MickyB

Agreed Matt, mr1303 and I played that same defence partly for the same reason. It also saves space on the convention card :lol:

Forgot to talk much about ranges - I'd say that: Asptro gets better as the 1NT opener gets weaker Lionel is best at a certain point - against 16-18 you won't pick up many penalties with the double, against 9-12 a straight penalty double is much more frequent and much more useful than against a 12-14 NT When playing Woolsey, I used a penalty double against a 1NT that could have 13 or less points

Or if you use it as weak!

My favourite is Lionel (X ♠+another, 2m that suit and hearts, 11+, frequently 4-4 shape). It focuses on the majors but has the flexibility to play 2m when it is right or penalise the opps in 1N X when they aren't expecting it. Asptro is pretty good. It lets you get in on 5-4s without making partner guess between your two suits, and keeps the penalty double. It can land you in the wrong fit on occasions though. I also like Echognome's defence, except for the fact that it is quite similar to Capp :) 2♣ majors leaves room to ask which is longer, 2♦ a major stands up better to interference than the Capp 2♣. This is ok against a weak NT, but its greatest virtue IMO is that it can easily be modified into Woolsey for use against a strong NT - just make X show 5m4M. Woolsey lets you find your best fit, usually at the 2 level, at the expense of the penalty double. Unlike Lionel, its double isn't frequent enough to justify using it against a weak NT in the hope of catching penalties on the side. DONT has to be one of the worst. It is far too orientated around the minor suits - fairly often, good opps will be "disturbed" from 1N tick to 2M tick. The 2♣ overcall in particular is awful - if you are 4243, you could pass 2♣ only for pard to have 5♠4♣, or bid on only for him to be 4♥5♣. The double also has the same preemption problems as the Capp 2♣ - 1N-X-2S-find your 6-3 heart fit now! I think my candidate for worst defence is called Roche. Its main feature was a 2♣ overcall showing a weak NT...

When playing 2/1, I use a jump shift to the 3 level as either weak or invitational, and put the other range through 1N. Not sure which I prefer between weak and inv, probably weak by a short head. Mike Lawrence recommends 1M:2m as GF unless suit rebid, and 1M:3m as strong. This handles the below GF hands well and the SJS hands fairly well, but loses out on the GFs that can't make a SJS. I play all jumps to the 2 level as weak (5-8 or so), now bidding and rebidding your suit is constructive (9-11) and a jump rebid is GF.

3♣ is absolutely fine. Double is penalty orientated so I pass.

I think this would be a very useful feature. IIRC you were worried about it being used for spam - maybe it could be done in the form of groups that individuals are invited to join and can leave at any time? Or possibly better, a feature that allows you to send chat to all friends, but they only receive it if they also have you in their list of friends?

Let me guess - it hasn't happened since we last played together Mark? :rolleyes:

2♣ is is a standard part of EHAA Wasn't it in Roth-Stone as well? Or maybe you were playing against Fantoni-Nunes :P

Many worldclass players pass flat 14 counts? P-1X-P-P, 1N is 10-11 or so because pard could have passed with a decent hand. Bidding a natural 1N here isn't going to get you to game, hence it isn't clear what it should mean. The first one is definitely unusual. Showing a flat 11 count here is asking to go for 1100, or to help opps make their game, or...

As usual, I'd just like to agree with everything that david_c has said :) 1♣ as 15+♣/bal 1♦ nat or 4♦5+♣, possibly using a 1N rebid as showing ♣ >= ♦ 1M 14+ ish 1N 12-14 2♣ 11-14, 6♣ or 5♣4M 2♦ 9-13, 6 card major 2M 9-13, 5M4m 2N Weak with a minor or GF with diamonds sounds pretty good to me. I probably still wouldn't make 1M openings forcing - if you bid on a 0 count I suspect you will be a fair bit more likely to get too high than to find a game you would have missed, particularly when you take into account the opps might balance. If you find you don't get too high opposite 0 counts, you are probably losing accuracy opposite another range.

Certainly negative doubles made 5 card majors playable. Whether they raised fives above fours is for you to discuss with the Hackett twins :)

As usual, David_C is right (well, we agree with each other - which I think makes him right!) If you can play a weak only multi, then do. 2NT varies between almost useless and worse than useless as a preempt - at least, when playing against good opps. I'd *much* rather have the ability to pass partner's 2D opener when I'm very weak (NV only) or have diamonds. IIRC you are in the UK - it is level 4 here, so in level 3 events I'd suggest increasing the definition of your bad ranges (2N 20-21, 2D then 2N 22-23) or playing something else entirely - possibly a Frelling 2♦, showing 4+diamonds along with 4+cards (or maybe exactly 4 cards) in a major. 4M5m is riskier and less constructive, but slightly tougher for the opps to deal with. I'd prefer to play Muiderberg. 'Gnome may not be convinced that 5/4 either way is sound, but I'm convinced that it isn't :) If you want something aggressive and frequent, I'd suggest a Frelling 2♥ - 4+ hearts, along with either 4+spades or 5+clubs.

