MickyB

One could tell the other what cards their partner has.

My style with 3rd seat openings is that if I take another bid, I am showing game interest opposite a passed hand. I consider this an obvious 2♠ opener when NV. There is no issue IMO - a 1♠ opening is a psyche (or at least a deviation), because the WBF doesn't allow an agreement to open on fewer than 8 HCP. Whether this makes Drury a psychic control is not clear - I'd still expect to sometimes get too high due to opening this hand. IMO it only becomes a psychic control when partner is forced to use Drury on any hand with support, or is not allowed to go on after 1♠:2♣, 2♠.

The WBF systems policy defines weak as "high card strength below that of an average hand" So it seems to be that it is brown sticker unless it promises another high card somewhere :rolleyes:

Agreed, Han. Two more points - An unusual 2NT is giving away a lot of information about your cards which may help the opponents in the bidding and the play. It may also help them work out what the other has. Partner is going to have to take another call. This gives the opponents more options, increasing the danger and decreasing the preemption you have caused. If your aim is to preempt, partner should often be able to raise to the 4 level, and if this is your typical 2NT bid then he will not be able to. A NF 2♥ or 3♦ bid showing 5-5 in the reds rates to be much more effective on this particular hand. I think I prefer 2♥ natural to 2NT 2-suited.

[hv=d=e&v=e&n=saq9ha952dq973ct7&s=s4hqt73dakt5cqj84]133|200|Scoring: IMP P-1♦-1♠-X 2♠-3♥-P-4♥ AP *West* (thanks Han) cashes AK♣ and switches to the ♠5.[/hv]

There have been suggestions before that GIB's DD solver sometimes doesn't work, when in fact it was just being very slow. I was sure that it was sometimes much quicker if you turned the analysis off and back on again. I think I have worked out why - if you turn the analysis on at trick 1, it won't give you any values until it has worked out the entire hand, even though it will now never give you the values for the previous cards. If you turn the analyser off and back on again, it will just calculate data for the cards remaining. Here is my evidence - If you bring up a LIN file in Bridgevu, and turn DD analysis on, it will often take a couple of minutes to give you an output. If you turn DD analysis on then click through the first 30 cards, it will still take a couple of minutes. If you click through the first 30 cards and then turn the analysis on, it appears almost instantaneously.

Ditto.

I don't like the first idea - it will encourage quick play to an even greater extent. I really like the second idea though.

I was just playing in a teams match. There had been an earlier withdrawal from the other table that had now finished. On the final board, the dummy decided he wanted to withdraw so he could kibitz. Unfortunately, this caused the match to be cancelled :P

Pass for me. 3♠ X making isn't the end of the world, I expect to find myself on the right end of a smallish swing a fair bit more often than I am on the wrong side of a slightly bigger swing. From the bidding, I suspect that hearts are 4333 around the table which strongly encourages me to pass. I'm going to lead a heart. I'm not likely to get in more than once in which case I shall not be able to play three trumps at them - I'll start setting up our tricks in case dummy has a suit that can be developed for a discard.

Yes, but...grr :( It is a silly meaning for 1NT, you can still reach it even if you don't bid it immediately (partner can bid 1NT or make a takeout double). It seems to me that bidding is risking a penalty and giving the opponents more options for very little gain.

Neither do I, but I play it as takeout. I strongly disagree that 1NT shows 12-14 with a stopper - for me that is a routine pass, 1NT shows 18-19. Maybe 1NT should actually show 16+, either balanced or 5♣4♠.

Bidding the correct slam on the 32nd board would have got them fairly close (13 IMPs I think) but in the end they finished down by 42. Wolfarth vs Liggins in the final.

Byrne were 48 down after 24 boards. Liggins were up in the other match.

Also, if they are losing either the semi-final or final (but not both) after 32 boards they get to extend the match by 8 boards. A fantastic performance by Byrne.

For a little while I played something along the lines of Rusinow, but from an interior sequence we would make the normal lead - i.e. an honour lead promised one higher honour. I quite liked it - any thoughts on how this compares to the method described in the rest of this thread?

Yes :D Particularly at IMPs - you are unlikely to set it more than one trick, so doubling stands to gain little. Even at matchpoints it is distinctly dodgy.

Roland - isn't the queen likely to be better than a small one when declarer has the ace and king and partner doesn't have the ten? Or if dummy has HT(x)(x) and partner has the 9?

Agreed, I'd want it at least that high. I'd probably prefer 1S to show 4+diamonds, may have longer clubs; This would free up the 2♦ opening.

Hm, your options seem to be - Pass, showing your shape later 2♠ Dutch, planning to bid again 3♠ or 4♠, then letting it go I don't think 2♦ is right, because it is likely that you will be promising hearts if you ever introduce your ♦. Both vul, I'm just too scared to open 4♠. Maybe I shouldn't be, but on a bad day, I am getting forced. 3♠ seems very reasonable - I've found 6-5 and 6-6 preempts often get doubled and make, the opponents thinking that their 5 combined trumps are sufficient to make defending right. My instinct is always to pass on these hands and show a 2 suiter later. This seems better than 2♠ planning to bid again, because the opponents don't know that they are about to be preempted, so they won't be using bidding space optimally. Preempting is likely to preempt them into giving you the last guess. On the other hand, passing now leaves you with problems if the auction turns out in a way such that bidding a new suit on the 2nd round wouuld be a fit non-jump.

Don't think so - there will be other information (vacant spaces) that tips the balance on some hands.

I agree that double is crazy on the first board. The second looks like a 3♠ bid to me :) ok I would make do with 2♠. But it is close.

Agreed, Josh, it is hard to know what it was based on. Are you allowed to base your calls on how partner looked during the previous auction? :P

3♦ 1♣, I could cope with 5♣ though 2♣ - I don't like 3♣ at all, too likely to miss 4♠

No, they were playing a strong club too - 1C (2H) P (P) 2S (P) 3NT AP