MickyB

I think there are definitely times when you can see what contract the field is likely to be in. Alternatively, say you are playing 2m at favourable. It's quite likely that making a 9th trick may be more important than making the 8th.

I've actually got precisely that structure written out on my desktop from a few hours ago, Andy :D I tried to fit other hands into 3♣ and failed. Generally I agree with trying to withhold information wherever possible, but over 2NT space is at *such* a premium that I'm not convinced it should be the top priority.

Revised structure: When partner opens/rebids 2NT: 3♣ = 4+S, 3♦ = 4+H, 0-3S, 3♥ = 5S weak or three-suiter short in hearts, 3♠ = three-suiter short in spades (initally without four hearts) 2N:3♣ – respond like Stayman (3♠ with 4S4H) Over 3♦ – 3♥ = 5+S xfer GF [now 3N = 3(433)], 3♠ = 4S5+H, 3N+ = precisely 4S - a bit like Smolen, really Over 3♥ – 3♠ = puppet->3N, either a hand with precisely 4S or a slam-try in hearts, others = 5+S Over 3♠ – 3N/4♣/4♦/4♥ = NAT slam-tries 2N:3♦ – 3♥ denies 4 hearts, 3♠ shows 4+H Over 3♥ – 3♠ = puppet to 3N with precisely 4 hearts, others = 5+hearts Over 3♠, 4♦ = rexfer, 3N/4♣ = NAT slam-tries, 4♥+above = slam-tries with diamonds Disadvantages - Compared to regular Stayman, there are more opportunities for the oppo to double for the lead. Compared to puppet Stayman, we don't find out when opener has a five-card major. There's less room for slam-tries when responder has 4-4 majors and opener has 4H but not 4S. Advantages - Obviously, the big one is freeing up 2N:3♥, allowing shortages to be shown below 3NT on (31)(45), (31)(36), 4144, 41(53), etc 4M5+m responders get to show both of their suits (unlike 2N:3♣, 3♦:4m playing Stayman) More room for slam-tries when we have a 4-4 spade fit Allows responder to choose to play 3NT opposite 3S(433) but 4♠ opposite 3S and a doubleton.

The (31)xx hands are pretty important too IMO...other suggestions for a meanings of 3M will be gratefully received!

How about 3♥ as either a bust with spades or a three-suiter short in hearts? Now - 3♠ = not four spades 3N = four spades, to play opposite 31(54) Higher = four spades, lacking values in hearts

Ok, I can't see a way to sort that out. All may not be lost, though - see the edit at the start of my original post.

Argh - you're right, you can't do that when opener has four hearts (2N:3C, 3D:3H, 3S:P if he does not).

Edit two: Glen pointed out a flaw in the original structure, I've revised it about ten posts down. When partner opens/rebids 2NT: 3♣ = 4+S, 3♦ = 4+H, 0-3S 2N:3♣ – respond like Stayman (3♠ with 4S4H) Over 3♦ – 3♥ = 5+S xfer, 3♠ = 4S5+H, 3N+ = precisely 4S Over 3♥ – 3♠ = puppet->3N, either a hand with precisely 4S or a slam-try in hearts, others = 5+S Over 3♠ – 3N/4♣/4♦/4♥ = NAT slam-tries 2N:3♦ – 3♥ denies 4 hearts, 3♠ shows 4+H Over 3♥ – 3♠ = puppet to 3N with precisely 4 hearts, others = 5+hearts Over 3♠, 4♦ = rexfer, 3N/4♣ = NAT slam-tries, 4♥+above = slam-tries with diamonds Disadvantages - Compared to regular Stayman, there are more opportunities for the oppo to double for the lead. Compared to puppet Stayman, we don't find out when opener has a five-card major. There's less room for slam-tries when responder has 4-4 majors and opener has 4H but not 4S. Advantages - Obviously, the big one is freeing up 2N:3♥ 4M5+m responders get to show both of their suits (unlike 2N:3♣, 3♦:4m playing Stayman) More room for slam-tries when we have a 4-4 spade fit Any thoughts? Not quite sure what 2N:3M should be, perhaps shortage? It doesn't seem strictly neccessary to have 2N:3♣, 3♠ showing four cards - these hands could go above 3♠ - but then opener's 3♠ rebid would need to be very well defined, perhaps 33(43)? Obviously that's a lot of disclosure to the defence and gives responder less room to describe his hand, not sure it's worth it.

A few people in Oz do, Ken. And at least one person in the UK :)

Sorry, have just added the second double.

[hv=d=w&s=sxhxxdjtxckqjt9xx]133|100|Scoring: IMP (1♥)-X-(P)-3♣ (P)-3♠-(P)-4♣ (P)-4♥-(X)-?? Do you agree with your bidding so far? What is 4♥? What call do you make now?[/hv]

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=sqxhxxdaxxckqjxxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP (1♣)-P-(1♠)-X (XX)- XX shows precisely three spades. What's your plan? Edit: If you pass, partner will bid 2♦.[/hv]

I think that there are about 12, but Frances/gnasher/mike probably have a more definitive count. p That looks about right, of which about 7 or 8 are in the top 9 seeds. The majority have hired teams, I think, but a couple have just hired partners, and one team looks to have two clients on it.

