karlson

I'm not really sure what partner has yet, but I suspect I'm very happy he chose to run. Don't see any reason not to bid 2♦.

I'm not going to predict exactly how the auction will go over x or 2c, but you will probably have a reasonable auction. You can try one other easy quiz on this hand though. Say you balance with 4n and it goes p 6c p. Kick it in? Full hand: [hv=n=saxxhaxxxdxxcktxx&w=skqtxxxhkjtxxdqjc&e=sjxxxhxxxdtxxxcxx&s=shqdakxxxcaqjxxxx]399|300|[/hv]

I think that either immediate double or delayed double should show a decent balanced hand that doesn't really have a penalty double, a prototypical example would be Kx Qxxxx Qxx Kxx or something over 1s-2n. I think it's best to use the immediate double for this purpose (and just pass then double with the pure penalty pass) since opener may also be able to compete knowing that partner has a flexible hand (or stay out with a marginal hand when you pass the 2n). However, I think that it's more common to play that a delayed double shows this hand. Your scheme focuses on getting stoppers right, which seems to me to be a secondary consideration. It will be pretty rare that you have the values for 3n, don't want to defend, and are missing a stopper (especially the case when you're missing a stopper in the suit they didn't bid (what are you going to do, run the minor that they did bid?))

which of the foo threads are we talking about? They all blur together... I'm sure it was the one regarding some overcall of a high level preempt. I tried but couldn't find it. maybe this one? http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=22350

I'll bite. I'll admit that your examples are all better examples. I think that one of the questions is how general an agreement can be. If one can claim that "we play 1M-2N as jacoby" is two agreements, covering 1h-2n as well as 1s-2n (or maybe 4 since it applies to different seats, or 16 if we go by vulnerabilities) then one can call jacoby a meta-agreement since it generates other agreements. If, on the other hand, you think that's a ridiculous point of view (and I suppose I agree) then we're all using meta-agreement incorrectly, but we're going to keep using it because it's such a nice word.

♠-- ♥Q ♦AKxxx ♣AQJxxxx 1♠-p-p to you, w/r at imps.

Seems like it should mean an agreement about other agreements. That seems to cover the way I generally use it, which is just an agreement that covers a wide variety of auctions. Examples I would use are "when we ask for shortness, we use LMH responses", "first new suit bid in slam try auctions is semi-natural, not control showing", or "if it's retarded, we don't play it".

Ken: In your ending, after three diamond ruffs and a heart ruff, if lefty pitched a diamond on the third heart, he can pitch another diamond on the fourth heart, then overruff the last diamond and play a trump, leaving you one trick short.

Sorry, lead added.

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sk93htxd8xxxca8xx&s=sqt765hak9xxdckjt]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] 1♠-(2♦)-2♠-(3♦) 3♥-(p)-4♠-(p) p-(x)-ppp Plan the play. Edit: Sorry, ♦A lead.

Do you have a meta-agreement on when pass is forcing after a penalty pass? As a simple example, we had this auction yesterday: (2♦)-p-(p)-x (p)-p-(2♥)-p (p) Do you think doubler's pass is forcing? If yes, what is responder supposed to do with ♦KJTxx and out? If no, what should doubler do with a good hand but relatively bad hearts (I dunno, say AKxx Axx x AQJxx).

Our auction was 1♦*-1♠ 1♣*-2♥* 3♠-4N 5♦-5♥ 5♠-6♦ 1♦ was unbalanced, 1N showed a natural 2c rebid, 2h was gf. Responder basically has to choose whether to focus in spades or diamonds after 3♠. 4♦ can give justin's auction, but of course opener can also have much worse diamonds and better clubs, in which case it would be best to play in spades, and it seems the auction will go the same way. On our auction, responder realized that in diamonds the ♥K would be a pitch and got strain right. Unfortunately he did not know about ♦KQ. Opener on the other hand, could not be sure about all the keycards.

I guess I would 5♠ but with no particular confidence.

[hv=d=s&n=skj9xxhkxxdj8xxca&s=satxhadakqxxcxxxx]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

2/4 limit players live don't think about what you might have, just like bad bridge players don't think about what anyone else has, they just "bid their own hand". I would have 6-bet if possible.

Really, 5♣? 4♠ seems pretty normal to me.

I also play the same way you do. I usually bid 2M with 6 of them. With 5, I would usually bid 1n, but not always, and be more likely to bid the more strength I have (so almost always with 10 points, almost never with 4). I think that a mixed strategy there is not unreasonable in order to keep the opponents from balancing too freely.

Inviting in clubs seems normal to me.

Adam, while I agree with your point that a girls' event might actually be good for bridge and encourage people to play, I have no idea where you're getting these harassment/disrespect/frat-atmosphere stories from, and I've been now to three reasonably major junior tournaments as well as a camp. I don't think the amount of partying and hooking up is any more (and in fact is probably less) than with any other activity where lots of teenagers are involved. I don't often disagree with your points on organizational matters but I'm pretty sure that here you're stuck on some stories that just aren't true, at least in the recent years when I was around (and people will reasonably take them as personal attacks). Also, I don't think the fact that no girls are at the upper tier in terms of bridge is particularly damning. If you look at international junior (or open for that matter) rosters, there are fairly few teams with a significant number of girls. Yes, there are the Swedes, and obviously the Dutch have one pair, and the Germans sometimes have a pair, but it's not like every other team in the event is full of girls except us.

I play that two queens count as an extra keycard. Someone once told me this was a terrible method, but I still haven't really seen why.

The way you've described it, if 1♦ is unbalanced, then by that definiton, 3352 opens 1♣. I play this system with several partners at the moment, and I'm not really convinced of the merits yet. I know some people play 1♦ is unbalanced or (5332) with 5 diamonds. There are lots of different styles out there.

matchpoints red/white [hv=d=n&v=e&w=skjtxhqdktxxctxxx&e=s98xhkjxdajxckjxx]266|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] 1♥-p-2♥-x p-3NT-ppp -300

♠Axx ♥xx ♦xx ♣AKQTxx Partner opens a 14-16 NT in first seat. Matchpoints, mediocre field (sectional pairs). Standard methods (2♠ shows clubs, then shortness or 4n natural. You won't have keycard available in clubs if that's a concern).

3♦ r/w? Too much for me. 2♦-2♠-4♦-5♦ p-5♠-p seems normal enough, and I think south can find a pass now

One of these sequences where there is little agreement. With the partners with whom I've talked about it: 1) Checkback, forcing to at least 3♣. 2♥ would be NF. 2) 5-5 game forcing (2♦...3♦ less shapely) 3) I would guess splinter, never discussed it.