MickyB

Agreed Helene - I think people overrate the difference between MP and IMP bidding, many think you should be much more aggressive in part-score battles at MPs which is a massive over-simplification. The vul matters much more for part-score battles at MPs. I'd consider playing a more aggressive defence to 1NT at love-all and a less aggressive one at game-all. At IMPs, you are fine using a middle-of-the-road defence throughout.

Apologies, I forgot to put the auction for the second one - it was indeed 1♠:2♦, we would have raised clubs if partner had responded 2♣

My partner and I disagree on what these two hands should rebid playing 2/1 GF (reverses show extras) [hv=d=s&s=saxxxxhxxxdakqcxx]133|100|1♠:2♣ ??[/hv] [hv=d=s&s=saxxxxhxxxdakqcxx]133|100|1♠:2♣ ??[/hv] He feels they should both rebid 2NT - the former because 2♠ denies an unbal hand, the latter because you need better spades to bid them twice. I feel that both hands should rebid 2♠, the former because 2NT is likely to wrong-side no-trumps, the latter because it is unbalanced. Are both styles reasonable? Is one of them standard? Which is your preference?

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=sj873hat762d862c9]133|100|Scoring: IMP 1♠-P-2♠-X 4♠-AP Your lead.[/hv] Edit: For anyone who knows the hand, yes, I have got the minors the wrong way round - I'll leave it like that now.

Phew, was worried I was going crazy - I thought double was obvious, but the first five people I heard comment on the hand went with 4♦. Yup.

[hv=d=e&v=b&s=sxhxxxdakqjxxckqx]133|100|Scoring: IMP 3♠ on your right.[/hv]

No. Far too much stuff in the short suits and not enough in diamonds to make it right to compete.

It does appear that they forgot about that hand when writing the system! It's probably best to just rebid 2♣, and have 1♥:1N, 2♣:2♦, 2♥ no longer promise three clubs. At least you will still have the inference that opener will have either four clubs or be in the upper half of his 11-16 range. Is that an "unofficial" version of Ambra? I thought Ambra was basically Garozzo's system, but the document has been written from a Dutch perspective.

Ambra 2.6 - link made clickable

Presumably you are supposed to pass with a minimum (where missing a good game isn't a significant risk) and find some bid to make (two of a minor-suit?) if you have a good 13 upwards.

Really? What would the reason be? I spent too much time looking at my bridge hand and deciding it would be great for a 4 Fantan instead of just passing? Most of the Barbu games are trick taking, NT-oriented games anyway so I doubt it's that bad practice. Maybe it was because they were up too late the night before since a full game of Barbu takes what, 2-3 hours? It does seem the most likely explanation...the other being that their cardplay resembled misère!

A one-time NPC of mine said that he had seen teams fail to win tournaments due to playing Barbu the previous night.

Your method with a strong NT is a more constructive, forward-going approach and is no doubt better at finding your games. A weaker and/or wider ranging NT is more obstructive to the opponents - it's a question of what you think is more important. At least in 3rd seat, many people favor aggressive preemption and obstructive bidding. When you make a wide ranging NT bid like those I suggested, responder knows he's just competing and only does so based on shape, rather than having to worry about if his values are sufficient to invite. Partner opens an 8-16 NT, RHO overcalls 2H, you have a 4144 or 4243 seven-count. Are you acting? This style will - Miss your fits Leave you guessing whether to compete for the part-score Leave you unable to penalise the oppo when opener is maximum Go for penalties Fail to the direct the lead, as a suit opening might Make it harder to bid constructively From this, it might sound like I think your suggested method is ridiculous, which I don't. It will certainly have its successes, I just think they won't be (quite) as frequent as the losses.

I prefer a strong NT/4cM approach in 3rd+4th. The main problem with a wide-ranging NT is that if the oppo bid, responder will have no idea if he should be competing or not.

In response to 1♦, a balanced 9-10 count really has to respond 1NT - if partner has a weak NT, you don't want to be any higher than that - so split-range 2/1s cannot apply there. I just play that 1♦:2♣ promises a rebid.