Yup, the idea is that 1v32, 2v31, 3v30 etc play each other on Saturday morning, having each played against a randomly determined non-seed the previous evening. Where there are gaps, the three teams play a triangle over 64 boards.

Fair enough, but I was meaning more for anyone considering coming from abroad to play an event. I still much prefer the Spring Fours, though. Maybe it's because it avoids the hassle of arranging matches. Maybe it's because I love the double-elimination format. Maybe it's just because I haven't reached the Crockford's Final yet :)

I wouldn't, but I know good players for whom it would be absolutely clear to overcall. Don't keep us in suspense, Winston, do you think it's worth an overcall?

My instinct was that it meant twice a year, but that bimonthly meant every two months. It had never occurred to me before that this is odd. I've never heard the term "semi-annual" before. T'internet suggests that you've got the two terms the wrong way round - but don't blame me if this is wrong, I don't consider myself an authority on the subject :rolleyes:

I'm not sure the answer to this question is terribly relevant. With xx opposite xx in the scenario presented, I'd rather be in 5m. However, I can't imagine getting there terribly often - it would require giving too much info to opponents on hands that will lead to 3NT anyway. Plus, how do you propose to diagnose that we aren't missing an ace on the side as well? Admittedly 3NT may well be off then, even if they don't lead their suit they'll usually have a chance to switch to it. A related question that I've been considering is "After 1N:2♣, 2M:??, should a (43)(42) with xx in an outside suit investigate alternatives to 3NT?", however that is more aimed at playing 4M in a 4-3 than playing 5m.

Mike - anyone can enter, and everyone should do IMO :rolleyes: It's easily the best event in England IMO, and it is held in a lovely town. A few comments - Green+co (seeded 3rd) being that high is shocking, but not because of their standard - I think that team deserves to be about 6th - but because I'd have expected the seeding panel to underrate them, not overrate them. Shillitoe has done well the past two years, but two years ago he had different teammates and last year the team didn't have a terribly tough draw to reach round five. I'd be disappointed if my team didn't batter some of the seeds, two of our players have recently moved to the country so I suspect the seeding committee didn't know who they were. We've got a bit of a group of death - a triangle over 64 boards against #14 and #19 - the latter look like the strongest of the second tier of seeds (17-32) and probably the strongest team in our group, anyone could win it though - at least I hope so, because I know that either of the other two teams can!

This analysis would still be ignoring the benefit of being able to open a strong NT when you have one. Btw, why the need to break down the results into contested and uncontested? I greatly prefer a strong no-trump (or 14-16 - depends how aggressively you open in 1st+2nd) in 3rd+4th, there are a lot more reasons for it than just the one your teacher gave.

4♥ looks obvious

I've seen a few pairs independently develop this basic structure. I don't feel as strongly about it as Hrothgar does, but I agree with the general principle - I think the gains from having 2♣ as part of your preemptive structure are minimal, and certainly smaller than the losse from giving less definition to your constructive openings. Obviously you love your weak two in clubs, if you are right about the gains it gives you then perhaps this is the system for you. Alternatively, 1C as 11-13 bal/any 17+ and 1D as clubs or diamonds might be preferable.

You certainly can't give a split-score in this situation in England, I'd be surprised if you can anywhere - either the hesitation suggests bidding 6C or it does not, either pass is an LA or it is not. A split-score would be appropriate if the 6♣ bid was disallowed but it was unclear what might happen after - if it was reasonable to think 5♣ might go off (despite 6♣ having made at the table) you'd give a percentage of 5♣ making and a percentage of 5♣ going off.

2♣ as "either red suit" is legal in most events in England, I think the level 5 convention you are recalling was a 2♦ opening showing either red suit. The pair in question gave up playing it not long after, I think.

Nothing in life is perfect: The choice to pass the transfer opening with weak hands is based on a fairly simply cost benefit assessment: 1. If we pass a transfer opening with a very weak hand we will (on occasion) suffer a loss when we play in a silly contract 2. If we pass a transfer opening with a very weak hand we will (on occasion) enjoy a gain because all of our responses promise real values. In turn, opener will be much better positioned to compete effectively if the opponent's blunder in to a misfit auction If you believe (as I do) that the benefits from 2 outweigh the costs from 1 then you're content to pass the trasnfer opening. Sure, but if you don't play transfer openings then you don't have this problem. It seems strange that you would make this type of elementary mistake given your extensive experience playing against transfer opening structures. Playing MOSCITO responder's first bid provides very specific information about his strength and the length of his trump support. The auction 1♦ - 1NT shows ~ 7- 11 HCP and precisely 2 card trump support 1♦ - 2♥ shows ~ 7-11 HCP and precisely three card trump support 1♥ - 2♠ shows ~ 7 - 11 HCP and precisely three card trump support It's certainly true that responder doesn't know the precise length of the trump fit. However, opener knows precisely what's going on. Things certainly get a bit more dicey in a competive auction when there is an overcall directly over the transfer opening. Such is life... It seems a bit much to call Adam's statement "an elementary mistake" when you admit that you are less well placed over a direct seat overcall - hardly infrequent. There is also the problem that MOSCITO's raises often tell opener precisely what is going on - he's in the wrong contract. This is particularly true of two balanced hands with a 4-4 fit, you land up forcing yourself to the three-level in order to put opener in control of the auction.