MickyB

Fair enough, I see you have put more thought into the matter than I have B-)

I remember a top player [Martel?] saying he didn't like KI for this reason. I am unconvinced, many bid 1H-P-1N-2S fairly aggressively, and as Wank says, doubling 1S isn't risk free. Personally, I don't like KI because I think the extra space is more important when responder shows spades than when responder denies spades, although it is somewhat system dependent - KI makes sense if you play Flannery, for example.

1. I'm surprised. Second seat can have a decent hand with some club length. 2. The "pulling 1NT" thing was in comparison with standard methods. 3. If completing the transfer shows any hand with three trumps, surely you can't pass it very often. We'll play 5-3s at the one-level when you would be risking missing game by passing on your six-count. 4. What I meant was, we can show a balanced hand with our rebid and still find our 4-4 spade fit. Your 1C:1D!, 1S can presumably be 4234, ours promises 4S5C. 5. This seems like a non-argument. You think that rebidding 1H on a 4333 12-count and a 1336 19-count is better than showing the general nature of our hand with our rebid? Describing your methods as simpler seems bizarre too. We need to agree one thing in addition to standard agreements [what 1C:1D, 1H:1S means]. You need to have a full set of agreements in a non-standard situation [i have three-card support and otherwise am saying nothing about my hand]. Anyway, this isn't actually what I play. The closest equivalent would be - Complete = 12-14 NT 1NT = C+D unbalanced 2D = 18-19 NT 2C response to 1C = 5S4H NF which feels nice in a Better Minor context; but if you open all balanced hands 1C then you should probably canapé most 4D5C hands anyway.

This. If you are happy to do so, I think you should just sort the team, compromising between the strongest team available and rotation as you see fit. Agree in principle, but as you say, you'll probably be struggling for numbers a few months down the line, at which time being flexible on this point would make your life much easier! I'd be interested in playing with one of my regular partners if needed.

Bidding 3♦ on the first round is safer and more productive than letting RHO show his suit and then backing in.

In the context of opening all balanced hands 1♣, I'm fairly sure completing should show any weak NT, just on frequency grounds. If you open 1♦ on balanced hands with 4♦ then alternative methods may be better.

Don't you also need to win it if North has AQxxx and the club ace, and South has J9 tight? I think winning the first trick is clearly right.

Of the two options, I prefer complete = weak NT. 1C:1R, 1M is harder to penalise than 1C:1R, 1NT No more decisions about whether to pull 1NT to 2M on a five-card suit Occasionally you'll be allowed to score +80 You can find 4-4 spade fits on weak hands after 1C:1D, 1H Much better auctions when opener is strong balanced 2NT rebid is free for 6C3M [admittedly playing 1C:1D, 1H as three cards will solve this hand too] I wouldn't play 1C:1R, 1NT as narrower than a 1NT opening. If you don't want to open flat 11s then play a 2.5 point range [good 14-16 or 15-bad 17] and give up your way of inviting in NT without a four-card major.

On the way back from a match in which we had lost to a much weaker team, one of our players blamed the captain for allowing pre-dealt boards to be used, which had led to wilder distributions and thus greater variance. Not only should we have dealt by hand, we should have been careful to avoid shuffling too much.

[hv=pc=n&s=st72hjt753d32ckt6&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=ppp1sp2sp6sppp]133|200[/hv]

Bd 1 - 2S by N is auto. Any time south has four spades you'll have done the right thing, and even when south has three spades it might well be ok. I'm sure I'd have doubled at the table as South, but pass would be ok too, partner is still there. Should this really have gone three off? Bd 2 - Double, no second choice Bd 3 - I play Michaels as constructive+, the East hand is completely minimum and has no reason bidding again. West should bid a preemptive 3S over 2D. Bd 4 - It's not my style to open 2S, we're just screwed whenever we belong in clubs. I quite like opening 3M when I have 6M5m with a reasonable major suit, but opening my weaker suit when 5-5 will leave partner unable to evaluate even when we belong in spades.

I was amused by an article in the Daily Mail. Tax on second homes was reported to be increasing from 50% to 90% of the standard rate. The headline described this as a 40% increase. I wondered at the time whether the paper had deliberately got it wrong to avoid confusing their readers, at the cost of making their story sound less impressive.

I played this in my first partnership. Obviously it is an improvement on Italian, but by a tiny amount, and many people find revolving counter-intuitive, so I've not played it since.

Someone is looking to get nominated for post of the year

Passing is fine imo, the KQ spades are almost worthless on offence [either pard or RHO has a stiff spade]. Partner's pass was from another planet.

That makes sense, for a while I've played 4m as splinters and 3N as a spade splinter but this sounds better.

Always 2N is better imo, worth losing a step when hearts are agreed in order to deprive LHO of a double of 2S.

Agree with this, except I'd swap "2-point" for "2.5 point" - I'd never feel the need to use a natural 2NT if my ranges were "12-bad 14" and "good 14-16", for example.

For me, the question is whether to treat 14-16 as weak or strong. I treat it as weak, but then I do love my weak NT defence a ridiculous amount. If forced to play Multi-Landy I would probably treat 14-16 as strong, I dislike not being able to get in with 4S5+minor.

Yup

I once had a position where I should have won trick 11 in hand, upon which I would have led a plain card towards dummy's 5-3 of trumps with the 4-2 onside. I messed it up and the 4 won trick 13. My proudest bridge achievement is winning two successive tricks with the beer card.

Same as Justin, except I raise with a balanced hand with three-card support iff I have a low doubleton, Tx being marginal. My partnership should probably rebid 1NT on all 43(42)s to get maximum use of responder's 2♥ rebid [4♠5♥ NF] but I doubt you care about that!

I would have passed a couple of years ago, posts by Fred have convinced me this is wrong. Without the diamond ten it would be close for me.

Responder attempts to sign off in 2H or 3m opposite the assumed 1NT rebid. What now?

The best rebids here may well depend on what responder's breaks over 2H mean. Rebidding 3S on H+minor is awful if responder might want to bid his spades naturally at this point, but it makes sense to have a break on the previous round to show six spades anyway, to avoid responder bidding 2S and wrong-siding opposite the balanced hand.