I've recently adopted a new response style to major-suit openings when using strong NT and five-card majors. I'll be playing it in the Junior Whitehouse tourney in March, hopefully if it comes up on vugraph everything will go smoothly! -- The problem with 2/1 GF is that the 1NT response is overloaded. The main problem comes on auctions like 1S:1N, 2D:2S. Here responder could have just an ace, or he could have an average ten-count. Of course, the problem with light, Acol-style 2/1s is that there aren't enough forcing bids available when you hold a big hand. However, there are also some issues there on the invitational hands - 1H:2D, 2H:2NT. Assuming 3H now would be NF, how do you accept the invite without missing a 6-2 heart fit? Also, if opener is about to pass 2NT, you could easily be missing a safer part-score in clubs. What I realised was - "Constructive" hands of about 9-10 points, typically with a doubleton in partner's suit, are best handled by responding at the two-level to show some values, while being able to stop in two of partner's major opposite a minimum - 1S:2D, 2S:P or 1S:2D, 2H:2S, P "Invitational" hands of about 11 points are best handled by responding 1NT. This leaves opener with as much room as possible to describe their hand further, helping responder to decide what strain to invite in. This also allows responder's 2NT rebid to be forcing to game. Thus, Split-range 2/1s were born, the name referring to how you respond with a doubleton in partner's suit - with 9-10 points or a GF hand, you bid at the two-level; With a poor hand or an invitational hand, you respond 1NT. Many of the other decisions associated with the system are the same as in 2/1 - Forcing or semi-forcing NT, constructive raises or not, responder rebidding his suit being forcing or not. (My preference is semi-forcing, slightly constructive and non-forcing respectively). Over a 2/1 response, some of opener's rebids are artificial - 2NT shows a game-forcing single-suiter There is a bid showing a GF raise - in Amsterdam, I will be playing that if opener jumps in the suit opened, that shows a GF raise of responder's suit. With David_C, I play that after 1M:2m, 3m+1 (e.g. 1♠:2♣, 3♦) is the GF raise. 3NT shows 17-19 balanced. With 15-16 bal and a 5cM, you are compelled to open 1NT.

Thanks for answers so far...I can't imagine it's right to play 2♣ as NAT when 1♣ will be 5+cards 95% of the time, as many people in the UK play. On the other hand, working out whether oppo open the major or the minor with 4=4 can be laborious, often oppo don't know which suit their partner will open.

1♣-1♥-P-P 1NT-X-P-2♣ Is the double of 1NT "takeout of clubs", or does it just show a good hand? Is 2♣ natural or a scramble? Do your answers vary depending upon how many clubs opener has promised?

The chance of playing a 4-3 heart fit is zero.

We were playing 3♦ as an IJS. While I like Polish Club, many of the treatments in WJ05 are hideous. I'd love to have 2NT available for the minors, but it's more useful as natural IMO. Obviously I did the wrong thing, or I probably wouldn't have posted it. I passed, partner had a 6232 15-count, AQ6xxx spade and Kxx diamond opposite.

I believe it's well known that the commentary often gets messed up in saved files - bits from the wrong vugraph presentation, bits missing, etc. Any advice on how to find the missing commentary?

[hv=d=n&v=e&s=shjxdaj9xxxcqtxxx]133|100|Scoring: MP 1♠:1n 2♠:??[/hv]

I thought Han's style was standard too. Adam, why does whether pard has 4 spades or 3 spades affect whether you should play in a 5-3 heart fit? Han, what's your structure over 1N:2H, 2S? Haven't heard of 3S as "unbal CoG" before.

I bid 2♥ at the table, I couldn't bring myself to bid 2♠. Might be a reflection of the fact that I'm not comfortable with raising as frequently as we do in this partnership. There isn't really a moral from the hand, as all routes (except 3♠, which I only threw in to make 2♥ look less ridiculous) should lead to 3NT. My 2♥ bid didn't lead to 3NT, but it should have done :P

Nah, hopefully if I play in the Under-28 worlds :( Though by then I'll have won the Spring Fours and Four Stars so it won't be an issue.