MickyB

How about an England girls team as the 6th? Anyone who is annoyed by England having two teams might be appeased by the improved M:F ratio :) Not that it was too bad this year, about 2:1. Someone suggested Israel as a 6th team, apparently they'll play in anything :(

[hv=d=s&v=e&s=saxxhat8xdatxxxxc]133|100|Scoring: IMP 1♦ from you, 1♠ from partner. What will it be? 2♦ when your hand is massive in support of a five-card spade suit? 2♥, reverse on a 12-count? 2♠, for which your most likely hand-type is a balanced hand with three-card support (we raise on any bal hand with three spades unless 3343)? 3♠ with only three-card support?[/hv]

[hv=d=n&v=e&s=sjxhakqjtxxdxxcqx]133|100|Scoring: IMP Pass-(1NT)-? 1NT is 12-14. Your agreements are - Dbl pens 2♥ natural, could be 5♥4m 3♥ would be weak.[/hv]

Thanks guys. My first outing in the event, was great fun. Only real downside was the low number of boards, because there are five teams (hence a sit-out), many with three pairs, you land up only playing about half the time, which meant I played 60 boards over the weekend. Think three of the Scottish U20s will still be eligible next year, but one will almost certainly move up with his partner - they are a pretty strong pair together, arguably the best U25 pair in Scotland despite their age. I don't think there is as much competition for places in the England team as you make out - three of the players in this year's JC will be too old next year, leaving about half a dozen players of fairly similar ability IMO. Time to post some hands!

I used it as a basis for the notes for one partnership, one of the other juniors was asking me where he could find it recently.

I've only ever seen it discussed occasionally, I suspect the majority would assume 2NT still showed a strong NT.

After an inverted minor raise, if 2N is NF you would like to do something else with 14, but 3N should show 18-19 (or not?). Having only one range for balanced hands that open one of a suit makes those things easier. I know you and Arend solve this problem by playing 14-16, but that means you have to rebid 2N with 17. Also when considering a negative double you don't have to worry about opener having a weak notrump. Agree with these, too - inverted minors are oh-so-simple playing weak NT, and it prevents the holding of a minimum 33(43) after 1m (2suit) X. At this rate, I might find myself switching to weak NT...oh, wait, all these problems are solved by Polish Club too :P

Traditionally (and I'm sure many club players still play it this way) 1♠:2♣, 2♦ was NF, as was 1♠:2♣, 2NT (15-16). Amongst the tournament players, it's fairly standard for this to be forcing, but a lot of other things to be non-forcing - 1♠:2♣, 2♦:2♠, and most of opener's rebids over this too I suspect 1♠:2♣, 2♦:2NT 1♠:2♣, 3♣ 1♠:2♣, 2♠:3♣ If an unknown partner were to bid these with me, I'd have no idea if they were forcing - 1♠:2♣, 2♦:3♠ 1♠:2♣, 3♣:3♠

OK, give me an example of a problem that the weak notrump solves. It "solves" hands where, playing strong NT, responder has to assume partner has his most likely hand-type (12-14 balanced) even though it could well be wrong opposite an unbalanced hand. 1♣-(4♥)-5♣ can be bid on marginal hands when strong NTers would have to pass 1♣-(1♠)-2♥ can be bid on a nine-count with a five-card suit without risking playing a silly 2NT contract

Just found this thread :P The short answer is "no", at least not on balance - there are losses and gains, and I believe the losses from playing this as forcing to 2NT to be much greater than the gains. The long answer - Amongst most decent UK players who play weak NT+4cM, a 2/1 response shows willingness to be in game opposite 15-16 balanced, so about a nine-count. Otherwise you have to raise on a 16 (15?) count after 1M:1N, leading to some very thin 2NT contracts and a guess on what to do with the hand that traditionally bids 2NT here on 17 or a bad 18. When you have a nine-count opposite a minimum opening bid, you don't want to push any higher than 2M in your 5-2 or 6-2 fit. I couldn't ever imagine wanting 1M:2m, 2M to be forcing in this opening structure unless playing very sound openings - just an approximation obviously, but by "very sound" I mean rule of 21 at minimum. Playing strong NT, or possibly playing weak+5, fine - but not playing weak+4s. It's generally accepted in other auctions, say when partner opens 1NT, that you shouldn't often stop in 2NT - it's all risk for no gain. Here, a structure is being advocated where you are are being forced to 2NT or higher, potentially without a fit, with only half the deck. My preferred structure (strong NT+5cM) does the opposite - 1M:2m, 2M is non-forcing, allowing responder to show some values but still stop in a safe part-score opposite a minimum; but a 2NT rebid by responder now is GF.