As the EBU site hasn't been updated, I shall provide the results service! In Round 6, IIRC Armstrong beat Wolfarth, so Armstrong will be the undefeated team going into the semis. They will get choice of opponents, and if they are down after 32 boards they can extend one of the matches to 40 boards. Wolfarth joined the five winners below looking for the other three places. Mizel (inc Forrester and Victor Silverstone) beat Helle (including some of the Dutch Open Team - Muller, Verhees, Hoogenkamp) Goldenfield beat De Botton (inc Hacketts twins) Monachan (inc David Burn) beat Price (see above) Jourdain beat Allfrey (inc Robson) Apologies, I cannot remember the result of McPhee vs Teltscher, and I left before the semi-finalists were determined.

I'd love to :) We went into the event unseeded and looking for the experience of playing some top teams. Much to our surprise we managed to win our triangle (although we cut it pretty close at the end lol), setting up a "clash" with 3rd seeds Allfrey (McIntosh, Robson, Bakhshi). This was a fairly one sided affair, but making a misfitting 21 point 3N against Robson will live on in my memory for a while! Our next match started off badly - I twice raised my partner to slam with a void in trumps...one of which was a decent contract, not bad for juniors :) Our teammates then pulled in a huge card to level it, and we took the final set by 1 IMP! Our next match was against the original 3rd seeds Price (Simpson, Gold-Townsend, Mossop-Zivkovic). We played out of our skin to hold this to 33 IMPs, very happy about this one :) Awesome event, I've never played in anything with such a high quality field. We went into the event unseeded, but well worth playing in it at somepoint if you can, and thats not just for Brits - it's worth a trip IMO. Hope to see some of you next year!

I assumed it meant 2/1s NF

I am struggling to see the point of playing 2♣ as F1 on this sequence! Unless I was playing in a partnership that I was confident could find a fit in the fourth suit, I'd rebid 2♥. Ok I just tried to vote for that and failed lol

Thanks for the replies. I've been persuaded to go with double as spades and another! For anyone interested... 2♣ will be clubs and a red suit (at least 4-4 if hearts, at least 5D4C if diamonds - this will keep it easy to find our heart fits), 2N 16+minor single suiter or GF 2 suiter without spades, 3m 10-15, 3M 16+. The minimum strength for double and 2m bids will be reduced for balancing NV - I'm thinking maybe 9 points by an unpassed hand, 8-11 by a passed hand. Thanks again

I agree that it is reasonable to teach transfers to beginners, but not for his reason. IMO the feeling that opening 1NT entitles you to play the contract arises *because* of transfers. The problem that beginners have with weak takeouts is that they are so different to any other part of bidding - all other responses at the 2 level are forcing, searching for the best strain. Also, they have usually been taught that they should play in 8+card trump fits only, so when opener has a doubleton he feels compelled to rescue his partner.

Yes, I agree this would be a worthwhile change.

Numerous times I've returned to the BBO window to find a message asking if I wanted to leave a message for someone I'd never heard of. I'm not saying that it definitely isn't a bug, I was just suggesting the same thing might have happened to you.

It sounds to me like 2 and 3 aren't bugs - Fred said in his post that the "Help me find a partner" button won't work for a couple of days yet The mail message thing probably means that you accidently click on Pinochio's name bringing up a chat window. When he logged off, BBO replaced the chat window with an option to send him mail instead.

You are going to have to do some serious grovelling to get Richard to forgive you for this ;) In the MOSCITO document the point is made that transfers leave the opponents an easy way into the auction.

I was thinking that a 2♦ response to the double should show a hand that would rather play in ♦ or ♠ than ♥, but would choose ♥ over ♣. I guess this gives more info to the opps than a 2♦ response that just says you would choose ♦ over ♠ but ♠ over ♣.

Just to check I've understood you correctly - the advantage for Lionel over Druid comes when: They manage to compete to 2♠; Playing 2♥ or 3m would be a better score than defending 2♠, but playing 3♥ would not be; We cannot reach 3m My instinct says that this is fairly infrequent and that the loss is worth being able to compete more frequently in spades when the conditions favour it. Maybe it is best to use Lionel in direct seat or vulnerable and Druid balancing NV :rolleyes: