MickyB

I like my HTC Desire, other than the poor battery life, but I haven't used iPhones enough to be able to state which is better. Personally I would avoid getting an iPhone now because, based on past experience, there will be a new one out in June, which I know would annoy me!

An odd statement IMO. I would be shocked if less than 20% played it as limit, I would expect more like 30%, and the pair in question play fairly simple methods, so I would have put the chance at them playing it as limit at over 50%.

No. There's no wastage and it's still not that great a slam, unless I am missing something it is below par on a trump lead.

Shape is far more relevant to me than suit quality. I would never bid 2H with 2S5H, while I can't think of anything better to do with x xxxxx Axxxx Ax. If I was 15(43) then I would look as much at the strength of my hand as the strength of my heart suit. It's a fairly horrible sequence. I really like my pet methods, I think they are miles better than bidding naturally here but I am happier still playing 1NT as NF.

In spades, sure, but I don't think an invitational hand with four hearts should be starting with 2D. Bidding 2C then passing 2D is the percentage action IMO.

3S, 3S, 5C. On the first our heart length reduces their chances of having game on and on the second we have a poor suit at unfavourable, it's closer to being a two-level opening than 4S IMO. As an aside, do you really still play bad multi/good weak twos in third?

The first is clearly NF. IMO 2C on the second denies four spades unless 7-4 shape, it will frequently be passed. I'm not quite sure what this means for the 2S bid, maybe something like 3136?

I'd also heard it referred to as Terrorist 2C, not sure where that came from. 2C fert sounds like any hand within a point range, like in a forcing pass system.

Really? IMO the seventh spade makes up for the poor suit quality, the only question is how good the hand is. If you remove the heart queen, opening 2D would be automatic.

Oh, I applied for loads of stuff at one point. I thought the Bell 1S was going to be an opening bid showing either minor. As for the 1S response to 1C, surely it is played by quite a lot of T-Walsh pairs?

No idea - what was it?

As I think I implied in my original post, I've looked at Asptro before. It's better than Astro, but still has its fair share of issues. The biggest is if you have something like 2434 or 3451 and partner overcalls 2D. How do you show interest in game opposite hearts but stop in a safe part-score when partner doesn't have hearts? A lesser issue is that with 3442 or 3352 opposite a 2D overcall I would prefer to play 2S in a 4-3 rather than 3C in a 5-2, but I cannot do that without risking missing a superior heart fit.

Multi or 1S depending how sound your 1M openings are. I bid 3S now.

I have found that Multi-Landy works fine when you use dbl as 4M5+m but is far too restrictive when you need double as penalties. At the opposite end of the scale, Astro and its variations allow you to get in on a lot of hands but fare poorly in some situations, especially when overcaller has both majors. For a while, I have been playing David Collier's "Half-Astro", with 2C as both majors and 2D as spades and a minor. Compared [superficially] with Multi-Landy, this allows you to get in on 4♠5m hands at the expense of being able to show both suits on 5♥4m; an improvement IMO. I have now taken this a step further; 2D still shows spades and a minor, but 2C shows 3+S4+H - basically, either [both majors] or [hearts and a minor with three spades on the side]. This 2C overcall is still much better defined than a regular Astro 2C overcall showing hearts and another, but allows you into the auction on 34(15) which many methods do not. Indeed, its ability to offer several places to play works so well that I advocate overcalling 2C on 35(32) and even 3442 when appropriate. All this leads to my question - what on earth should I call this defence? My initial thought was to call it "Three-Quarters Astro", referring to the 2D overcall being the same as Astro and the 2C overcall being half Astro, half Landy, but as names go that really sucks.

Agree with JLOGIC, except I am more arrogant than he and will tell you that if Meckstroth overcalls 1NT on this hand, he is making a mistake [albeit a small one]. Hell, I'd probably tell him that too :P It's really a pretty horrific 15-count.

The first response said it all IMO. Well, almost all - the only addition that springs to mind is that, regardless of what you play in 1st+2nd, I would play natural, wide-ranging preempts in third seat.

The TD ruled that the result stood, saying that if dbl had been on the N/S convention card, West would have been able to read it inconspicuously. There was no mention of a PP for N/S. The possibility of bidding 2D to show both majors if dbl showed the minors was mentioned, I do not know if this suggestion came from West but I believe not. The result was not appealed as it did not have any bearing on the result of the competition.

I don't think I did a very good job of describing the East and South's level - while they were weaker than the "strong players" [and yes Jeffrey, they were the men, but I'm sure that's a coincidence :P] they are both above average when compared with the other women in this mixed pairs field, and East is very experienced.

The former.

[hv=pc=n&s=s532hat53dqj63cq9&w=sk876hk976d52cjt4&n=sqj4h2dkt84ck8652&e=sat9hqj84da97ca73&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=p1n(14-16)ppd(4M5+m)p2c(Pass/Correct)p(Asks%20about%20dbl)pdp2hppp]399|300[/hv] North called the TD at the end of the board, having agreed that there was a potential UI issue when dummy went down. Table result - 9 tricks on the QS lead. This hand is from the mixed pairs. North and West are strong players, East and South are weaker. Both pairs would consider themselves to have a chance of winning the 84-pair event. The North/South convention card was lacking in fine detail, and merely said "Multi-Landy" in the defences to 1NT box, and West says he knew this at the time, hence having to ask about the double. N/S can prove that this was their agreement, despite the hand not matching the description, and say that South had no reason to expect this - it has never happened before in this partnership. How do you rule? Apologies if "Spoilers" are considered inappropriate for this forum, but I am interested in both the ruling with the facts that I have presented, and with the full facts, which are below.

The UI definitely suggests bidding, pass is definitely an LA. You could well be going for 500 or pushing oppo into a cold slam, both of these are less likely when pard has tanked.

Eh? What method do you suggest? Assuming you aren't playing a multi or something, I can only assume you are advocating 20-21 2NT opening 22-23 through Kokish 24+ opens 2C and rebids 2NT This hardly seems ideal when you pick up 24+, although that will be infrequently. The truly bad methods on display in this thread are Cyberyeti's, whose three-point 2NT bid is much more frequent than OP's. For some reason, this is completely standard in the UK.

Agree with JLOGIC, except that playing weak NT and 2/1 I think you have to rebid 2C on 5=3=3=2 and 3=5=3=2.

I was considering a system where 1M was either five cards or a minimum with 4M5D. I already play 1M:3D as a three-card limit raise, but playing that system it would become non-forcing. It's almost worth playing the system just to have that come up on vugraph :D

Playing Gazzilli doesn't solve this problem IMO, isn't it usually played as clubs or 17+? I play a 2/1 response as either 9-10 with a doubleton in partner's suit or a GF hand, this works very well.