ajm218

[hv=pc=n&e=shkqj962dat8642c4&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1cp5c]133|200[/hv] Reasonable though not great standard event, opps are playing Acol.

[hv=pc=n&s=sk73hak73dj874ca9&n=saqt2hq2da32ckqt3]133|200[/hv] In 6nt on a club lead after a strong nt opening and a 2♥ response to stayman. How would you play this? Anyone able to do a sim to compare some lines?

What happened on the hands? 4♠ had almost no play on the first hand as partner put down a 0166 hand with Q♥, AK♣ and A♦ - just wondered whether people might only open 3 with 4♥s or not (I certainly would open 4 if my side suit was a minor). The second hand was a terrible one at this form of scoring, I opened 3♠ and it went p p x and I went for 1100 against 460 when partner put down a 1516 hand with just the A♥ that stopped them being able to make a slam. Whilst we were waiting to score up, my WC rho who I know very well told me he thought 3♠ was madness. I should have also perhaps factored in that I knew he would reopen almost every time his hand could be stretched to a reopen (i.e. a lot more than a random opp)... The responses I've collected thus far seem very much in two camps 1) what else? (with shape compensating for lack of fillers) and 2) wild The final hand was quite an interesting one, one thing I didn't mention about the competition is that you have to play 1/3 of the match with each of your teammates which is both fun and tough if you get undiscussed bidding problems. I thought 4♦ should be COG but I had no idea if 4♣ is forcing here - what is standard? Anyway over "COG" it went X XX p, I now emerged with 5♣ and partner did extremely well to raise to 6 (perhaps he expected at least my hand)? He had KJxx x Axx KJTxx so that was a swing of 1470 when our opps went off in 3nt. Frances - I've just seen the semi-final draw :D Should be a good match

Playing 2/1 - weak only multi and constructive twos in a teams match scored by aggregate [hv=pc=n&s=sat96432hj862d6c9]133|100[/hv] 1st in favourable [hv=pc=n&s=skq97543h8d7643c8&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=pp]133|200[/hv] [hv=pc=n&s=saqthaj952d8cq752&d=n&v=b&b=5&a=1c1d1h3dppdp3sp]133|200[/hv]

If its cold DD just over 50% of the time; doesn't that mean that in practice it will make much less than 50% of time (assuming we're playing good opponents who make normal leads and can defend properly)? I mean some hands will need us to know to play for a particular squeeze, or an endplay etc. Others will require us to get a two way finesse right and others will even require us to pick up suits that we won't in practice like a backwards finesse with AJx opp K9x and playing to the J if we have 9xx opp AJ8x and there is KQx onside etc? Any feeling on what % we should remove because they won't be made in practice?

partner's hand was: [hv=pc=n&n=s2h432dj32ckqj432]133|100[/hv] I rebid 2♥ and then bid 3♠ over 3♦ - we ended up in 5♦ which made when ♣ were 2-2. 3NT and 5♣ both off on best. Thoughts? I play much more teams than pairs and at teams I thought 2♥ wasn't particularly close but in England we definitely play 2♣ as forcing undiscussed so 3nt was my only other choice of rebid.

[hv=pc=n&s=sa2haqjdakt32ct32&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1dd2cp]133|200[/hv] Matchpoints playing strong and 5

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=sajxxxhxdajxxcjtx&w=sxxhqj9xxdqckqxxx&e=sxxhakxxdt9xcaxxx&s=skqtxhtxxdkxxxxcx]399|300|Scoring: IMP 1♠ (X) 4♣ (4♥) 4♠ P P (5♣) P P X [/hv]

[hv=d=e&v=b&s=sxxhkjtxxxxxdxcak]133|100|Scoring: MP P ?[/hv]

yes deffo had the 7 cos it affected my line of play. and you must know how busy my schedule is - it's hard to fit in adding a hand here amongst the daily grind and as for scrote, he's only whining cos he went off too. Yeh I remember as I was sat opposite him :( As I recall though; he took a similar line to Robson, so difficult to criticise too much...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2849318575072074556#

