Manastorm

1NT seems a good idea. Looks like 1NT, if you forget one small diamond. When is it going to matter anyway. I have to make a bigger lie later. 5♦ or more require some effort from partner, why not give him the good news right away. If one card makes partner to missjudge the situation, perhaps he should give me one more chance to value my cards. What else, I have 21/2♥ response to 1♥, an obvious repid problem after 1♠ or 1N.

I would probably bid 2NT, bad things can happen in many ways. I have extras to compensate no stopper, balancing position and no hearts. Partner could have 7-8 good ones too. Opponents didn't raise, maybe the spades aren't too strong. Where ever we land, we land with confidence - the next time as I probably had a longish think. X is murky. If partner doesn't bid hearts, I am very happy. I pass, if partner bids hearts, and probably have to excuse myself from the table. I don't think I should make any effort to find 4-2 heart fit, which we avoid easily after 2NT or pass. Pass is a bit negative, but if you don't see a stopper or hearts what can you do. 3minor is not totally outrageous from a balancing position, but I don't see myself doing it.

I consider waking up and what happens consequently separate issues.

It is for claimer's benefit that he wakes up at the moment king of ♥ doesn't show up. I am not sure whether I am reminding the obvious or not, but there have been examples where waking up is mandatory when the claim and the facts are in conflict. As far as I understand the only reason for it is claimer's benefit.

Not making. It is not clear how declarer planned to play the hand. A reasonable line is to play a heart towards the ace, however declarer is going to wake up as mentioned and then the finesse must be taken and it fails.

I am in the 2♠ camp. Two aces are great, but are also a defensive resource. I do not want to encourage 4♠, if partner can't invite by himself. I considered passing 4♥, but it doesn't feel right. We get 3 tricks, but the 4th could be a problem. I do not like a situation where I am reluctant to bid 4♠, when I have the nuts. That is why I go for 4♠ and hope for the best. Partner could have 6-4, 5-5, but I do not understand why he didnt bid 4♠, which seems obvious.

I bid 4♠, not very happy, but what can I do when I try to win this deal. AKxxx in ♠ and ♥ shortness is about -500 and 4♥ makes. 2♠ is a very bad idea as has been explained. Talking about match point tactics is silly when you have one your best bids available. 3♠ shuts the opponents and they will make a guess next, we on the other hand are in a perfect spot. Partner can't get this wrong anymore.

I suggest could be light instead of upgrades etc. Your opponents have no idea what you do and when. If they ask, say could be light and shrug. You can bid tactical 12+ with 6 card minor and you are still within your agreements. If 14 is light, then surely 12 is even lighter. If you opponents become upset, poll experts and let them know it was good bridge to ease any ill feeling.

3M - 4♣/♦ - pass - pass with 10hcp is not a freak accident. 5minor does not make always and that is why the pass is a reasonable option for GIB. 28+ QJJ sometimes makes 6, so GIB can raise. Yes, if the info box says 28+ you better take it seriously. Overall the issues aren't so bad, you just have to learn what are the pitfalls. All this has been discussed years before.

I think the problem at hand is that GIB likes to leave 4 minor in with 10hcp hands, but the same time raise 5 minor to 6 with a balanced QJJ - quite unbelieviable. There is no remedy, pick your poison.

I decide based on the suit quality: I want suit to be led or I cant tolerate lead from Hxx. If all things about equal, I open 1♣. I dont reverse or do its conjugate, I dont see the upsides. People seem to be learning, it took quite a long time before reverse and its conjugate were mentioned.

In chess scene rating used to be exclusive for paying members, currently some sites give rating freely some dont (nobody believes in no rating). For exeample playchess and icc dont and chess24 and chesscom give. I believe the change from strength categories to ratings happened in the 70's when pocket calculators and computers appeared, internet era didn't even start from strength categories. What I gather is that you pay for live commentary and teaching videos, what ever premium membership gives. I am quite reluctant to pay for chess at the moment, despite the product is good. Especially good live commentators make watching pleasent, which is very surprising taking into account how little happens. The juice in the commentators knowledge and ability to represent it. I suggest BBO to give commentators command of the broadcast, now they seem under mercy of the vugraph operator. It is very inconvenient to see a card played, while there is something to say about the previous position.

I doubt Fred that is as cheap as you suggest.

Perhaps BBO could graciously allow players to pay for rating, if they really want it.

I describe openings like this: teach your friends how to bust unsound openings and learn nothing yourself. I guess it is ok to do it once to see how it works in practice, that is about it.

I add that I am in the camp: if nobody actually passes without BIT, pass can't be logical alternative. I continue that people should change their system, if the hand can't be opened. Some values, awesome spade suit, shortness and I want to let opponents bid their hand freely?

I bid 2♠ always, if it is rolled back, I think people are crazy. 3♠ is taking advantage of the BIT, because I am placing partner solid opening values based on the BIT. I am not sure what hand partner is expected to have, but it must be close to an opening hand. I feel any action, which is based on large deviation from it wihtout BIT is suspectful.

Current cheating scandal has shown how useful hand records and video data is. Could the hand records be used to disclose actual bidding and carding agreements? Pairs should provide a dataset how their methods work by test deals and actual tournament deals. Players could automatically see statistical information of bids: expected values, minimum value, maximum value, possible outliers, suit lengths etc. If bridge is played with laptops, why not take advantage of the new techonology?

I think I wouldnt either as long as you explain the tendency.

Indeed south should assume that is the agreement, but probably not what east holds.

I don't like this argument, but it reappears often in UI situations. If N was willing to defend 1♦, then surely he is more than willing to defend 2♦. Therefore pass is a logical alternative.

I would try 6♣ also. I am not sure what 5NT would be, but I think an ace or void somewhere would be nice. However I am not sure how I passed it once, so hard to say. On second thought I guess an ace or void is out of question. I think the sequence could be replicated up to the last double with many hands, but as things are partner confirmed he has lots of values and cant let go. x Ax AKxxx AQxxx is quite weak and we can make 6, shuffle abit we dont make 6. If I give a magnificent hand like - AK, AKQxxx, AJxxx, should he open 2♣ already, not bid 5♣, but 4NT or would he even double 5♠? Hard to say, but I feel there are more reasons to bid than pass. More I think partner could have more I consider 5NT and more unbelievable partner's hand becomes.

For example partner makes a bid for which we dont have an explicit agreement. However he has had the two types of hands many times with equal frequency, so we have an implicit agremeent. I dont know how to transmit UI better than just say that perhaps it was accidentaly said aloud that I have either high range of weaker case or low range of stronger case.

Earlier threads made me wonder about this UI case. Assume that partner's bid is an invitation either to 3NT or 6NT. He gave you UI, which suggests you to accept both. Unfortunately you have a hand that without UI would not accept either invitation. Therefore you should both pass and bid 3NT. It seems to me that you should not consider UI at all and bid whatever you like that is bid 3NT. This seems to gain advantage, because if partner is weak, you probably found a good 3NT and avoided hopeless 6NT. You are in a worse situation, if you choose differently. I did not mention the relative frequencies of invitations, but can it matter how you should bid according to the law? What if UI works in such way that it suggests you to bid on, if partner is weak, but bid less, if he is strong. Now you definately should settle to 3NT and it seems very wrong to do so in case you have a logical alternative, which is not suggested by UI. Does the law handle both cases without a hitch? How about when partner's bid is 3-way or more and UI works in a peculiar way for each case.

I am not sure what to think, but I would assume that partner is very serious about 3♠ not making. We pre-empted, the ops are trying to find their fit and the right level, it doesnt look like a spot to make a tight double.