MickyB

1♠-P-1NT-X 2♥-P-2S-3♦ P-P-3♥ What do you expect for 3♥? Does it make any difference if you are playing four-card majors?

That's just cos you haven't seen how good my systems are yet. Or how bad "Benji Acol" is...

In addition to the scenario already presented, I think we need to assume that both systems are equally anti-field (or that the players are of average standard for the field that they are in). I'd expect the difference between - a good system (relatively simple, but well-designed) - and a poor system (not hideously poor...e.g. Capp or DONT over 1NT) to be about 1%.

First time I've heard it suggested that playing the queen/jack here shows count, is it a standard thing? I agree with the heart switch btw, no reason to play a diamond instead and the uppercut looks far-fetched.

I'd be tempted to drop if the poor RHO played low-then-ten, otherwise I think I'd always finesse.

Obvious 4NT. More interesting question with ♦+♣ reversed.

I didn't say that we never fail. There's a space on the WBF convention card for "unusual forcing pass sequences" or wtte. This should be included there.

I think most of the times that either I or pard has preempted to 5♥, it has been making, so I don't think it's at all obvious that the oppo are saving here. I don't think it should be allowed to play sequences like this as forcing unless it's on your convention card somewhere.

Agree with Helene, Drury then Landy. If looking for something a bit more involved, being able to show shortage opposite no-trump openings and rebids is very useful.

What's your preference, and is there a standard?

[hv=d=n&v=e&n=skq984haqt4dkcaj6&e=s6hk975da984ct843]266|200|Scoring: IMP The normal auction is - 1♠:1N 3♥:3♠ 3NT:Pass Partner leads the ♦2, playing 4ths (2nds from bad suits, low from Hxx), so you win your ace, declarer following with the three. What now and why? Does partner's standard affect your play? In case it matters, the auction against me used Gazzilli, the only real differences being that declarer has limited his hand to 7 points and he could still have a spade shortage.[/hv]

Double. You wouldn't have to change the hand much for me to pass.

I've spoken with a member of the EBU selection committee. Apparently, the intention was for this process to gauge the level of interest to allow the format to be decided six months beforehand. Any entries made now imply no commitment to enter the event. If the number of entries exceeds expectations, there may be more than one division, although it is perhaps more likely that the event might grow to multiple divisions at a future date. This makes some sense, although clearly this intention has been lost at some point - the phrasing on the EBU website certainly doesn't make this clear. If that is still the case, it seems much more acceptable IMO, although I'm not sure how the number of teams expressing interest will correlate with the final number of entries.

Frances, you are right - My employment is fairly flexible (I work in a bridge club!) so it hadn't occurred to me how difficult it could be to arrange, but my likely partner for the event hadn't realised the closing date was so soon. The problem is, they want to know the number of entries before they decide the format, while, as you point out, many will want to know the format before deciding whether to enter! IMO, eight is the absolute minimum number of teams you want involved. If they are seriously not going to have more, they should set it at precisely eight, choose the dates, then invite entries. I hope you make the EBU aware of your opinions on this matter.

Other than having Stage 1 being matchpoints, I quite like the sound of that. I've been told that team chemistry is very important, and that's why we use teams trials rather than pairs trials. IMO, your country's method does a better job of picking the best pairs, without neglecting the fact that teammates have to be able to get on.

It's usually called Truscott in the UK.

Playing in a national event, you and partner have the auction 2♣:2♦, 2NT:3♦, 3♥:3NT, P RHO asked a few questions over 3♦, then thought before passing. His partner, from xxxx xxxxxx J Qx, finds the J♦ lead, of course. It didn't exactly help in this case, because the whole hand was: [hv=d=s&v=b&n=sxxhkqjtxdxxcjxxx&w=sxxxxhxxxxxxdjcqx&e=sakjxxhdxxxxxcxxx&s=sqxhaxdakqtxcaktx]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] The question is, what do you do about the situation? You may expect to see this happen in a club, but surely she will run into problems in future if she does this in national events. If the type of player involved would affect your decision, assume it is a LOL.

Natural. 1m:2m, 2NT is GF; Otherwise, if either hand bids 3m that is non-forcing.

MUD is certainly standard in the UK - in fact, it is probably played here by 95% of players below the top echelons. I find low from doubleton, MDU from three to be much superior in dealing with leads from xxx. While we're here, what's the standard lead from Hx and Hhx (e.g. KJx) in this style? I'd guess it's top of Hx (if so, what about Tx?) and normally small from KJx, is that right?

