MickyB

[hv=d=n&s=sjt9haxxdkxxcaxxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP ----1NT 2♥:2♠ 3♣:3♠ 4♠ Apologies, not sure of the other spots. 1NT was 12-14. Leads are 3rd+5th.[/hv] [hv=d=n&s=sjt9haxxdkxxcaxxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP ----1NT 2♥:2♠ 3♣:3♠ 4♠ Apologies, not sure of the other spots. 1NT was 12-14. Leads are 3rd+5th.[/hv]

Double opposite an unpassed hand, pass opposite a passed hand.

I think I remember a hand in SJ Simon's cut for partners where a similar 2♥ butt-in was not made because of 'safety reasons', only to find out, after letting 4♠ through, that the side was cold for SEVEN hearts. There's a reason why you've only see that occur in a book. Anyway, my main reason for not overcalling 2♣ is not safety, but that pard will expect me to have a better hand so we will get too high too often.

At the conditions, bidding on this hand in direct seat is lunacy and protecting not much better. I think I'm still passing it out NV (I'm still not considering a 2♣ overcall, but 3♣ either time is no longer ridiculous)

I've just checked out Auken-Von Arnim's convention card, seems that they use a 1♠/1NT nat and 2♣ relay, and they've got a *lot* more hands in their 1♥ opening - obviously they aren't expecting to fully resolve shape. I was wondering about that before - in my experience, you don't really need to know whether opener is 1444, 1435 or 1453 to choose between 3NT and a suit contract, but I'd expect it to put you very much on the back foot for slam investigation.

Yup, fair enough. Oh, and opener can't zoom to show controls because that would be showing one of the extreme hands, hmm.

Yup, my calculations suggested that it should be possible to have a reasonable structure after a 2♣ relay - 7-4s, 6-5s etc would rarely want to play in 3NT so they could cope with resolving with 4♣. There are, of course, other losses from starting that high. I'll have a look at your structure in more detail shortly. I'd be interested in seeing these calculations... After a 2♣ relay, you can show 55 patterns below 3NT. The ones that clearly need showing below 3NT are - 3 suiters - 4 Balanced - 3 Single suited - 7 (3*6322, 3*6331, 7222) Short-legged - 12 (8*5431, 4*5422) Long-legged - 8 (4*5521, 4*5530) That's 34. Throw in sixteen 6-4 shapes and three 7(32)1s below 3NT and you are now only missing 6-5s, 7-4s and 7330s.

Yup, that puts it nicely. Alternatively, any of the three types is a candidate for responding 2♣ instead, although it seems a little high for any of them. Of your suggestions, I think option three is my favourite, because the first and second both encourage relay responder to be declarer, as well as seeming rather vulnerable to interference. Another idea I've had - 1♠ = nat, *four*+cards 1NT = GF relay 2♣ = constructive, NF, <3♥, <5♠. Basically intends to play in two of opener's minor (or 2♥ opposite a single-suiter) unless he is max. 2♦ = 3-4♥, constructive

Yup, my calculations suggested that it should be possible to have a reasonable structure after a 2♣ relay - 7-4s, 6-5s etc would rarely want to play in 3NT so they could cope with resolving with 4♣. There are, of course, other losses from starting that high. I'll have a look at your structure in more detail shortly.

I'd suggest stretching 3♣ a bit, with a 3♦ continuation as "min or max?". Ok, so it's not exactly scientific, but you don't have room for anything more. Now your suggested hand is a comfortable 3♥ bid IMO.

Thanks Matt. I considered a 1♦ opening showing hearts, but I think my current 1♦ opening (any hand in range with precisely 4 spades) needs the space more, mainly because of the need to be able to find 4-4 heart fits at a low level. From a competitive point of view, it's advantageous to have those hands in the the opening showing spades rather than the opening showing hearts, e.g. a responding hand with 1♠4♥ will often be happy to preempt to 4♥ with the current definition. Good point. Meh...half the fun is playing something unnecessarily complicated :D

I'm trying to work out the best responses to an opening bid showing - 10-15 points, 4+♥, denies 4♠; unbalanced (potentially canapé) unless 5♥332 A few of the older MOSCITO variants used a similar 1♥ opening, except it often could be a balanced hand, any ideas what they used? I've found two structures so far - Magic Diamond - 1♠ natural, 1N/2♣/2♦ transfers Terrorist Moscito - 1♠ relay, 1N nat, 2♣ good raise, 2♦ unbal, constructive, no fit Any advances? Thanks

My style on these hands has changed recently. If I would open a preempt with a card fewer in my long suit but a more offensive honour structure, I make said preempt; If not, I'm happy to not show my suit unless I have a partial fit for partner. Kxx Axxxxxx Tx Q Vul at MPs, I opened this 2♥. QJx JTxxxx xx Ax 2nd seat, both vul, IMPs, I passed this - partly because the alternative was a mini-multi (meaning that pard can't bid a natural 2♠), but I'd still have passed it if a weak two had been available. If pard opens 1♠ (4+cards, may be 4♠5m if minimum) I'd bid 2♥ (3♠5+♥ NF). Add a couple of points outside hearts and I'll do the same thing. Obviously this isn't perfect, for example we might miss 3NT when we don't realise the value of ♦ AKxx opposite xxxxxx, but I think it works well.

