MickyB

I first played in an end-of-year maths lesson at school when our teacher got us - that was ten years ago (aged 14). My first duplicate was when I was 18. Within about three months I'd played three different no-trump ranges and three different meanings for a 2D opening, fours, fives and possibly transfers over a club as well!

Having played x-7-8-H on the first trick, it doesn't matter whether you later lead the jack or lead low to the ten - it's just a finesse with two cards out.

I take the opposite view on that last auction, Adam - 3♣ NF, everything else GF.

It is legal to play different systems vs different oppo in the EBU.

I recognise this :) I bid 1♠ in sleep

Some advantages for SAYC over 2/1 GF except rebid: [snip] (4) In SAYC, you can play in 2M sometimes when responder has invitational values. For example 1♠-2♣-2Red-2♠-Pass and responder has shown his 11 or so points yet you can still get out. In 2/1 GF except rebid responder starts 1NT and a major suit preference could be garbage, so you have to play at least 2NT. Ok, maybe my original statement was perhaps, um, overzealous :) But is 1♠-2♣-2Red-2♠ actually NF in SAYC? I was under the impression that this is forcing as standard on the other side of the pond, if it is NF then my opinion of SAYC has just gone up...a little :P

Yes, very nice. Your original line of running the ten also picks up stiff seven on your left, so it isn't actually worse than cashing AK (until you take into account the possibility of a ruff). Jack may well be trying to avoid a ruff - are you able to give it a hand where that isn't a concern - a 7NT contract, probably - and see how it plays the spades now?

I gather we didn't have a junior partner. Four juniors at the table, actually :) This was on international duty. +700 = good bridge Partner may be junior by age, but he is not a junior in the bridge sense. Bridge juniors don't pass with ♦QT98-8th. Well, in fairness, there aren't many bids he can make that just show diamonds...and 2♦ seems rather inadequate. Maybe his plan was to preempt next round!

I gather we didn't have a junior partner. Four juniors at the table, actually ;) This was on international duty. +700 = good bridge

[hv=d=e&v=b&e=sak72hj7d2cak6432&s=sj9hq95432daj7ct5]266|200|Scoring: IMP 1♣-1♥-X-P 2♥-P-4NT-P 5♣-P-6NT-AP Declarer meant 4NT as natural. Partner leads the ♦T. Solution hidden below[/hv] Whole hand:

Say 1D openings were banned. What opening structure would you use? You can still respond 1D to 1C, btw. Random question I know, but it might be going somewhere. Or it might not :)

Easier than Stayman then 2S?

Why is it worse than after a strong notrump? Presumably because losing garbage stayman is more significant.

A heart lead picked up the fourth heart trick for them, so having guessed trumps (pard had T9x) declarer could discard a club loser. A diamond leaves declarer with the most guessing to do, in practice a spade will probably beat it too.

My housemate was watching me play the tournament (as in, over my shoulder) and insisted I lead the JH. This found pard with KQTxx ;) Think any lead is good enough, as it happens, but this one looked most impressive!

...that would be even more ridiculous than playing it over 2NT ;)

We transfer then bid NT because that is the way to show an invite with five. We still expect partner to correct to 3M on a minimum with three, even though it might be 5332 opposite 4333. Here responder is definitely unbal and will miss a 5-4 fit if he doesn't show the minor now. What is more, should he consider his hand unsuitable for playing in his suit, he can still rebid 2NT as in standard. What does it matter that it's a minor suit? Unlikely the oppo will compete now, so it only makes about an imp difference...guess that adds up, but still - I expect 3m to be safer most of the time.

I'd much rather an unbalanced responder described his hand to opener than the other way around. The main reason for this is that if opener hears that responder has a GF with spade shortage, he knows that xxx spade means that they are close to slam, and that KQT spade means that 3NT is probably the spot. If responder, with a spade singleton, hears that opener has three spades, this information helps him very little, because of those two holdings are still possible. There are other reasons for this too, but Mike+I have debated this before without resolution, so I won't lead into the same discussion again.

Hang on. You *want* to play in 2NT when you probably have an 8- or even 9-card fit outside? Surely it's worth the occasional 7-card fit...after all, you'd transfer to a five-card major knowing it could be a 7-card fit. There's actually more reason to play in the minor here, as partner denying four cards in a specific suit (your four-card major) increases the chance that he has length in another. At MPs it's more interesting, but at IMPs it seems clear to play 3m. And that's leaving aside the possibility of a 4-6 shape. In fact, that's one of the few parts of this that I like :) The rest of it seems too vulnerable to interference (whatever methods you have to cope with it).

I'm always very happy to see oppo who'll open 2M with 5-4 majors. If the opening shows 5-5 then it is a bit different, at least responder will frequently look for opener's second suit so you'll find your fit in the other major. I certainly think they should promise 5-5 when vul. As for the 'current trend', the number of pairs instead playing 2D as a bad weak two and 2M as a good weak two is on the increase.

[hv=d=w&v=b&s=s97hj4dak96ct9864]133|100|Scoring: XIMP 1S:2C 2H:2N 3N Again, unknown oppo. Your lead? 4ths (2nds).[/hv]

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=sajhj853dq52caj65]133|100|Scoring: XIMP Unknown oppo. 1N:2H 2S:2N 3S:4S Your lead? (3rd/5th)[/hv]

I'd be playing something that varied greatly by conditions, especially seat. First seat, I'd be playing something akin to MOSCITO. Something designed to reach your final contract in two bids to really pressurise fourth seat. This is more important to me than any of the factors that I'm about to mention for the other seats, partly because, when we are in first, there's no chance that someone will have opened in front of us, so we'll always have the opportunity to use our openings when our hand is suitable. Second seat, I'd be playing a 17+ strong club. There's less advantage to having sharply-defined limited openings than in first, but having the strong club means we don't have the problem of showing 17-19 bal at our next turn, without resorting to a 2C/2D opening showing this hand. Another option here would be Polish Club. In third, I'd stick with the strong club, despite it gaining less on slam-bidding when opposite a passed hand. The structure I have in mind has 9-13 2m openings and can open 1M on 4M5m 9-13, both of which are especially suited to third seat. In fourth, I'd play strong NT and five-card majors or Polish Club. No need for preemptive four-card majors or 2D openings here, and only low-level competition anticipated. SAYC and Acol having one vote between them is one vote too many. SAYC has literally no advantages when compared with 2/1 GF except rebid.

Suggest 1N:2S as range ask, can get a lot of other hands through there still. Otherwise maybe 1N:2D, 2H:2S as the range-ask. Mixing 4- and 5-card invites is one of the main flaws in Keri.

If I can ask, is a 2/1 bid game forcing in your methods? I would be completely against starting with 2♣ if that bid were not game forcing. The entire point is that you have no need to establish a game force later, so if that element vanishes then it's a whole different ball of wax. It isn't GF, but responder's 2NT (or 2♠) rebid is.