MickyB

Ok, thanks. Is that because dummy has shown a 6+card suit?

Oppo are vul at IMPs and bid 1D:1H 2D:2N [iNV NF] 3H:3N Should double ask for a diamond lead? I believe it is standard for it to do so after 1D:1H, 2D:3N, but here they've rather staggered into game - especially as it's vul at IMPs and opener may have stretched to accept in case partner had five hearts. My instinct is that it will be right to double this frequently on stuff like KQx in diamonds, but only if this won't induce partner to lead one!

I was slightly shocked by the celebrations of Thatcher's death. People could celebrate both 22 years ago and 16 years ago, quite what her death does for them now is unclear to me. I've seen multiple claims that she was evil [for having policies you disagree with and having the power/duty to implement them?] and misleading statistics like "she never secured more than one-third of the potential vote" [her party scored 54% more votes than any other in 1983, by that measure the most emphatic victory in the last 80 years].

I think this is a fairly standard US/RotW divide in perception. Certainly most in the UK wouldn't put him in the same class as the others.

Awful. 1C = 16+ 1D = unbal no 5cM 1M = 5 1N = 12-15 would be better and leave the two-level for some fun

A link to the thread Gszes is referring to: http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/59465-call-to-arms-428/

It would be a improvement to play - dbl = spades+another [could be 4S5H] 2S = six cards as this would allow you to play 1N-X-P-2D as "pass with diamonds", letting you out in 2D opposite 5S4D. It would also be an improvement to remove 5S4H from the 2C overcall and put it into 2D. With equal length in the majors opposite a 2D overcall, advancer would know to prefer spades, and the 2C overcall would be much easier to handle [consider 3352 opposite a 2C overcall - if partner has 4H5C you want to play in 2H, but you don't want to miss a superior spade fit opposite 5S4H]. However, even after these improvements, I think there are better methods out there.

How do you suggest diagnosing when to play in a 4-3 fit taking the ruff in the long trump hand rather than playing in your known 8+card fit? 3C as natural, weak and dbl showing extras is very intuitive once you think of the 1NT bid as showing clubs. Having said that, it occurs to me that you'd want to bid 3C on 4153 in these methods as well, which is rather less intuitive and would miss your 8-card fit opposite 3334. X showing extras gives you more flexibility to stop low on those hands - including in 2S when you don't have an 8-card fit elsewhere - unless you are suggesting that X be weak-or-strong and 2S/3C be NF showing extras, which sounds reasonable. Once again, this would leave us wanting to bid 3C on 4153.

Aha, now I understand why you claim to play a 12-16 no-trump B-) If I occasionally treat 10 as 9, that doesn't mean I need to explain my range as 5-10. This is just misleading, anyone capable of counting points on defence knows that upgrades and downgrades happen. To answer your question, yes I would respond 2C on that hand, indeed I wouldn't bid 1NT on any 10-count. It's not pretty, but if partner opened a 15-16 NT I would raise to game, so I can't afford to respond 1NT here. The range of 1NT is more like 5-8, at IMPs at least.

Not playing Acol weak NT, it doesn't. 1NT is to play opposite a 15-16 NT.

I'll start with the bonus question. 3C is clear. 4144 isn't a "textbook double" once partner has denied four spades. You know you have an 8-card minor fit, 3C is the way to get there. Double shows a good hand, so your 3NT bid was probably correct. 1) I bid on both hands. Good things happen when you compete at love all. If both contracts are one off that's 3 imps out, much more likely is that one makes and the other is one off in which case it's 2 imps in, that's before we even get to the times when both contracts make or they take the push to 3S-1. 2) Prefer Stayman but it's close, admittedly I skip Stayman more than most. 3) I agree that, as RHO rates to have some soft cards on the side, a passive trump is best. If you pick up partner's trump honour declarer was almost certainly going to find it anyway.

I'm not convinced this is a 3C bid. Dunno, maybe I am underestimating the chance of a double diamond stop. There's certainly a case for North to bid a less committal 3S over 3D, assuming South could now bid 3N on a balanced hand without showing a stop.

South should just bid 5C over 3C. It's pretty hard to come up with a hand opposite where 3NT is better.

I disagree - it's the negatives on which Gaz really sucks, most often when you fail to find your club fit. Could you still be INV with hearts here? If not, then 3H should show hearts+clubs and a good hand, which would be an option here.

Hypothetical scenario - The declaring side give MI to the defence, contributing to a contract getting let through. Screens are in use, hence the MI not being corrected before the opening lead. You estimate that, with the incorrect information, the defence were 60% to defeat the contract. With the correct information, they would have been 80% to defeat the contract. What percentages of making and going off should be awarded? If it is not obvious, what's your methodology for determining this figure?

Polling is useless on this hand. All it can do is establish whether 3D is an LA, which it clearly is. In order to decide whether to adjust, we need to suggest whether the UI demonstrably suggests passing is likely to be more successful than bidding 3D. In this case, 3D may be the only LA, but that is irrelevant to any adjustment. However, the selection of a bizarre call at the table - one very unlikely to be taken without UI - may justify a PP, even if we conclude that the UI does not suggest passing is more likely to be successful than 3D.

I partnered Dennis Bilde for three boards in the Junior Indy in Philly in 2010. On one board, declarer had A987x opposite xx in a side-suit, with the ability to take one ruff in the dummy. Declarer led one to the nine, and holding KJx Dennis won the jack and played the king back, giving declarer a losing option out of nowhere. Ever since, I've been following his progress closely, expecting great things.

I've not heard of anyone ditching T-Walsh in 3rd+4th. What you say is true but I doubt the effect is sufficient to make natural responses better than transfers. By the way, my 1D opening is either natural or a weak NT. After a 1st/2nd seat opening I play 1H = spades, 1S = hearts in some partnerships, but after a 3rd/4th seat opening I play 1M = natural. This is a much easier change to make than reverting to natural responses to 1C.

http://www.acbl.org/nabc/2013/01/bulletins/db9.pdf page 14

http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/monaco-out-of-the-vanderbilt/

I'm not sure it's that simple. Preempting with *undisclosed* length in the majors is obviously not ideal. I had never heard of Muiderberg players agreeing not to open 2M holding 5-3 majors, but it makes sense - you are far too likely to belong in the other major on these hands. When we have shortage in the majors, oppo are more likely to have game, but how often does a bid that leaves oppo with a 2M overcall destroy their game bidding? I think there's more to be gained in the part-score battles. Over natural(ish) 2M openings oppo will often be unable to compete to 3m without partner converting to 3NT. If you compare 2H [5♥3-4♠ unbal] with 2H [5♥4m0-2♠], not only is the former more frequent, but you are much more likely to reach a playable strain when partner is short in hearts, especially once you factor in the greater utility of 2H-X-XX.

1♥. I don't think of it as "completing the transfer", it's just another bid for me, artificial and forcing.

Not a bad idea. Over 2H-X you'd have a way to ask for partner's four-card suit. This thread has made me want to try a 2C opening showing 3+spades, 4+hearts, like my defence to 1NT. Besides greatly increased frequency, this allows a pass-or-correct bid for partner's four-card suit even when oppo don't intervene [2C:2D, 2H:2S].

Congrats :) Here's to 33 straight wins

Spades were 6-0 btw, so the 4S bidder was certainly not resulting!