder. There may some bidding sequences by agreement (as listed by Tramticket) that may deviate from the norm but it's best to remember at this stage the simple sequences. 1. After any opening bid of 1NT or 2NT 2. After a 2♣ opening, a 2♦ response and a 2NT rebid by opener (though even here some players may play this differently.) It can also be used when your partner overcalls 1NT over an opponent's opening bid too (by agreement). Just bear in mind that it's the responder of the no-trump bidder who uses these conventions and I don't think you will go far wrong.

LOL perhaps needs to be replaced by GOL now - Groan Out Loud. GIB's weird bids are just far too commonplace overall. As Steve says 'It has no clue'. And I agree.

Personally I wouldn't have bid the two North and South hands this way (but most players reached a final 4♠ contract) however that's how my opponents bid the hand, and partner is on lead. What card would you have led? IMPs [hv=pc=n&e=s93hkt76da95ck542&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=ppp1cp1sp2cp4hp4sppp]133|200[/hv]

In my view it's a horrible hand to open in 4th, but Marty Bergen's rule of 15 sort of demands that you do. Just because you chose to open 1♣ vulnerable and got a top on this board doesn't guarantee that with a different dummy that will be the case. Quite a few human Easts would be opening 1♣ third in hand even vulnerable and passing any response from partner

Generally dislike leading against NT with A(K)(Q)xxx and a four card suit, but in the absence of any other information and a non-Stayman 1NT-3NT raise, will do so from a major suit. As for a A(K)(Q)xxxx five card suit will always lead 4th against NT except on the very odd occasion when I feel leading 5th could possibly deceive declarer into miscounting a hand (but that is so difficult to judge on a 1NT-3NT auction admittedly.)

That's not a hesitation, Cyberyeti, that's a breath hold for a freediver! I don't see why declarers can get away with this: if the shoe was on the other foot and you were two tops up and defending for an extraordinary amount of time on one board, I'm sure any declarer would be screaming for the director. Is there still an Ethics Committee at the EBU? File a complaint against the player. Why let it go? It's probably not the first time this tactic has been employed by this player and his partner.

This is similar to Swiss Teams lead #2 inasmuch you're only likely to be on lead once so you have to make the lead count. Once again a ♠ doesn't incur the wrath of partner, but ♦Q gets you a chaser in the bar.

Director! I'm trying to make sense of South's 1NT, then forcing (or should that be 'forced') pass, then 5♦. A ♠ doesn't incur the wrath of partner, but the ♥J might get you a free drink in the bar afterwards. You're likely to be on lead once so its the only lead that may cause a headache for declarer, I feel

4♥ with that hand, with its singleton ♣, good cards in the doubler's suits and a solid heart suit is not only a bad bid, but a really lazy bid, in my opinion.

The strange thing is even though 4♣ is the right bid (in my opinion and others) it doesn't quite feel the right bid, if you understand what I mean. Taking away a whole level of bidding to emphasise the quality of your hand and suit might push the partnership too high. Let's be honest a good opening hand with a good suit opposite a negative double isn't a guarantee of slam by a long stretch of the imagination. I, too, contemplated X followed by 4♥ as a more conservative way of advancing the bidding. The problem I can see with that is that X could be seen, in my view, as just extra values in a responsive type double situation hand. Bidding 4♥ after X could be seen as (?) good, long suit, not solid, some fit with partner, 13-15 count. Mmmm...even I'm not sure.

Small ♥ looks standard, but if declarer/dummy has ♥A and Q it's not going anywhere surely? Has dummy a singleton ♥Q and leading ♥K was preferable? Not something I would have considered at the table.

Couldn't agree more, Steve, but the proverbs 'You can't teach an old dog new tricks', or 'old habits die hard' come to mind but, yes I agree 'It's never too late to mend, and it's never too late to learn' should be in Trump's personal mantra too.

As much as I personally dislike Donald Trump, I think it's actually good for a country to have a businessman in charge than some career politician. Career politicians I tend to find just say what the electorate want to hear. Modern politicians, I find these days, just haven't got the balls to get hold of a country and turn it around, putting their own personal stamp on things, even if their ideas and methods are particularly unpopular to many. Here in the UK we have been bound up with so much red tape and bureaucracy that we struggle to breathe. Add into the mix European legislation as well, and as a country now we have absolutely no direction now. My opinion. And whilst Trump might be uncouth, vulgar, sexist and racist around the edges, and unpopular generally - I do think the word 'disgusting' is a little harsh as he is a man of a certain age, who's been brought up a certain way, and does things his way, and a leopard's never going to change its spots, is it? - I do think that he does have the USA's best interest at heart. There's nothing wrong with being patriotic and being proud of one's country: I just wish he would operate with more humanity and think before he tweets.

Surprised Nige1 didn't mention the speciality of Acol: The Pudding Raise. It could be adopted into a 2/1 system quite easily I feel. Simply put 1♥/1♠ - 3NT shows 4 card support for opener's major and a balanced hand with no singletons or outside 5 card suits. Usually a 13-15 count. That could leave the Jacoby 2NT for 4+ card support and more shapely hands.

I believe many of us lesser mortals would have played the cards exactly in the same way as Brogeland. It's a tough one (certainly for me) to visualise. Great hand still! Thanks for posting. "The Battle of Trump Reductions" seems an apt name.

And alcohol isn't suspected on any other days? But, even as a kibber in the Acol Room, as I am occasionally, I am in total agreement that club chat is very irritating. There should be a way of turning it off without losing table chat.

Charlie Gard. The baby that touched many people's hearts. All I can say as a humane being is that it distressed me how his short life became a media circus of medical and legal arguments. If he had been granted treatment, albeit experimental, at an earlier stage in his life, then his parents would never have had to go through all the legal wrangling, where the only winners are the lawyers. Any experimental treatment, by any recognised health professionals, should be allowed with the parents consent when a very sick child needs help, in my opinion. All that I hope is that Charlie's short life, and everything that occurred because of his distressing situation, will not be in vain, and that health and legal professionals will now act more responsibly. Hippocratic oath? Mmmm.... RIP Charlie

Just been reading in detail that the USA will experience a total solar eclipse in just over 3 weeks, the first total eclipse from coast to coast in 100 years. Many cultures still regard total eclipses as bad omens, and there is a separate mythology associated with portents when these astronomical events occur. In either a jocular or serious mode, I'll be interested what some rational Americans (and others) think will happen on that day. My take on it: Donald Trump's Twitter account finally gets hacked :)

Balanced hand, two stoppers in the opponents pre-emptive suit, 16HCPs, there is absolutely, in my opinion, no other bid than 3NT. Bidding 3♥ and possibly getting raised to 4♥ will usually result with the pre-emptor leading the ♦A (as his partner hasn't raised white/red so is likely to be short) the next ♦ being ruffed, and declarer on the back foot thereafter.