Povratnik

I see two groups here: 'intuitive' and 'mechanical'. I'm with 'mechanicals' when it concerns the final answer to OP's question, but tend to disagree with them generally. I'll support partner's major with two cards if_and_only_if I think every other speech is worse. Is there a pattern? I'm not sufficiently interested to even try to find out; when it concerns my bridge improving, there are many topics that are significantly more important... And I'm a (self proclaimed) expert. Why would co called improving players have an obligation to waste time and energy on such unrewarding* subject? If they never thought themselves about the subject, why would they even think of alerting? * I mechanically agree with Vampyr that putting some time and effort in this subject would be beneficial, but putting the same time and effort in another subject would be much more beneficial IF a partnership has some explicit agreements, alerting (and explaining when requested) is of course mandatory If the frequency of such flawed supporting is UNUSUALLY high, THEN the partners are obligated to study the subject, to make some agreements and proceed as in previous line... Until I hear something new and convincing, I'm with barmar in spirit. However: Because of the red words, I think you're obligated to put the time and effort the way Vampyr recommends. This is my answer to your question that I see as shallow, literal truth. The rest of my post is significantly more important and I consider it deeper, real truth.

It seems that some of them are free and some of them are not. E.g. 13:30 (CET) is $1, the one after him (14:30 CET) is free...

Now they are. But when I opened the thread (less than half an hour ago), they weren't...

The advertised tournaments are visible on the list, but aren't visible as free... What am I missing?

It depends on your general agreements. To avoid fancy terms like "Walsh style", I'll make two separate questions: a) With 1♥, has your partner denied longer ♦ suit? b) With 1♦, has your partner denied 4 card major suit? In both hands, I'll bid 1NT IF ALLOWED. (Allowed means - by skipping a major suit, I don't deny having four cards) So: - In the first hand, I am bidding 1♠ if I have to; 1NT otherwise. - In the second hand, I am bidding 1♥ if I have to; 1NT otherwise. I don't see a reason to ever bid 1♠; even if I have ♥5432 (instead of ♥QT32), my answer is still the same...

One more thing (probably crucial): It's much easier and more pleasant to answer after the problem is solved,than immediately... The problem IS solved. My first try to register was "successful". (Successful in technical sense, but my results after first several boards are so lousy that I regret registering :huh: ...)

They do, but... You're Australian, I'm European and they're mostly Americans. So they'll read in their time :) (I am talking about time zones)

It's about Free 2 Day Weekend Event. I am trying to register, but don't succeed. Sometimes I get Error 1040, but usually I am getting Error HY000 Sounds extraordinary... Note: Error isn't universal; while I was watching, four players successfully registered.

Tournament finished Povratnik 15:39 broze boards Congrats broze, you deserve this title! GG all, thank you smerriman

Third match: Povratnik 19:34 broze boards

I've just got both email and SMS from my ISP. Some heavy maintenance works are scheduled for weekend and they warn about potential problems. So it's risky to issue (or accept) a challenge before Monday, or even Tuesday evening... Sorry

Most of us will bid 3c with 5 clubs and a stiff. I would jump with 5 clubs and a stiff, if I am afraid of something and think that jump will help. But whoever AUTOMATICALLY jumps with such hand, IMHO, bids badly. When partner opens 1♣, you don't have the same arsenal as if they open 1♠. Not only it's not the same - it's lousy, in comparison. That's reality and should be accepted. Mature players can live with reality... How much length and shape do you assume for 2 clubs? Not necessarily 6421, but certainly much more than 4333. Rarely 6-4 or 5-4; usually 6322 (any), or 5332 with concentrated values. With defensive 5332, 1NT is more natural. For example, with ♠K93 ♥J95 ♦K6 ♣109764, I'll bid 1NT. With ♠xx ♥xxx ♦Axx ♣QJ10xx, I'll probably bid 2♣. I might sometimes even bid 2♣ with ♠xx ♥xxx ♦xxxx ♣AKQJ. But with ♠K93 ♥952 ♦KJ6 ♣8764??? In my niche, it's a gross felony. We expect 4 cards and modest values for 2c. Well, IF 1NT promises 4 cards, it's not easy to find a good reason for bidding 2♣ with 4 cards :) It seems you assume 1nt promises 4 clubs which I don't think most people do. I certainly do and I'm shocked by learning that so many people doesn't. But that issue probably demands a separate thread... You would enforce a 1d call on a hand like KJx KQx xxxx xxx? In that particular case, I'd bid 1NT with less than four clubs (after 1♣ Dbl; after 1♣ PASS, it's more complicated). But that doesn't change the fact that 1NT promises 4 clubs, if you know what I mean ;)