Guess i should reveal what happened... board 1, i doubled and conceeded 3♥x tick, lesson learnt... board 2, i doubled and collected 300 - accept this wasn't a great action but p saved me with more defence than he might have had... board 3, I had AKQ Axxx AJTx KJ so accepted p's invite, they didn't lead a ♥ so it rolled home - if my hand can be this good and it still be "no play" (much more likely to go off at imps as the opening leader would have probably lead away from his KJT9♥?) should we be just inviting or even not inviting unless you have methods to show the exact hand type?

sorry auction on 2 was wrong - corrected now

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=sjhxxdkqtxxcakxxx]133|100|Scoring: MP 2♠ (3♥) ? 2♠ = 8-12[/hv] [hv=d=n&v=n&s=sjhxxdkqtxxcakxxx]133|100|Scoring: MP 2♠ (3♥) ? 2♠ = 8-12[/hv] [hv=d=n&v=n&s=sjhxxdkqtxxcakxxx]133|100|Scoring: MP 2♠ (3♥) ? 2♠ = 8-12[/hv]

1♠ 2♥ 2♠ 3♦ 4♥

My best pip was the 7 :)

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=shaqdaxxxcjtxxxxx]133|100|Scoring: Total Points[/hv] this was my hand so double or 5♣ were winning bids. Thoughts?

Gnasher - 1d with 4-4 and 1c with 5c and 3d

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=sakxxxxhdxxxxckqx]133|100|Scoring: Total Points[/hv] 1♣ (3♥) 3♠ 4(♥) P P ? You're playing 2/1, 1♣ is 2+

Well done posters - not an easy hand to analyse without a double dummy solver! I thought it was quite pretty though... :D

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=sj7632ht93dxcaqxx&w=sqt94hj64daqtckjx&e=sak5h5dkxxxxcxxxx&s=s8hakq872dj9xxctx]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] On the ♥ lead p won in hand with the 8 and played a ♠. West couldn't put the Q♠ up or the hand would be trivial so East had to win the trick and find a ♣ switch to remove one of declarer's entries early - when he didn't the hand was again over as partner had just enough entires and temp to ruff a ♦ and set the ♠s up.

Thanks for the detailed explanation Jeremy - I'm sure the counties (in their infinite wisdom) would never let a "GITH" exponent anywhere near the L&E committee :D

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=sj7632ht93d3caq64&w=shdc&e=shdc&s=s8hakq872dj942ct7]399|300|Scoring: IMP 1♦ P 2♦ 3♥ P 4♥ AP[/hv] 6♥ lead - opps are playing a strong club system so 1♦ is catch-all, 2♦ is inv+ without a 4CM

Apologies Frances - I should have been more accurate. It would be interesting (though perhaps politically impossible) to find out what the orange book (the bidding rule book in UK) would look like if the L&E committee were drafting it today from a blank sheet and did not have to bend to allow for historic factors.

Detailed description here: http://ebulaws.blogspot.com/2010/05/change...august-1st.html Apart from 6 or 7 events a year it will now be necessary for 1♥ and 1♠ opening bids to show that suit. I can fully understand the Laws and Ethics committee's decisions for short round matches where preparing a proper defence, to amongst other previously allowed bids like a 1♥ opener showing 9-15 bal, isn't really practical. My question is - to what extent should less frequent national tournament players be protected by the authorities from the unknown? Its not clear to me indeed that there are any principles behind setting the rules (apart from keeping the majority of the members who would prefer not to play against anything difficult happy) For example I think the following system would be allowable still in the other national events but wouldn't be particularly enjoyable to play against? 1♣ = 3♥s or 14+(not unbal with 5major) or 16+(any) or natural 1♦ = 3♠s or nat or 18-19 bal 1♥ = 4+ possible canape 1♠ = 4+ possible canape 1nt = ? 2 level bids = a suit or not the same suit - where the particular suit varies with position and vulnerability (i.e. so you need a matrix to see all possibilities) I'm not claiming this system has great merit but the fact that it is allowed when other stuff has been banned because of the difficulty in defending against perhaps shows why a principles based system is needed? (apologies if any of the system isn't allowed ;))