MickyB

PhilKing lost to Gillis [salisminde, Brogeland, Lindqvist] in the last 12 having beating Verhees-Van Projieen and Jason+Justin Hackett in the previous two rounds. The other two Phils went out in the round of 7, having beaten Hauge [Grotheim, Tundal, Svendsen] along the way.

Three BBF Phils are once defeated heading into the last twelve - Philking, Phil_20686 and Phil352.

It seems likely to me that North bid 4S as a save. I think there's a better case for arguing that pass is a double shot - if it doesn't drift a couple off we'll get our 140 back. Obviously, double would be more of a double-shot than either pass or 4S.

Correct :rolleyes: BTW, "us" was supposed to refer to both myself and Gnasher, I thought 18 and 15 respectively was possible. And yes, it's just done on golds for English+Welsh players I believe.

Bold = BBF regular on the team, italics = BBF irregular on the team. Apologies to anyone I've missed. I thought there was a chance I'd be playing Gnasher in round 1 but, as always, there were a few teams seeded 11-18 that I thought would be below us. Wank is our only player in the top 16 seeds [Edit: I missed David Burn first time, sorry] but I anticipate a couple more BBF teams winning their triangles/head-to-head. De Wijs is seeded 18, Verhees/van Prooijen are seeded 17. If they were both one place higher they would have been facing off in round 1! Other big names include Brogeland and Lindqvist playing for Gillis. Allfrey Miller Morrison Hauge Tracy C Barnes Gillis Murphy Lillycrop Penfold Wilson Hecht-Johansen Seale Gipson Nonnenmacher de Botton Feldman Kane Liggins Smith Shah Mossop Small Williams Ewart Kendrick Edwards Rees Bell Kurbalija Head to head (both seeded) Mestel McIntosh

There are lots of things that dummy could do, supposedly in the name of "attempting to prevent an irregularity", that we wouldn't permit him to do. I think it is reasonable to conclude that he is only supposed to attempt to prevent irregularities that he has been given reason to believe might be about to occur.

Specific 2nd suit eg 1S shows 4+/4+ in spades and clubs. I'm guessing your answer still stands though ;)

Yes, the OP cunningly avoided that by using the word "consensus" :( Besides, TriBal's latest responses to 1C work equally brilliantly with any no-trump range B-)

Would it be permitted to play that 1M showed two suits, the major and a specified other suit (which may be longer)?

I've never had any such complaints, perhaps because I only play tournament bridge so most oppo are familiar with the EBU CC's request to "clearly mark the card normally led if different from the underlined card". How are you marking the card you lead? I just have the card in "Arial Black" and bold. In any case, perhaps this is the best solution - H x x x T x x x

- Transfer Walsh is worth playing with any no-trump range - Playing weak NT with regular Walsh, you can bid 1C-P-1D on 5D4M 9+, knowing that you can GF to find the major fit if partner rebids 1NT. For this reason, I think regular Walsh is more playable with a weak NT, thus the advantages of Transfer Walsh are smaller. - Some play that completing the transfer shows a weak NT, and rebidding 1NT shows a stronger balanced hand. This is usually played with a 14-16 NT, giving you the maximum utility from your 1NT rebid - your three ranges at the one-level are 11-13, 14-16 and 17-19. - Others play that completing the transfer shows three-card support. This is usually played with a 15-17 NT.

I didn't say it would always be obvious who the strongest team were, I simply said that we should aim to field the strongest team. Obviously it is somewhat subjective and other factors can be taken into account. This week, however, I think there can be no doubt what line-up would give us the best chance of victory, yet [against what seem to be the strongly held wishes of the majority] you have chosen a different team. A strange decision from someone who claims to consider selecting the strongest team to be "a good goal". I am sure this will lead to a reduced interest in JEC matches from our strongest pairs; fewer wins vs JEC will probably equate to fewer new posters drawn to the forums; and, if we rarely submit strong teams, we may find that the invitation to play these matches is withdrawn. Admittedly, if this was going to happen, it may well have done so during our 33-game losing streak!

2pm Eastern

I think that, in general, we should be aiming to field the strongest team possible.

If 2) is true then 1) is hardly surprising!

Ok, fair enough, I missed that thread. I was under the impression that it was clearly equivalent to "small" and would've guessed it was mentioned in the laws as such.

Yes, this. Say oppo are playing standard leads, except they don't treat the ten as an honour. If they've circled the 2nd highest card in each Txx(x)(x) combination, it takes about one second to understand their methods. If they've moved the underlines, I need to check every combination listed to see if the card marked is different from standard.

I'm pretty busy at the moment, including practicing for Spring Fours [hence looking to play with my regular partner]. Don't think I can afford the time to play with anyone else at the moment, sorry, another time.

I do this a lot, never heard any objection before. Do you object to the use of "small"? Aren't the two synonymous in this context?

EBU convention cards have the standard card underlined and, if playing non-standard leads, you are to mark any cards that do not coincide with standard methods. Some who print their own cards decide to move the underline to the card they lead, which I find requires much more time and effort to work out what their methods are. I saw a new variant on this recently when I played against a pair who had moved the underline to the card that they lead, while circling the standard card!

I'll see if Simplicity is around Edit: He's not

2D bad multi 1st NV. We open it on complete rubbish and pass 2D frequently. Perhaps not a method for anyone who wishes to avoid director calls - I'm still somewhat in shock about a hand from August where 2D-P-P-3C was ruled "evident" on a 2335 10-count after direct seat had tank-passed a flat 14-count. 1C:2C showing 5+S,4+H [in conjunction with transfer responses to 1C]. So much better than using jumps to show this hand - you can stop in 2C, you can invite and stop in 2M, you can set up a cheap force and relay. 2C overcall of 1NT showing 3+spades,4+hearts [never 3433 or 3424]. Gets all three suits into play on 34(15), 35(14) and 4441, even 3442 when the conditions are right. Oppo seem to struggle to cope with it too.

Discussions about a similar method by Gawrys and hypotheticals about Hamman seem odd given that the defence in the OP is known as "Meckwell" - not that I'm a fan of the method either!

12G7b1 says otherwise, I was surprised too.

You make a good point, perhaps the correct answer is to open 1NT on 4441s iff oppo are playing Capp.