MickyB

I've done ok in them and I've only ever used my laptop...I can only assume that, if I too used a desktop, I would own you both.

... but they won the 2002 World Pairs, an event which includes a five session final How have they done in pairs events since? Any very poor MP results from when the hands didn't suit their methods? You need quite an edge on the field before anti-field methods will reduce your chances of winning an event, I know very little of the World Pairs but it wouldn't surprise me to hear that the field is strong enough that being anti-field is not a problem, even for a pair of that calibre.

Supporting with support will solve all of your problems. By rebidding 1S South has endplayed himself, he now has to either pass 2NT when 4H may be cold or force to game with 3H when you may have a misfitting combined 22-count.

Yup, one of the positives of playing it is that you solve the "I want to show a balanced hand but I don't want to miss a 4-4 spade fit" problem. I played 1C:1D, 1H:1S as a puppet to 1NT and 1C:1D, 1H:1NT as NF 4-4 majors. IMO playing that completing the transfer shows 11-13 (or 12-14) balanced is much simpler, you've most of the continuations in place already.

Hmm. At the table, ewj doubled on this hand, and I passed it on a hand I'm sure everyone else would pull on. My thinking was thus - Partner probably has a pretty good idea what everyone at the table has. (We had already seen oppo to be fairly conservative, and they had made their calls without any apparent anguish) If pard decides to double when he knows approximately what everyone has, then it would be wrong (and insulting) to pull it. In particular, I expected a trump holding that pard would be happy to lead when he got in. I can think of the following counter-arguments - - Given my hand (a 5044 pile), it's pretty odds-against to be right to try to take a penalty anyway - We need pard to double and me to pull at the two-level so that I don't pull erroneously if they compete to the three-level. Of course, they are hardly likely to compete once we've doubled them in 2H, but at least this way we declare 2S not 3S. Oh well, at least when we play with screens there won't be any temptation to over-analyse the oppo's tempo in this way!

It certainly feels like the same sequence without a negative double in there should be natural, as responder may feel the need to keep the auction open holding long diamonds. Maybe with the double in there you can assume the diamond hands would kick off with a pass rather than 1NT?

(1♦)-1♠-(X)-1NT (P)-2♣-(P)-2♦ What does this mean? If it's relevant, oppo are playing SAYC.

♦ for me. Very close between the reds

What makes you say this, David? The response to the transfer should be pretty much the same as to a NF 2M bid (obviously with 2M replacing pass), so I don't see how partner potentially being 1435 opposite a NF hand with spades is more difficult playing transfers. I've not read it in much detail, but the scheme here seems promising, using 2D as H or various other handtypes.

Our spade length is a negative factor - if we were 0733 then 4♥ would be auto. As it is...I think I'd make do with three.

2♣ = 6 cards or (41)35, 10-14 points Seems most are still using 2♦ enquiry, 2M nat NF here. What's opener's normal action if responder bids 2M into his singleton - pass or pull? Sure there must be a better scheme using transfers.

I don't think there's any UI from the explanation here. What hand could possibly want to play in 5♣ opposite an invite but not have interest in slam opposite a stronger hand? Hell, it's hard enough to find a hand that would bid this way a hand known to be precisely invitational. My only worry is that opener conveyed info to responder with his body language, and that's very hard to prove (or disprove).

2M being NF is great when you want to be in 2M opposite a misfit. It's less good when you have 5M3D or similar and want to be in either 3D or 4M. I suspect the best structure will involve 2H as a transfer. Not sure about higher bids, my inclination is to use 2S as a general enquiry and have 2NT showing hearts.

[hv=d=w&v=b&n=sxhkqjxxxdxxcqtxx&s=sakqjxxxxhaxdakca]133|200|Scoring: MP By far the best hand I've ever seen, let alone picked up myself. Can anyone beat this? Pard opened 2H so we were in 7NT pretty quickly. One table went (2D weak) 2H (3D) 7NT, and another table played in 6♠![/hv]

While I like the method, I'm not convinced this is an ad for it - does transferring then bidding 3NT promise a stop? If so, what does responder do without one?

I'd pass. If I wasn't vulnerable, I'd probably double. Never 2NT.

5♦. 3NT seems slightly bizarre to say the least.

Love this hand, Roland. If you look at the heart suit in isolation, I think the two cases of restricted choice lead to no choice at all - there is a very definite optimal strategy for the defence. Edit: When I was thinking about it initially, I was assuming West would always overruff with the ten from QTxx. Or, indeed, always overruff with the queen from QTxx. If that is a 50/50, then yes, it's just all lots of restricted choice :)

Say East had followed the the jack instead of the queen - what now?

Really want to bid 2♣ for majors, but without that I'll start with a double and hope I get a chance to show the majors at my next turn :P

LOL Pass gets a LOL but 2♠ doesn't? :P

Oi, that's my system :rolleyes: [Try searching for Gemini - I'll try to put a link here when I have more time] Interesting that we reached that having started in approximately the same place - a system with 1M as (usually) either 4 cards or 6+.

If 12-15 is too wide for 1NT does that mean that 20-21 or similar is too wide for 2NT? No. The problem over 1NT isn't the hands that land up in game, it's the ones that land up in 2NT or 3M having invited. Holding 10-11 opposite 12-15 will happen way more often than holding 0-4 (or whatever) opposite a 20-21, not least because the 20-21 hands are much less frequent in the first place.

Agree with the last two posts, except I strongly prefer strong no-trump in 2nd seat, and am not that fussed even 1st NV, so in practice I play strong(ish) no-trump throughout at the moment. Playing strong club, that's 14-16 1st/2nd and 15-17 3rd/4th. Playing natural methods, it's 15-17 1st/2nd and 14-16 3rd/4th.

When I was young and naive, I played mini NT 1st+2nd, 0-15 in 3rd, which turned out to not be very legal. We stopped after my pard, lacking a forcing opening in first seat favourable, decided to pass a flat 24 count safe in the knowledge I'd bid something. Apparently this constituted a forcing pass system :) So we switched to 8-15. I went off it in the end, it was hard to know when to compete and when to double, and a constructive 1NT opening is much more useful IMO.