heart76

I like the relay idea to show the suit and the ST. I would use it only when opps have bid to the 3 level after our Micheals though, otherwise rebid 3 of their suit. I would still strongly consider 3NT by the Micheals bidder as the general ST, both over 3M by the opponents and 2NT by pard. Need to discuss with my partner. And I am still at discomfort if X is part of the system, unless it is mandatory for pard to bid. Too many variants where 3M makes or goes 1 down and you can make 10 or 11 tricks.

Well, I take this as a reinforcement of my question :) I do not agree although that this was a ♣ slam inv. hand. It's a slam inv. hand in ♥ if pard has a fit, in ♣ otherwise.

Which minor and strenght. We have simple answers now at 3m/4m for 5H 5+m weak/strong, and I think at 3M for 6M 5+m strong. But with this hand I would bit 3♠ anyway.

Hi. Picked up this one a couple of days ago with my regular partner. 2nd seat, all vul, I had: / KQxxx Q AKQJ109x. RHO opens 1♠ and I went in with Micheals at 2♠, weak or strong. It then goes: (1S) - 2S - (p) - 2NT (asking) (3S). I was a bit concerned of X here just to show strength, because it's undiscussed and I'm not convinced setting them in 3♠X would suffice. So I bid 4♠, clearly slam invitational, as I couldn't come to anything wiser. Any suggestions so far? What should 3NT be instead of 4♠, for instance? Pard bid 5♣ (P/C) and I passed. This time, they had 10 tricks in ♠ and we had 12 in ♣, but I'm not concerned of missing the slam, just of exploring alternatives. Thanks to anyone who would reply.

The two main groups that use multi are: - those that hate the wide range of weak 2 preempts and use the so-called "trash-multi" while keeping their weak 2s - those that want to have a broader preempt spectrum and have weak 2s through multi alongside 2M tartan/muiderberg Particularly this second group, I would say, also adopts 2NT as both MINORS, typ.5-5+, some just weak, some either weak or 17/18+, and thus has their 20-21 NT also in their multi. There is no crash between the weak and strong options, so I am not catching what the issue Kit W. shall have mentioned can be. Whichever group you're in, multi is there to widen your preempts, and does so very efficiently in many cases. But beware the abuse, the weakest preempts need to be well judged and you have to accept some isolated disasters, particularly if you adopt tartan/muiderberg 5-4 or better. It really is a lot seat a vulnerability dependent for the most. Multi shouldn't be played against less-than-average opponents IMHO and ought to be pre-alerted, although not obligatory, in formal events where its adoption is uncommon.

This is sad news. I was not acquainted with him, not at all even her on BBO, but have always admired his views, his comments, his style, always dreaded the result when playing against him in forum events. Rest in peace, bridge friend.

Heart76 - Lhrljr : 43 - 25 https://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:5275116c.3a9c.11ec.b879.0cc47a39aeb4-1635720361&u=heart76&v3b=web&v3v=5.9.4#row-

Maybe just that I don't know how to do it, other than opening the result from the BBO history in a new browser page to get the link. This seem not to work on mobile.

I had issues with getting the links from mobile, sorry for that. Congrats to the semifinalists and thanks everyone for the competition, especially to Smerriman for organizing!

Heart76 / Xbabarx : 7.5 / 8.5 Same as before, without link.

Billyfung2 - Heart76 : 9.5 - 6.5 Don't manage to attach link since my PC broke down and 8 am only using mobile, sorry!

[Deleted. Misread the OP]

Fair enough, you reach it with the 3S cue. But I still would prefer: (1S) X (p) 2D (p) 3C (p) 3NT, or now 2S instead of 3C, unless it's agreed as an unconditional monster with D support. This keeps the minor slam alive.

Since you write it was experts, I would assume the X is not showing 5 spades but it shows 4 and it was bid with short H and a balanced hand. Can 2S be a forcing H raise and 3C 6 of them? 3D may be then forced by agreement. Or was this just a stupid thought since they did not alert? The alternative for me would be X=penalty and the rest natural, but it wouldn't explain the 3D bid vulnerable when you know they're not going to play 3NT or 4M. I would also agree that 3D shows longer D or a 66.