I open 1♦, but I don't mind 3♦.

Think I'm just bidding 3N over 2N.

Yup, something like that is the plan - maybe having 1♥ as balanced or extras, planning to break on the next round if unbal.

I'm considering continuations over a strong club. It seems to be generally accepted that, with one balanced hand and one unbalanced hand, it is optimal to have the balanced hand relaying; and with two unbalanced hands, dialogue bidding is to be preferred. What about with two balanced hands? What if both hands have denied a shortage, but one or both could be semi-balanced? It seems to me that there is just too much information to be transferred for relays to work as well as they do when one hand is unbalanced - all four suits need scanning, and often a key ten or nine will be the difference between a good slam and a poor slam. On the other hand, a simple quantitative assessment of the two hands is reasonably accurate. Maybe one hand should resolve shape to enable partner to check that distributions are not mirrored, followed by checking the strength of a key suit (perhaps a 5-3 or 6-3 fit that is hoped to be a source of tricks; or a 4-4 fit that may provide the 12th trick, or may have a slow loser that is avoidable in 6NT)?

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=sj7542hqdkq94cqj2&w=sakqt863h2d76ct75&e=shkj965d853ck9863&s=s9hat8743dajt2ca4]399|300|Scoring: IMP I covered, which allowed them 1100 (which is always there anyway if they put a club through without destroying communications first). Lea also opened 4♠, and our teammates picked up 800.[/hv]

Thanks Phil. We passed out 4♠. For Lea, 2♠ showed ♥+♣. Benito then found an aggressive 5♥ bid after his RHO had bid 4♠. This went for 300 against 620. I'm less worried about the 6th heart than I am about the offensive nature of the hand. My reason for not worrying about a 6-2 heart fit is that I think that it is likely we will need to go to the 5 level to buy it. If we had the spades and the oppos the hearts then I wouldn't consider suppressing my 6th spade. On the other hand, (1♥)-1♠-(4♥) would leave us struggling to ever reach the minor, unless you are of the opinion that 1♥-1♠-4♥-P P -4♠ should show 6♠5minor - maybe it should iff partner is a passed hand? Hm :)

Partly for this reason, I wonder if it is better to overcall *four* hearts planning to bid 5♣ over 4♠. Ok, admittedly pard isn't doubling 4♠ very often on this auction! I probably should have mentioned that pard would usually have opened a dutch 2 as dealer, green with 5♠4m. This makes unilateral action slightly more attractive - the opps are almost certainly heading for 4♠.

I had the same pattern of thought regarding the multi as you did, Frances, but not until several hours after the event! On the other hand, at least the nightmare layout of Kxx/Qxx in oppos hands has been ruled out! I didn't ask at the time, but doubler has a flat 12 count with 4-2 in the majors. Our multis promise a 6 card suit, but other than that the hand has to be pretty disgusting before I wouldn't open it in this position. There was another slight inference from (a disadvantage of) using a multi - There are hands that will preempt with 3♥ over a multi that will pass a weak 2♥. This is because, playing a multi, 2nd seat is getting another bid whether you 'further the preempt' or not.

[hv=d=s&v=e&s=s863hajt973dq9cj6]133|100|Scoring: IMP Here's one that I think I got wrong, but it didn't cost. 2♦-(P)-2♥-(P) P -(X)-P-(3NT)-AP Your lead.[/hv]

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=shkj965d853ck9863&s=sakqt863h2d76ct75]133|200|Scoring: IMP World class opps. 4♠-P-P-X; AP T1: ♥QKA2 T2: ♦J693 T3: ♦27Q5 T4: ♣Q Do you cover?[/hv]

A team of juniors took on Cayne tonight, and achieved a respectable 19 imp loss over 28 boards. Here is a decision I faced on board 2: [hv=d=s&v=e&n=shkq9653d84caqt42&s=sat2ht84dj9732ck3]133|200|Scoring: IMP The auction commences P-1♠. What's your call on the North hand? If possible, East splinters with 4♥. What now?[/hv]

Level 2 is very rarely used. Level 3 is now barely used by the EBU, only by clubs and counties.