karlson

Come on, telling this club that discriminating on the basis of age is against the rules isn't going to solve any problems. The attitude is the issue, not the rules. I think it would be fantastic if we could have separate games for older crowds and younger crowds, or separate competitive and non/competitive games so that people could choose which type of atmosphere they prefer. Unfortunately we don't seem to have enough bridge players to do so.

Ok, thanks everyone. In case of interest, answers/stories. 1. I passed it out. Partner had about what one expects (he must have a huge side club fit to bid like this after passing 1♦): ♠Kxxxx ♥x ♦x ♣JTxxxx. Amazingly, their spades were 2-2 and we were +100 to win 2 imps. I thought that I could have found a double here with such good diamonds -- really their tricks are only coming from trumps -- but of course if lefty had had short spades, they may well have made it. 2. I tried 3n. Partner had ♠KJxx ♥xxxx ♦x ♣xxxx. When diamonds were 4-2 I cashed out for -300 and lose 9. Double followed by 3♦ will presumably let you play it there, but you would also play it there opposite two or three small diamonds, so I still don't know the right answer. 3. I think everyone is out to lunch on this one. I also bid 4♦ at the table staring at the possible fast losers in the majors, but I really think it's a clear error. Partner is balancing red/red over 3♥ at imps -- I think he has a doubleton heart approximately 0.2% of the time. Given that, you need only a couple of keycards to give game play, so I think 4N is standout. Today partner had ♠AQxx ♥-- ♦xxxx ♣Kxxxx. Game is obviously cold, 6 is ok, and today all the cards were right so even 7 was makeable. Somehow +170 was win 1 I think. 4. I passed, fearing the lack of a club fit. I agree that in theory 5♣ should be forcing and 5N over it should be passable, but I was a bit scared of perpetrating such a sequence and I wasn't at all sure we could even make 5N if partner's clubs were really Ax or worse, Qx. Today partner had ♠Ax ♥AKJxx ♦AKQ ♣AQx, so 6N is on a hook on a spade lead, a little better on a non-spade lead, but the hook is on today. 6♣ can go down if you take the normal line of ruffing a spade since the hearts are actually 6-0. Lose 3 as teammates got doubled in 3♠ for 800. I'm happy with my pass -- given that 6 won't necessarily be cold opposite the best possible club holding, it seems like bidding is wrong. 5. Sorry, I guess this was a bad problem, since there was some confusion over the methods. I thought they were pretty normal myself, but I think the hand would have been an ok problem with any methods. Partner had ♠AKJxx ♥AKxx ♦AKJ ♣x. Maybe it's not 2♣ to you, but it can't be terrible. In any case, we failed to get to hearts after 5♣-x-p-p-5♥-p-6♠. I didn't like partner's 6♠ bid but perhaps I should have bid 6♥ either now or on the second round since it would be a more unambiguous attempt to play in hearts. Neither slam is fantastic, but hearts is much better than spades and could be made today. 6♠-1 was of course lose 10.

So we got to a vul game that needed 2-2 clubs and not the best opening lead? I've been in worse.

Sorry, I guess I didn't explain myself very well on #5. 2c followed by 2s was game forcing. 4h was just a "cue", but you can expect partner to cue ♥AQxx ahead of ♦Ax and it's definitely not a stiff/void heart. Obviously he might not have much of a side suit at all on this auction, so it doesn't promise 4 hearts.

Yes, I'd bid 3♣.

I think I would start 1h-1s-3h and I wouldn't get to slam.

All swiss teams (imps, 8-board matches) 1. ♠AQJx ♥x ♦QJ9xx ♣KQx r/w lefty deals. 1♦-p-1♥-x 3♥-4♠-5♥-p p-5♠-6♥-? Agree with your first two actions? Now? 2. ♠Axx ♥A ♦AKQxxx ♣Qxx r/r, you deal 1♦-1♥-p-2♥ ? 1♦ was always unbalanced. You play takeout doubles and good/bad in this spot (3♦ shows a genuinely invitational hand). Your style is not to make a negative double with a minimum with heart length, but feel free to ignore that if you think it's silly. 3. (I think this is a wtp in retrospect, but I got it wrong at the table). ♠xx ♥xx ♦AQTxx ♣AQTx r/r, lefty deals p-p-3♥-p p-x-p-? 4. ♠xxx ♥xx ♦xxx ♣KJTxx r/r partner deals 2♣-p-2♦-p 2N-p-3N-p 4N-p-? 2♦ was game forcing and while you didn't discuss this explicitly, you're 90% sure partner is showing 27-28 balanced. 5. ♠Txx ♥QJxxx ♦xx ♣KQT w/w partner deals 2♣-p-2♦-p 2♠-p-3♠-p 4♥-p-? Different partner, this time 2♦ didn't show anything in particular, but 3♠ was forcing. 4♥ was a serious (NS 3n available) semi-natural slam try.