Difficult to say if I would got to game, but I think I would have X 2C to rebid H afterwards. That for me shows an invitational hand with 6-7 H. A direct 2H is just competing so could be limited to 14-ish total. Partner needs then to re-evaluate his holding with his D that can come in or has some ruffing potential in S, although I would expect a H lead.

Hi everyone. I'm seeking expert advice about how to 'best' handle 3-level interference over our strong 1NT opening. I have started looking into this and have some thoughts which I'll share here. You don't need to take these into account, but always positive if you can comment - constructive criticism is always welcome ;) 1NT - (3♣): same system as over our strong 2NT, where X = Puppet. My consideration here is that, since the 2-level contracts are no more available, hands within 8-ish HP (not AA or AK) would pass. However, I am still thinking about when responder sits with ♠ values and would like to X for penalties. 1NT - (3♠): this is a hell of a problem to fit both 4/5 ♥, asking for a ♠ stopper and minor(s). What about having a forcing pass here, where a weak responder would take out in his 2nd round? 1NT - (p) - 2♣/2♦ - (3♠): this will be easier since responder has already shown his length in ♥. But what about when you sit with 6♠4♥ and invitational values and it goes: (1♦) - 1NT - (p) - 2♥ (3♦) - p (denying 3 ♠) - (p): what is your 3♥ now, natural 5-4? X = re-transfer or penalties? Or maybe pass by opener should now be something else than denying support in the shown major?

Well, assuming a natural approach with no fancy agreements, for me it would be: 1st case: 2♠, absolute GF, partner to show 3 cards in ♥ if they have them 2nd case: if we have Exclusion (aka Voidwood), then 5♣, otherwise 3♠.

Thanks Povratnik. I think the first one I played adanst Zupey was worse... But I like the format. Always best hand is boring sometimes.

Heart76 - GIB : 8.5 - 7.5 Played in 2 sessions (launched wrong number of boards in 1st one, sorry) https://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:f3d2a214.cf8b.11ea.b96d.0cc47a39aeb4-1595801058&u=heart76&v3b=web&v3v=5.6.5 https://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:4136bff2.d0d2.11ea.b96d.0cc47a39aeb4-1595941204&u=heart76&v3b=web&v3v=5.6.5

Disclaimer: not an expert. If W has 6-7C with 13-ish HCP and S 20-21 balanced with a sensible C holding, I think there is a fair chance of a M fit. So why give transfers and stayman away? One question could be if 3C is stayman now, if you normally use puppet, given that S shouldn't have 5M. But regardless, I would assume system on. With xx xxx xxxxxxx x, I'd do whatever I do over our regular 20-21 NT opening. What am I missing?

Why should 3D now be this wide? I play it as a bare min with lack of stop(s) for NT. If 2D is showing 10/11+, 3D can't be more than 12/13 HCP and the weakest bid in the system. 2NT is an inch better and partner is allowed to pass... almost never. 3C is 16+. 3NT 14-16 approx.

Totally agree with Stephen Tu. An arrangement I find very nice is what is here called mini-splinters: 1H - 4D = void and limited to 14 working HCP (16 TP) - the full splinter While 1H - 3D = 0-1 cards, invitational or better with the same upper limit - the mini-splinter Jacoby 2NT takes care of the stronger hands. It is also important to have the stronger hand in control of the hand. That is why we treat the splinter as a telling bid and Jacoby as asking. After the full splinter and s negative signoff by opener, responder can of course bid a S/T again if maximum, but this is still a telling bid. In your example, we would have mini-splintered. Opener is now in control and knows about the D. Since we also use mixed 1st-2nd round cues, he would now bid 3S. Responder can now choose between 4C and 3NT = S cue (re-cue of the last suit). 4NT takes care of the rest. In your example, as Nige already pointed out, the 3S cue already denies DA and a 4C cue seems correct. The whole problem is that it is now impossible to show both controls in the minors. Remember also that 2NT denies short suits when one does not have the values to force a S/T, so it basically shows 2+D.

I think I would open 2♥ muiderberg, although I am a bit too strong. Vulnerable it would be in range.

Well played! I still have my issues with gib and not only :) GL for the final. (BTW there is no 3-4th placement match, right?)

heart76 - broze: 32 - 10 https://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:9806d775.93c6.11ea.b96d.0cc47a39aeb4-1589229175&u=heart76&v3b=web&v3v=5.6.1