MickyB

Something like Tx AKx KTxx QJxx AKQx x Axxx AKxx

Matchpoints 2N-P-6N-AP Your lead: Jxxxx QJ8xx J Tx Declarer is pretty bad, if that makes a difference.

Courtesy of @DavidBakhshi on Twitter - "ENGLAND invited pairs for European Championships: Tony Forrester & Andrew Robson, David Bakhshi & David Gold, Justin Hackett & Jason Hackett" Dream team?

Depends, what will "we" be responding with 4-4 in the blacks and a GF?

Yeah sorry I was probably confusing the implications of [responding 2m with 4S4m] with the implications of [responding 2C on all balanced hands GFs]

Do you play 1S:2C, 2H as showing extras? If not, how do you solve the "problems" this creates? Is 1H:2C, 2S so different? This isn't the same as a reverse at the three-level, that clearly needs to be better defined. Playing 1H:2C as natural or balanced, may include four spades, is a really complex method with very artificial continuations. They are - 2D = four diamonds 2H = six hearts 2S = four spades 2N = balanced hand 3C = four clubs With three-card "support" you make your natural rebid, hoping to bid 3C on the next round. I think most playing this style prefer to respond 2m on (53)(32), hoping to show their three-card support for opener at the two-level on the next round.

Agreed - but that is because you are much worse placed after 1H:2C [GF] than 1H:2C [F1]. I guess Acol players might be exempt from the remedial education; then again, playing Acol might in itself be sufficient justification for such measures!

In which case, it's questionable whether Acol with a strong NT actually exists any more. I believe that, back in the days when it was popular, a 4♠4♥ weak NT would open 1♠ and rebid 2♥ [non-forcing, even over a 2m response], otherwise light 2/1s don't work with strong NT and four-card majors. I would assume these things if I agreed "2/1" with a decent pick-up on BBO; However, if oppo in an EBU event announced they were playing 2/1 before the round started, I'd only assume 5-card majors, strong NT and three weak 2s - and any of these could be overridden by saying "2/1 with a multi" or similar.

Pass, I expect this to be unanimous.

I believe the post I quoted was discussing other auctions as well.

1C P 1H 1S 1N It's far from universal for this to show 18-19. Some play that it shows a "good weak NT with a stop"; others play it to show 14-16 or so, primarily to cater to 4225.

Responder can also raise or double with less or stretch to bid at the two-level with a six-card suit, so there aren't many hands that have to pass over an overcall with decent values.

Zel's structure looks good to me. Transfers in that style allow you to handle both 6M INV and 5M3C INV comfortably, unlike 2C:2M NAT INV. 5M1C INV isn't very pretty but that's not really the fault of the methods, you're just poorly placed once partner has opened 2C.

Weird, I find my "saves" vs 3NT to often result in double game swings.

Of course. I wasn't saying that leaving partner on lead was the correct play, merely that leaving partner on lead seems a better bet than overtaking to play a spade [or, indeed, a diamond]. Clearly, there is no reason this West could not hold xx xx - AKQJxxxxx or similar. It is highly unlikely that he holds the same hand with the red suits reversed, this would mean LHO holding five hearts and partner holding six [or vice-versa], many hands with a sixth heart would not have bid Michaels. Maybe a diamond lead will be best in practice, but it feels to me like a heart lead will very rarely let the contract through at trick 1, and I have sympathy for hoping that partner will have enough information to work out what to do at trick 2.

Yes - two off will win you the event, one off leads to you losing it on a split tie :P

[hv=pc=n&s=s65hakq93djt954c4&w=s4h6d63cakqj98762&n=sq73h72dakq82ct53&e=sakjt982hjt854d7c&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=1s2s6cppp]399|300|North led a heart thinking that South must have good ones to justify an unfavourable Michaels off the AKQ of diamonds, and we were much more likely to have tricks to cash/set up in our 7+card fit than our 10+card fit. Overtaking and playing a spade can't be right, I think. Surely it's better to leave partner on lead, where he can cash DA if he has it and play a spade otherwise?[/hv]

[hv=pc=n&s=s62hakq93djt954c6&e=sakjt543hjt854d7c]266|200|IMPs. 1S-2S-6C-AP H7 lead, low from dummy[/hv]

In an article on the Italian trials, the author stated that, if the best three pairs each had an 80% chance of finishing in the top three places, the probability of them all doing so was 51%. Presumably he reached this number by cubing 0.8, but this ignores the fact that Pair A qualifying decreases the chance of pair B qualifying. Trivially, if there are only four pairs in this model, the probability of the best three qualifying is 40%. If there are more pairs playing, this number is higher, as sometimes more than one of the top three will miss out, so we need to adjust for double-counting. At this point, I got stuck. What is the probability of the best three qualifying if there are five pairs in the event, with probability 80%/80%/80%/30%/30%? What is the probability of the best three qualifying as the number of pairs in the event tends towards infinity?

I'd have bid the same way and wouldn't have considered it close. Now I'll lead the ♥Q.

8421 points and total points are not the same thing.

Both concepts are dealt with in this thread - http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/16847-modified-gazilli/ I think awm has his notes for 1S:1N, 2C online, hopefully he can supply the link. I'll try to make a more insightful post in this thread when more awake than I am currently.

ewj for real-life achievement, for a narrow loss in the Gold Cup final yesterday. On Saturday, the semis were played, and it looked like we were going to be guaranteed a BBF winner; sadly, Wank's teammates got too high and then went two off in a contract that could have been one off, meaning his team lost by four-tenths of an IMP.

I think more effort should be put into distinguishing voids from stiffs on this sort of auction. 5D is obvious opposite a stiff diamond, but pretty horrible if partner turns out to be making a try because of his void. Lacking any such agreement, 5D is clearly the percentage bid - stiffs are rather more common than voids, and we might still get away with playing 5H when pard is void.

You had shown 21 hcp so Gib simulated hands where partner only had one point.