MickyB

Yes, it does sound rubbish. Your 1♣ opener is very underused, and your higher level openings won't leave enough room for investigation. Can't see anything mentioning hands with both minors either.

Interesting, I thought the first one was the clearest of the lot! Not sure what I'd do on the third one at the table, but thinking about it it has got to be right to bid at IMPs - there's just too much chance that one of the games is making.

Thanks for your efforts on this Steve! As you said, some of it still needs some work due to the copying and pasting, have you made any further progress? Or has anyone else tidied it up? Am thinking FD could be useful for teaching the Freshers, should any of them be keen enough to start playing online immediately!

Yes - start playing transfer walsh responses to 1♣ and you'll quickly find yourself wanting to open 1♣ on all balanced hands. I'm not sure how to work out which method is superior. How are the arguments different between standard and Polish? The only one I've come up with so far is that you can open 1♣ on only 2 in Polish Club without worrying you might play there.

They won't be rated the same - par will tend to be lower for the 2nd hand because the opps are likely to be able to make less.

2♠ seems clear. You need to get a lead directing bid in, and preempting won't make things much harder for them and will carry considerable risk.

Yup, will be playing it for the uni team this year :) Nice point on that sequence being passed. Not sure I like the two ways of pulling to 2♠ - if you felt the need to improve the original contract of 1NT, 2NT probably won't be great! ATM I either have the 1NT rebid usually show 1-2 card or 2-3 card support, but how about this? 1C = nat or bal 2D, 2H, 2S responses show 5 cards with 4 card club support, non-forcing 1C:1S, 1N:2D/2H = 5S4D/H 1C:1S, 1N:2S = 6 cards

Only if you think it won't be the normal contract.

You're not alone here. Me too. On a hand worth just 1 bid, bidding the longest suit you have can't be horrible... At IMPs important to play the safe part score, i.e. 2♦ not 1NT. If you want to play Walsh, play TRANSFER Walsh. 1♣ - 1♥ (♠) 1NT - 2♦ Pass If pard will rebid 1NT bypassing a 4 card spade suit, then IMO it is much better to respond 1S than 1D playing Better Minor. Pard will rarely have 4 diamonds so won't be able to put in a raise, and if he does you will just goad your opponents into finding their 9 card heart fit. Agree on the Transfer Walsh thing, except I wouldn't treat opener's hand as balanced, if I was to treat it as balanced I'd rebid 1♠ showing 11-13 bal, and if I then wanted to sign off in diamonds I'd have bid 2♣ puppet to 2♦ :)

Yes I like that. Constraint 2 probably needs rephrasing - I think your intention was, at level vul, for 4S making 8 tricks to be ok if they can make 5C? So "We can make at least as many tricks in spades as in any other strain" sounds better. Might be useful if our overbidding/reaching the wrong strain could be measured in IMPs rather than just success or lack of?

It is a horrible preempt because you need the room for your own investigation, which isn't really part of the scope of this thread so far, and would be very difficult to incorporate. I think putting a limit on the maximum strength of the preempting hand would make the 'par level method' work.

I reckon the best measure of a preempt is what level we can bid to without going beyond par.

Wow, that aces thing is far more pronounced than I would have predicted. I've got my excuse ready for next time I preempt on xxxxx xxx xxx xx, "At least I didn't have an ace partner!" Think KQJTxxx would come out ahead of KQJxxxx in a larger sample - not that I'm asking for one :rolleyes:

Weak NT in 3rd, and to a lesser extent, 4th seat is just bad. My main reason for prefering to play strong NT is that then I don't have to worry about varying the range.

4 card suits works well with a 14-16 NT in 3rd+4th, assuming you are happy not being in game with flat 13 opposite flat 11. Have a passed hand response promise a 5 card suit, then you can pass it quite happily holding 10-13 flat. I tend to make lead directing bids on these weaker hands, suppressing the longer minor can work quite nicely. I tend to raise on 3 card support unless 4333 or 4432 with a doubleton honour.

As Cherdano says, there is little difference between the tactics in teams matches and cross-imped pairs - each board in the pairs event is calculated as though you are scoring up with many teammates. In addition to his point on predicting what will have happened at other tables, there is the issue of what you are trying to achieve - if you are trying to win a short event with many tables you will need to take risks (eg not taking insurance against a slam), if you are one of the stronger pairs and you just need to finish in the top half (eg a qualifying event) then you will play down the line and be more willing to take insurance against bad scores. Go for overtricks more readily in NV games than in vul games. Not only do you have less to lose, but 450 against 170 is worth an IMP extra (7 IMPs), whereas 650 against 170 is still only 10. Butler IMPed pairs, unfortunately common in junior events in England, are a different matter.

I'd sooner have 2♣ as 5-4 majors or 6 diamonds, 2♦ response says pass with diamonds or bid your longer major...works fine unless responder is 2425 exactly. In fact, in that case you can bid 2♥ pass or correct as you can cope with competing to 3♦ - opps must have a spade fit. Unlike most here, I think DONT is worse than Capp. After all, Capp is pretty close to Multi-Landy which I quite like, so I can't dislike it too much :P Playing with a pick-up, I'd just go for Landy or maybe Woolsey.

Agree that AWM's 2nd and 3rd points aren't terribly relevant, but 1st+4th ones are. I don't see any particular need to open flat 11 counts, I don't like jump rebidding 2NT with 17 or having a 17-19 range, I don't like opening 2NT with 19...IMO it is probably best to play it as good 14-17 and accept you'll miss the odd game with average 14 opposite 11, as long as you don't open light enough that pard is wary of GFing on 12 counts you should be ok.

Good points Ben. Justin - August 05, Problem F. Just looking now...KJ62 7542 Q643 7, Kleinman found a pass of this 2nd double, and at least a few others considered it to show a big bal hand. Like you, I'd have expected typical shapes to be 3451 and 3442.

With 4M5m - if you are happy to pass after 1C:1M, 1N then bid like that; If you feel you would be worth a raise to 2N on that sequence then bid 1C:1D, 1N:2C, 2D:2M, as it leaves open the possibility of playing in a Moysian 2M or 3D instead of 2NT.

yes I would say impossible given your t/o X. The Bridge World MSC recently had the auction 1♣-X-P-1♠, 2♣-X which IIRC the majority took as penalty orientated (probably 19-21 bal). Surprised me.

Agreed Hannie, this is a 2♥ bid playing 2/1. It is just too hard to express your values otherwise.

Yes, but we were not vulnerable :lol:

I've now changed my mind on this - I think a 9 count with 1-6 in the majors should just pass 2S, so 3H is genuinely invitational.

Sorry Mike, I should have said - 4th highest leads.