5♣ 5♥

I think if you're going to play ogust, you should have a strict definition of 2/3 top honors for good suit. A good percentage of the time responder is trying to decide whether 3n is the right game. Internal solidity is nice to have for your preempt, but it may not make much difference once you have found a fit. So what do you respond with the following two hands, all white first seat IMPs: A) KQ9653 5 QT4 742 :lol: AJT953 5 QT4 742? It seems weird to call B bad / bad, or A good / good, but it also seems strange to call B a good hand and A a bad one. shrug. I don't have a problem with calling (a) good/good. Yeah, it's a minimum.

Have to say I agree with Josh -- I don't think partner ever bids over this sequence.

I think it's crazy if doubler can't ask without it suggesting something about hearts. It's a live auction where all 4 hands are bidding, I think everyone should always ask about alerted calls. What if 2♥ showed clubs and 3♣ would be a cuebid by our agreements (and partner knew the opponents' system from looking at the card or something). What if I can infer the opponents are having an accident from the explanation and from my hand, that would be useful information to have. Now if the argument is that the 3♣ bidder didn't ask last time, so he probably wasn't going to ask this time, so the question was the only thing that would wake him up and he'd never think to bid 4♥ otherwise, then I don't know what the ruling should be, and I'm glad we have people that probably do know. But to me the argument that the doubler's question transmits UI about heart strength is ludicrous.

1) 2 2) 2 3) 2 4) 1 5) 1 6) 1 7) 2 8) 1 9) 0 10) 2 11) 1 12) 1 13) 1 14) 1 15) 2 16) 0

Despite my agreement about rubber soul, I don't really think there are really any bad beatles albums. Sgt pepper's has to be thought of as a show, not as an album of tracks, and in that respect it makes a fantastic show. But if more classical arrangements are your thing, then how can you ignore lucy in the sky or with a little help from my friends. As for the white album, I have plenty of sympathy for someone who doesn't find revolution #9 to be a masterpiece, but did you forget about blackbird, while my guitar gently weeps, sexy sadie, and numerous others?

Rubber Soul ainec (I just knew I'd get to use some of those fancy new abbreviations soon)

I think if you're going to play ogust, you should have a strict definition of 2/3 top honors for good suit. A good percentage of the time responder is trying to decide whether 3n is the right game. Internal solidity is nice to have for your preempt, but it may not make much difference once you have found a fit.

I actually really don't care for feature. One of the worst auctions is 2x-2N-3y-3N. If y is a feature, they often manage to lead y and knock out dummy's side entry. Of course this is not a huge concern over 2M when your usual target is 4M, not 3N, but it can still be bad. I'm happy with ogust or some variant over 2d. Over 2M, I like any of a number of structures that let opener show a singleton when non-min. With one partner we tried a variant of ogust which was "rate your hand on a scale of 1-4". It kind of works.

It's pretty popular among precision players to move the 3-suited 0-1♦ 11-15 opening to 2♥ instead of 2♦. The acbl recommended defense has two treatments which seem dubious to me: 1. playing double as 5+♥ and an opening hand and 2. playing 3♣ as a good 3♦ bid. I would definitely have thought it's much better to play double as takeout of hearts and 3♣ as natural. Thoughts?

I would double, I think I just have too much, and aside from the ♥JT, the rest of the hand is not so defensive.

I would invite, happy to have this agreement for double on this hand.

2 right-side-up clubs.

So has anyone aside from the Hideous Hog tried underleading an ace out of turn?

I guess the above was my way of saying "yes"? I don't really see the problem with it even.

I think that 1M-2c-2M-splinter DNE, if that's what you're asking.

The style I like is: Over 2c, new suits below 3M are natural slammish, usually 5-5. Higher (like your first example) are splinters. All game tries start with 2d. Responder can make one directly over 2d, or responder bids 2M with nothing special and opener can make a try if he wants. If you play 2-way (kokish) tries over 1M-2M, then you can also play them over 1M-2c-2d and over 1M-2c-2d-2M. The second auction is still a splinter, responder can have a decent number of hands which are GF opposite non-trash, and opener is still unlimited.

If you don't consider it strong enough for a reverse, you can bid 1♣...2♣ and it'll be much less of a distortion than 1♦...2♣.