keylime

Quite bluntly, Adam, this is something for the recorder system to be involved in.

Around here, I expect 1/3'rd to 2/5'ths get it right due to the quality of the field. In Baltimore, 10% is about right.

Provisionally it's for all forms of scoring, but I wouldn't be surprised if we use the new creations at IMPs, and Lionel/HELLO at MPs.

I think North needs to upgrade their hand a little - they have good prime holdings and a nice suit. They should make one try here, but unless you have a way to ask, it's risking the five level.

1. Pass. Doubling is begging for a 4 club call. 2. 5S. Taking insurance here. That, and I have a big hand that needs to declare.

1. 4♣. Not defending here. 2. I have a decent hand here. 3♦ and 4♥ are both nice here, but I am going for a little aggression; 4♥ splinter, since I own diamond control here, and I want to get us to the best game, which from experience is often the minor on these constructions.

Recently got my hands on Back in Black by AC/DC.

The weak NT defense is a fusion of Landy, transfers, and a Brozel overcall. X - good hand 2C - majors 2D/H - xfers into H/S 2S - spades and a minor 2NT - minors We do have names for both of the defenses already tentatively, but we are wondering if any have some unknown whiz bang wonder names for it. With regards to the strong NT, currently we play Lionel and HELLO for strong and weak NT interference respectively. We have NOT yet agreed to implementing the proposed defenses yet because we wanted some scrutiny and nitpicking over what was generated first before I started writing in earnest 4th/6th seat actions when a third bid hits the table. We firmly believe in major-centric defenses, and in specific suit 2 suiters when possible. Hence the strong liking of Lionel -> the anchor suit is a known entity early. So imagine my surprise when this was sprung upon me; this is a little different and bold in comparison to the systemic norms of Ultra. From previous partnerships, we both liked Meckwell quite a bit but since we have a philosophy to be "majors first", understandably the defenses we currently use have allure. For the mid-chart fans, we are leaning towards Robinson and possibly Mohan respectively.

As many as you know, Larry is quite technical by nature, and therefore, the mind is spinning from sun up to sun down. So, as usual, he likes to spring stuff on me, and I the good sport I am read it and most of the time like the concepts behind it. Here's his latest creation: a NT defense. The one here is for strong NT's, the weak NT's one is about to see the light of day soon. X -> forces 2C, to either play clubs, or a hand with both majors. If both majors, you xfer into the five card major. 2C -> forces 2D, to either play diamonds, or any major plus club hand 2D -> diamonds and a major 2H/S -> natural 2NT -> minors Any thoughts?

Ditto the above.

Here's an example to illustrate why the current order may not be optimal: 1C* - 1H* 1S* - 2C* 2D* - 2H* 2S* Here's a typical sequence for us: strong club, 4+ spades G/F, waiting, any canape, which one, club canape of 5 clubs, and now asking for the remainder of the hand. Responses: 2NT - showing 4-3-1-5, 3C - showing 4-1-3-5, and 3D being the 4225 hand. If I used a H-M-L I lose the ability to play in the third seat by implication, but if H-L-M, then I am still ahead of the curve so to speak. With 5M and 4m handtypes over a forcing club, this is where the problem is starting to occur 1C - 1H 1S - 2D* 2H* - 2S* (5M, 4D) 2NT* Over this, 3C becomes 5-3-4-1, which nominates the shortage directly. With H-M-L I think I have more flow in the structures hence the possible change.

2NT, since I have the bid free to do so. I want to see how the spade secondary fit looks before making any educated slam tries. I'm probably giving up at 4H on this hand. I have no logical rationale for splintering here due to the spade length. The problem with 4♦ is if pard is on 1-5-4-3 with Axxx of diamonds and no spade honor, they may get too high at the five level, even when holding the A♣.

During the holiday and birthday break, I was browsing through the notes of Ultra Club preparing for the regional in Williamsburg, VA coming up in about 10 days time. In Ultra when patterning out we show our shortages in low-high-mid-none order, but I am starting to consider using high-low-mid-none order instead. Does order really matter?

This hasn't been discussed with Larry, and I better do so now.

I pass too. Double is really aggressive when you hear opener's pard make a negative double and the best opener can do is retreat into hearts again. Pard couldn't make some noise over 2♥ which concerns me.

I think 6♣ is a much worse call than 5♠. You're staring at KQ of trumps and pard's made an aggressive slam with the Q of hearts working in principle. Bidding what you've already shown doesn't help pard, as much as bidding 6♥ to confuse pard on which contract to play in. The splinter isn't that bad of a call.

I'm surprised he went to the well with a wide open diamond suit. Hearts are decent in context but doesn't help declarer much.

Ditto Josh and Mike - I want to play in diamonds if possible on this hand.

I'm leading a low spade, the most aggressive lead I can make from this hand. I'm with Echo here; when have we defended slams off the A-K of a side suit that was cashing?

I'm ducking the first trump trick, and after winning the 2nd one, firing a club across the bow. If pard has T-9-x then I'm going to hate myself, but playing a 4th round of spades is likely losing to us. The fact that declarer isn't touching diamonds infers that they have no reason to play that suit; i.e. well controlled. I'm going to cater to the 3-4-2-4 hand type because both I and dummy have 2 clubs each. Someone has five clubs on this hand and I think it's partner (3-3-2-5, and they didn't lead a stiff diamond by implication).

There was recently a Wine update so that may help as well.

There was recently a Wine update so that may help as well.

3♣. This is nearly a pure hand. I follow up with a spade call. After the raise to 5♠ I'd take a shot at slam.

2♣, because I can handle a 4M preempt with the follow-up of 5♦.

I tend to agree with Phil here, for the sakes of harmony and not for anything malicious.