I've played this a little recently, but I'm certainly not an expert on the method. My understanding is - If you lead low from doubleton, it becomes normal to play the middle card then the lowest from a three-card holding. Basically, you are showing count on lead (reverse count - low/hi = even, high/low = odd). Unlike MUD, you can still do this from, say, Kxx. Now, if partner leads the lowest spot out, he either has a doubleton or four cards to an honour - normally you will be able to tell which. This is an improvement over standard methods, where this card could also be from *three* to an honour, or possibly even three small cards.

This works both ways. I don't mind finding out that the hearts split 5-x - it will help me decide how to bid the hand and how to play it. I certainly think that the room is more valuable to us than it is to the opposition. 1♣ can be two or three cards only if strong. Otherwise, it is almost certainly 5+clubs. Any seven count with three+ clubs can raise happily, knowing that we are on our way to 3NT if pard doesn't have real clubs. With four cards in another suit, you'd normally open that suit, so the only weak NTs that would open 1♣ are 3334 and (233)5 - so I'd expect the frequency of - Holding a (233)5 Partner not having a five-card suit Partner responding in your doubleton Neither opponent taking a call, and This leading to a bad board to be very low.

I do like to open the major on minimum hands (max 13 points) with 4M5m when using this structure in 3rd seat, but in 4th seat you are perhaps more likely to be preempting your own auction. [snip advantages+disadvantages of playing 4cM] IMO the most significant disadvantage of playing strong NT+4cM in 1st+2nd seat is that both xxx Axxx xx Jxxx and Qxx KQxx x Kxxxx look like single raises of a 1♠ opening - if partner has 12-14 balanced with only four spades, you don't want to be anywhere else. You can try putting one or the other through a non-forcing 1NT response, but you don't really want to play 1NT in either case. Opposite a 3rd or 4th seat opening, Drury solves this problem comfortably. Even after an overcall, you should still have two ways to raise to 2♠ available. That's certainly playable, but I prefer my suggestion in the original post - only open 1M on a four-card suit on hands with 13 points or fewer, open 1♣ on all 17-19 balanced and rebid 1NT to show this hand. It gets the stronger hand declaring more frequently, reduces disclosure of unnecessary information about suit lengths on the way to 3NT and keeps the auction low in case partner is weak or you need the space to explore the best game. It also frees up the 2NT rebid to show a different handtype.

What do you perceive is the advantage of this? What I can think of is that partner with a balanced 11 hcp that was passed will know immediately what to do opposite a 14-16. But is there something else. I don't play 15-17 in 1st/2nd so haven't really thought about this much. We play weak (something like) 10-13 favourable, (10)11-13 None, (11)12-14 All, 12-14 Unfavourable in first seat. In 3rd/4th seat we play 15-17. I am wondering if there is something that should convince me to play a slightly different range in 3rd/4th seats. Playing a 15-17 NT in 1st/2nd is only relevant in that it implies passing flat 11s and opening flat 12s. The inferences are the same with a 12-14 NT opening. If you routinely open flat 11s in 1st+2nd, a 15-17 NT is probably best in 3rd+4th. Am I right in thinking that you play a weak NT 3rd NV, but sometimes open 1M on a weak NT? It sounds to me like you'll have a lot of difficulty responding to such a 1M opening.

Yup. It reminds me somewhat of the bizarre WJ05 sequence - 1♣:1NT, 2NT:P 1♣ = a variety of hands, most probably a weak NT 1NT response = 9-11 balanced 2NT = Balanced 14 Pass = Balanced 9/bad 10 Why make partner think there might be a game on when you know that there isn't?

I hinted at this in my original post - I'm now keen on using the same structure in 4th, as well as 3rd. Opposite a passed hand, your no-trump ladder should be based on how high you want to be opposite a balanced maximum pass with no fit. Expects 3NT to be marginal at best Clearly wants to be in 3NT opposite a maximum pass Clearly wants to be in game opposite a hand an ace shy of opening Opposite a partner who will open almost all flat 12s but pass most flat 11s, this means playing a 14-16 NT, or something thereabouts. If you open four-card majors on weakish balanced hands, this is even more important - you can't open 1M on a balanced 14, because partner has to be able to respond 1NT on his balanced 11, over which you couldn't possibly entertain taking another call. Of course, the exact range is a function of your aggressiveness and the conditions. Vulnerable at teams, some feel it's best to pass a fair proportion of flat 12-counts in 1st/2nd, but still want to be in a thin game with 12 opposite 12. This is somewhat problematic!