MickyB

I'm quite liking 2♣. A 4-4 spade fit is unlikely to be our best spot with a side 7 card suit, and if pard passes I can't see 3N making as we need him to have the ace to make our clubs run.

2♠ for me too, I've opened the odd weak two on defensive hands with a 7 card suit and it has worked well.

How are the two different?

[hv=d=s&v=e&s=sk9haqj72dat754c9]133|100|Scoring: IMP 1♥-(2♣)-4♥-(5♣); ?[/hv]

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=skqj3hat84djt5caj]133|100|Scoring: IMP (P)-1♣-(1♥)-X (2♣)-2♠-(P) 1♣ was nat or bal, but now opener has promised an unbal hand. X showed 4+♠, 2♣ was a good raise. If you make a generic game-try of 3♥, pard will jump to 4♠ promising a 4th spade.[/hv]

[hv=d=s&v=b&n=sa762haqjdkq9ck64&s=sth76542dj52caj93]133|200|Scoring: IMP P-(1♠)-X-(2♠) 2NT-(P)-3NT-AP 2♠ showed a max of 8 points. 2NT was Leb. How should NS have bid?[/hv]

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=sqj6hjt8da984ckt9]133|100|Scoring: IMP (P)-3♠-(P)-?[/hv]

[hv=d=w&v=b&s=s762hktdcaqt76543]133|100|Scoring: IMP (3♥)-5♦-(X)-? 4♦ by partner would have been artificial.[/hv]

[hv=d=s&v=b&s=sq84hq9876543d94c]133|100|Scoring: IMP How brave are you feeling?[/hv]

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=st873ha3d3cqj7532]133|100|Scoring: IMP (P)-P-(1♥)-(P) (2♥)-?[/hv]

My thoughts precisely.

Wolfarth beat Svendsen by 2 IMPs Gillis beat Rees by 1 or 3 IMPs depending on whose maths you trust Helle beat Brunner by 9 IMPs The lead changed hand in the last set of all three matches. Liggins (the holders) are the undefeated team, they got this evening off and get choice of opponents for the semis.

Thanks Gerben, playing well sounds like a good plan. Maybe the Irish should be first seeds, but the holders are a very good team, strengthened further by the addition of Hallberg and McIntosh. Having a sponsor in a team of four is a significant weight to carry, I don't think the 7th seeds deserve to be much higher.

Seedings have been announced - http://www.ebu.co.uk/competitions/may/spri...s/entries07.htm Triangles are formed with seeds 1, 32, 33 2, 31, 34 3, 30, 35 etc So my team has been drawn against Erwin Otvosi, Marek Borewicz, Grzegorz Narkiewicz & Krzysztof Buras Michelle Brunner, John Hassett, Bill Hirst & Nicola Smith Any advice on playing against Otvosi would be welcomed :) There are some fairly strong unseeded teams (33-48 are allocated randomly) - The Saint and Cardsharp are both unseeded, as are the team of Nick Boss, Richard Johnson, Fiona Brown and Barbara Hackett.

Definite advantage IMO. Yes, I dislike this too. There are also other issues with Keri, most noticeably the lack of space after 1NT:3♠ (showing a ♣ splinter). My favourite structure fails to keep 1N:3m as a single-suited slam-try, but meets the other criteria. It concentrates on showing shortage and being able to invite and stop in a safe suit partial. I realise that you will probably grow tired of people writing up their pet methods, but here is mine if it is of interest - 2♣ Stayman (Promissory assuming a 3 point range opposite, I don't feel the need to invite). Now Over any response, 2♠/2N/3♣ = nat INV (2♠ shows 5+♠) Over 2♦, 2♥ = both majors weak, 3♦ = 5/5 majors INV+, 3M = Smolen, 4m = Delayed Texas. Over 2M, 3♦ = nat INV with 4 cards in oM, 3oM shows a 4-4 fit (you could now play 3N as a suggestion to play), 4m = splinter (9+cards in the majors). 2♦/2♥ xfers, could be 4M6m GF. Now 2N = 5+M4+♣, 3♣ = 5+M4+♦, 3♦ = 4M6♣, 3♥ = 4M6♦, 3♠ = single-suited 2♠/2N = xfers. Now 3♦ = Nat, 3M = usually 3 cards in suit bid, 0-1 in other major 3X = splinters. 3m = splinter in other minor, 3M = splinter in other major with precisely 4 cards in the suit bid 4m = natural, flat slam-try Bid suits up the line Baron-style I'll try to come back to this thread to analyse your suggested method.

For me, the problem with 2♠ is that I'd frequently open that on weaker hands with only five spades, making it impossible for partner to know when to compete. Vulnerable I'd routinely open it 2♠, NV I think I prefer 1♠.

I was kibitzing an England international on this board. He passed, which (as you may have guessed) wasn't the winning action - partner has QJxx (!) in diamonds and there are 12 top tricks in NT. Teammates were in 4NT. An unfortunate game-swing out on the final board led to a 2 IMP loss, the player in question was blaming himself for not doubling but I felt that was resulting.

[hv=d=n&v=e&n=skhqj8xxxxdakxcxx&w=sjthdqtxxxckjxxxx&e=sqxxxxhaktxdjxxcx&s=saxxxxh9xdxxcaqxx]399|300|Scoring: IMP I passed. Much of the field was in 4♥X making, and that was the result at the other table. Maybe our opponents would have found the defence to beat it![/hv]

"One-N" is the standard term here. Also used are "One-no", "A nut" and occasionally "One without".

I prefer the English method, but tend to use "love all" and "both" instead of "white" and "amber".

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=st9xxhxxxxdat9xcx]133|100|Scoring: IMP Opposition bid - 2♦:2♥ 3♣:3♦ 3NT:6NT 2♦ was a multi, 3♣ showed a "good" strong two in ♣. Are you making a Lightener double? If it affects your decision, this is the penultimate board of the match and you estimate to be leading by about 20 IMPs against a weaker team.[/hv]

[hv=d=n&v=e&s=sa5432h95d93caq72]133|100|Scoring: IMP 1♥-(P)-1♠-(2♣) 2♥-(P)-?[/hv]

I held this hand and bid 3♦, it felt fairly clear. It's from the U25 pairs in London, and was actually Butler IMPs in case that changes anyone's decision ;) Ed, will you be posting partner's hand over your 3♦?

Agree with David. This looks nothing like a Michaels to me, and I don't want to miss a 5-4 spade fit by bidding 1♥.

I'm not sure Team Orange winning would be an upset :rolleyes: Think I'd rather see the winner of Tuszynski vs Feldman face off against Nickell in the quarter-final and watch a different team in the round of 16.