Natural non forcing and often implies shortage is a very odd treatment. Why on earth should it be non forcing? This is illogical. How do you fing your high level minor suit fits? fwiw I would just pass this one. LOL OK, partner has opened a weak 2 at favorable. He is allowed to have a poor hand, he is allowed to have a poor suit, he is allowed to have a 5 card suit. Why should responder, with a decent suit of his own, and a singleton or void in partner's suit, pass and watch partner lose 4 trump tricks when he could be making a contract? This is the (logical) reason for bidding, for a new suit being non-forcing, this is why bidding a new suit tends to have (but does not promise) shortage in partner's suit. We have had this auction on more than one occasion, OTOH I don't remember ever wanting to play in 5m when partner has opened a weak 2. (Especially) over aggressive weak twos, I quite like xfers from 2NT upwards.

2♠ and 2N are ridiculous against half-decent opps, they are more likely to have issues with 3♣ IMO. 3♥ or 4♥ depending on our style of weak two. Probably 4♥.

I once had an opp blame a 3-3 break on computer-dealt hands.

Yup

This implies you have no rebid on hands with 5♠4+♣, is that the case?

2♣ looks clear, if it floats we may miss game but it's not that likely IMO, and if I get another go then I'm happy.

This was from a county KO match against a strong team, my counterpart passed and collected 800 opposite x Axx AKxxx AKxx while I was in 4♥.

The idea isn't that responder should just "complete" the transfer - on most hands, he makes the same bid he would have made in standard methods, except when he would previously have had to pass he can complete the transfer instead, giving opener another chance to bid (not that he always wants to). This allows some hands that would previously have felt the need to take another call just to keep the auction open (eg four diamonds and an 8-count) to just complete the transfer, keeping the auction lower.

Yup, it's just a misconception, and nothing to do with Acol as far as I know...there may be a lot of NF sequences in Acol, but 1D:1S, 3C isn't one of them! Actually, maybe the misconception is somehow related to playing Acol - traditionally, 1S:2C, 2D was NF, so that would have been about 11-15, with a GF hand having to jump to 3D.

It's played by a few decent English pairs. You get to complete the transfer to 2♦ on, say, a 1435 9-count or a 1345 8-count, where in standard methods you don't have an attractive choice available. However, I'm more worried about the wide-range of the preference to 2M, which, as Adam says, this method doesn't solve but Gazzilli does. Xfers here certainly aren't silly, but just how they compare with other methods I'm not quite sure.

[hv=d=e&v=e&s=sa8xxxhkxxxdjxxcx]133|100|Scoring: IMP 2♠ on your right, passed round to partner who doubles. Pard is an England international who you've only played with once before, you agreed Leb during a brief system discussion.[/hv]

Two-way - either pure takeout (a void and an eight-count, say) or pure penalty.

just pretend you have a 15 count adam! I thought we opened 1♠?

1♠:2♣ 2♠:3♥ 4♣:4♦ 4♥:4♠ What would you expect for responder's bidding, and what is the status of 4♠? Edit: Playing 2/1 GF, sorry forgot to say that.

This thread has made me feel better B) My instinct at the table was that partner must be 3=4, it didn't seem terribly likely but I hadn't come up with anything more sensible. He was actually trying to make a game-try for 4♠ - Kxx AJT xxxx xxx. Perhaps that meaning is better iff you are playing 4cM.