TimG

Well, here's the whole quote. Sure sounds to me like you're looking for a new partner if your current partner's judgment on this hand proves incorrect. Even if partner's judgment on this hand amounts to a colossal brain fart, I like to think that a partnership will survive one of those.

That's not even a year's worth of bridge for Justin.

I don't understand this attitude. Surely your criteria for a good partner does not include "never blunders".

1. 3N or 1SX? Or both? 3. Partner already bid 4♦.

I'm pretty sure there was once a program where youth could get $5 memberships for their first year of membership. Since ACBL allocates regionals based upon District membership, some districts could add a regional to their calendar by signing up 1000 grandchildren.

Well, you wouldn't hear 2♠ from partner if you balanced with 2N... Not that I'm advocating one way or the other.

IMPs, Both Vul, you hold ♠532 ♥4 ♦AQ76 ♣JT652. 1♥ by dealer on your right, Pass by you, 2♥ on your left, passed back to you. Do you balance?

Whatever Meckstroth suggested in the post mortem.

You are spoiling the game for others because of a bad experience you had. That's not nice.

Yes, which makes it perplexing that the ACBL Bulletin called it a Polish Club. My opinion is that it is a sign of the system phobia plaguing ACBL -- it's a bit different so they classify it as something unfamiliar to most which makes it sound more "exotic" than it really is.

I attended ACBL's bridge camp for juniors/junior trials in Boston in 1990. Although I was 22 at the time, it was the first time I had ever been in a situation where there were lots of people my age (and younger) playing bridge in the same room. I was paired for the trials with someone I had only met a few days prior at the camp. Lots of the people at the camp knew a few others, but we were, for the most part, meeting a majority of the other participants for the first time. After the bridge camp, I immediately started playing on teams and in partnership with other juniors. A nearly 10 year partnership came about through players I met at junior camp. In short, it was a great networking opportunity of sorts. That's probably less important in this age of online bridge, but it was very important for me at that time. And, I think a yearly gathering of juniors at a camp or at a junior NABC is an important part of developing a junior program. That being said, there should also be regional coordination and opportunities. One can't expect juniors from different parts of the country to be able to get together and play face-to-face bridge with any regularity. As nice as being able to play online is, it cannot fully prepare someone for the conditions of face-to-face play. Juniors also need opportunities to play together regionally. Juniors playing with juniors and juniors talking with juniors will go a long ways toward eliminating situations where juniors are introduced to their teammates just prior to an event. It will also allow for more flexibility in team formation. The team unity that others have said is so important would be available in more combinations. I think the idea of a 24 pair pool is a good one. If these juniors have occasion to play with and against each other during the year, the coaches will have more ability to select the teams they want without disrupting chemistry. I think it best to leave the ultimate team formation up to the junior players, but regular interaction with each other and with coaches would allow the coaches to be in a better position to influence the decisions and to know which way they want the influence to go. While coaching sessions and the like can be held online. The trials should absolutely be held in person, under conditions similar to those the players will encounter in the world championship.

Against a mini-NT, do you play something basic like Landy, or more involved like Hamilton?

Isn't 76 QT9 also a possibility?

How does the defender know that declarer doesn't have the Ten?

Let's make it 5314 so that inability to show both major is not an issue. Are you saying that with minimum values (whatever that is) you are more likely to overcall 2♠ and with a bit more than minimum (but not significant extras) you are more likely to double? So, you think ♠AJxxx ♥Qxx ♦A ♣Kxxx is minimum for action and with this hand you would overcall 2♠. With a bit more, maybe ♠AJxxx ♥Qxx ♦A ♣KQxx, you would double?

Nobody vulnerable, dealer on your right opens 1NT (10-13) and you hold: ♠AJxxx ♥Kxxx ♦A ♣Qxx You aren't using any artificial methods to show two-suiters. 1) With a balanced hand, what is your usual agreement about the minimum strength needed for a double? 2) If you've agreed that double shows a better hand than their NT, would you double with this hand? Or, would you prefer 2S? Add a Jack or Queen if this hand isn't good enough for direct action. I'm interested in knowing whether you prefer double or 2S with a 5=4=1=3 hand.

Last night, I read two Bulletin features that I normally skip: The Bidding Box and It's Your Call. In the introduction to the bidding box, the system played by Carruthers and Sundelin was described as a variation of Polish Club. Thier 1C opening was described as "shows long clubs or a balanced hand in the 12-14 or 18-19 range (as in standard American), but they play transfer responses to 1C." Does this really make it a version of Polish Club? I would have thought that in order to me lumped in with Polish Clubs, the 1C opening would have to be used for a variety of strong hands and the other 1 bids be limited. (They opened 1D with AKJxx A AKJTxx K, so it doesn't seem that 1D is significantly limited!)

General consensus seems to be that in order to force one needs to bid 3♠.

I'd like to take part in semi-regular team games, something like most Monday nights (east coast US). Are there any clubs that facilitate this? If not, suggestions for how to go about making this a reality? It could be a league, a club, a group of forum regulars, etc. I don't really care, just so long as players were willing to commit to regular play and staying until the end of scheduled play each week. I'd just like a regular alternative to ACBL speedballs and ever changing random opponents in the main bridge club. Although I'd be happy to handle some of the organizational duties, I don't won't to have to send out e-mails/PMs to a bunch of individuals every week. If you have other ideas about what sort of semi-regular play you'd like to participate in, how this might work, why this won't work, etc. Please chime in.

There are probably valid bridge reasons for pausing before winning in hand, you might have been deciding whether you wanted to be in hand or in dummy, for instance. I don't like the apology and think that making such statements can lead to bad habits. I once played with someone who always had a singleton when he made such a statement, for instance. Not to say that anyone who makes such statements will fall into bad habits, but the statements shouldn't be necessary in the first place.

I think you make a significant overbid when you say a claim normally requires 30-60 second of thought before being rejected. To hotshot's follow-up: I've never seen an attempted online claim based upon a double-squeeze.

The Thai approach.

I strongly suspect that you can get a degree in a discipline that is focused on waste management, sewerage treatments, and the like.

1♦-(1♠)-2♥-(P) 3♣-(P)-3♥

For me 5NT would be a choice of slams bid. Only grand slam try would be 5♥. So I could do nothing more than raise to 6♦. Yep I agree with that :( If it goes 2♥-DBL-4♥-5♦; P-5N-P-?? Which strains are the choices?