First two matches: broze 23:10 Povratnik boards broze 24:29 Povratnik boards broze, expect my challenge on Thursday or Friday evening, I'm not sure yet

@DavidKok You wrote a fairly big post. I should write a similar one on my own and then discuss with you. Forgive me, but now I have to focus on sfi's post, since I have a comment on literaly EVERY sentence... ****** Because the double makes it very likely the opponents are about to compete and I want to tell partner I have support for their suit. 1NT is perfect bid for that purpose. With 2♣ you suggest more shape and greater length than you actually have. And partner can (wrongly) bid 3♣ over their 2M because you mislead him/her. In my niche, it's unforgivable. It's hard for the opponents to penalise if I raise immediately, since LHO's double is almost certainly some sort of takeout. With what strength could they penalize? My estimation, based on East hand and previous auction, is - on average, EW have 19.5HCP, NS have 20.5HCP. They can penalize if you pick a wrong denomination (which clubs could well be) or if you bid too high. On the other hand, if I wait and support clubs later then it is is much easier for them to double if we don't really have a fit. Of course you shouldn't support clubs later. If you pass in your first turn (which is fully legitimate decision), you should continue with green cards, hoping for the red one :) NT should be constructive, showing a real desire to play there rather than being used as a default bid. 1NT is perfect default bid and perfectly matches my real desire to play that contract. But that's not the main point. The main point is: With 1NT, I am perfectly describing my hand and partner becomes not the captain, but the COLONEL of the whole table. After my first bid, s/he is in a position to bid/pass/double as perfectly as it's possible in the game of bridge. With 2♣, I am sending a distorted image and partner can, and frequently will, make some very costly mistakes... This is a very minimum hand for this action which is why hrothgar and I came down on opposite sides of the 1NT vs. pass question. 1NT and PASS both have it's merits. 1NT gives the highest probability of a good result, while PASS gives an opportunity of an extraordinary good result. So if your team has a comfortable lead, you should bid 1NT. If you're behind, you should seriously consider PASS. But after the double it should tend to deny four clubs unless you really want to angle for NT. Says who??? On the contrary - if I really, really want to play NT, I might say it with less than 4 clubs. Otherwise, I'm precisely 3334. Naturally, 1NT (after 1♣ PASS, or after 1♣ Double) doesn't deny four clubs; it guarantees four clubs. That's probably the main cause of disagreement between me and your wing. You actually DON'T assume that East has 4 clubs when he bids 1NT? Maybe a separate thread should be opened, for that question exclusively... Here you're not strong enough and your spot cards are too poor to love bidding NT. It's not about mine, it's about combined strength. We have about 19.5 points and should bid 1NT. If we don't - they will. And it's not about burning, passionate love :). It's about coldblooded calculation: If we play 1NT - 7 tricks brings us +90, 6 tricks bring us -50 This way we are earning about 1IMP per board, which is remarkable, considering the nature of the board. If they play 1NT - 7 our tricks brings us +50, 6 tricks bring us -90 This way we are losing 1IMP per board. So, whichever side first bids 1NT, has a significant advantage. And your positional advantage from bidding NT has gone down for two reasons - your kings are likely to be well placed anyway and you want the doubler on lead since they are less likely to have a long suit and more likely to lead away from broken honours. First, nobody is likely to have a long suit. Even if South leads from a long suit, he'll most probably be unable to establish and cash the tricks. Second, why would North lead from broken honours into the opener? He most probably has at least one sequence. And he'll choose a safe (but possibly nasty) lead... South, however, probably doesn't have a safe lead. He might give us a pleasant surprise :)... Third and most important: It's not about whether East or West will declare. It's about whether East or NORTH will declare. (See my previous comment) As Mycroft said, the double makes a huge difference in what your priorities should be in the auction. It's now competitive and you're probably going to hear a suit from your LHO right now. So you're less likely to be looking for game and more likely to be in a competitive part score battle and your were when partner opened. If you treat the two auctions as equivalent you're likely to lose out when the opponents compete. My question wasn't about priorities. My question was about the distribution. Could you give me a one natural, universal reason why would 2♣ be distributional after pass and balanced after double? I apology for length, but despite of being short, your post was really, REALLY provocative :)

This is probably the most valuable sentence in this entire thread! So in short - your team mates are wrong. I can write my own analysis, but it doesn't seem you really need it...

It seems I ran into a tough, seasoned polemicist. Hits right away and right between the eyes! So what? By answering my question(s), you don't write for me exclusively, you write for the entire pool of readers. If I'm somehow flawed and unable to appreciate the virtues of your approach, you still have others... I can answer in your manner: For me, a dangerous vs harmless double makes a huge difference. And if it doesn't to you, you don't play the same game I do. But what's the purpose? Two out of three your paragraphs are trying to disqualify me from this discussion. But again, what's the purpose? (My opinion about the purpose of this thread could be seen in the red part of the very next paragraph) It seems that any double makes a huge emotional impact on you. Not on me. But, IMHO, this thread isn't opened for mind touching of potential partners. It's opened for posting relevant opinions, backed by quality arguments. Even very incompatible players should be able to communicate using the universal language of logic... ****** That was procedural. Now to the content: Of course that double makes a huge difference. Gadgets go on and off; conventional bids become natural; natural bids become conventional; invitational bids become preemtive... But that's all irrelevant in the context. If I understood well, the OP wants to hear deep, sound logic in the spirit of natural system; not some scientific mumbo jumbo. Another difference is very relevant - PASS becomes possible. In this case, PASS is MUCH better than 2♣, but we at least partially agree about this one. Yes, a double influences the strength needed for certain bids, but what about distribution? I don't see a difference worth mentioning. If you see "a huge difference", you should elaborate - but more to the point and more in the spirit of natural system... Are you impressed by the explanation? (3♠ is balanced, because I don't need it to be distributional, for private reasons) Yours isn't much more useful... They are equivalent for my question (above I claimed that a double has negligible impact on distributional meaning of the next LHO's (natural) bid). If you claim they aren't equivalent, you should explain the natural, universal reasons. (Presence and absence of certain gadgets aren't universal reasons, they're conventional and therefore local; yours and hrotgar's affinity to jump to 3 level with possible 7 cards fit - aren't universal reasons, they're private) You can disqualify me, but you still owe the answer to others...

If balanced, most likely 5332, or 4333? (Rhetoric question, you don't need to answer) You are basically claiming that bid 2♣, in the context, isn't much of a lie (having in mind the differences between 2♣ and 3♣). And if East has a reason to bid 2♣ instead of 1NT, he can afford to do so. OK, I can accept that in your niche, the lie is small and excusable (in my niche, it's huge). But you didn't say a word about the reasons. Why do you want to bid 2♣ (instead of normal 1NT) in the first place? (mycroft is giving two very weak reasons. But at least he gave some reasons. You're acting as if 1NT card doesn't exist...) PASS is very interesting, but if you want to make South silent, you can bid 1NT. Partner will get MUCH more accurate picture of your hand and will be able to make good decisions to the end of auction. If 2♣ should be bid before North's next turn - partner will do it. If 3♣ should be bid - he'll do that. I'll ask you one more thing. Not for fighting reasons, I am just very curious: What kind of hand should you have, to bid 1NT in this sequence?

It seems I qualified, despite of losing three matches: Povratnik 12:17 billyfung2 boards GG Billy, GG Hearts. Congrats broze, you've got a perfect bag for punching in the finals

Balanced or distributional? Probabilities of 4 cards, 5 cards, 6(+) cards? (All those question will also be answered by me. I can do it first, if it's helpful...) I'll answer the questions tomorrow.

When you say 2♣, what's your distribution? Perhaps is better to ask the question different way: You open 1♣, LHO passes/doubles, partner bids 2♣. What do you know/assume about partners distribution?

Being from another part of the world, it seems I am missing something. To me, 2♣ is clearly the worst of the three speeches. 1NT sounds as a normal and fully adequate bid; PASS sounds as an interesting and reasonable try to make better than normal result. Everybody favours 2♣ without giving useful arguments. You think that lying opponents is so important that you voluntarily lie the partner. Why?

Another two: Povratnik 19:20 billyfung2 boards billyfung2 8:26 Povratnik boards

It started... billyfung2 24:22 Povratnik boards

I voted for all three, but don't really like the formulation If declarer's claim succeeds. If declarer's claim had been flawless in the first place - time shouldn't count against him, whether the claim succeeded or not. If, however, declarer's claim had been spurious/speculative/phishing - time should count against him, whether the claim succeeded or not. (Maybe I should add "IMHO", but forgot ;))

I'm not saying the system is unfair. On the contrary - you should change nothing in the tournament rules. I was just overwhelmed by the uselessness of being blessed by a miracle when you don't need it. In many past and future situations - I'll need just a tiny grain of luck and fail to get it... (Maybe at this very tournament!)