Blofeld

Actually I think 'inconsistent' was probably wrong. Sorry. But providing suggested defences is an alternative to banning methods. It seems to be missing the point to claim that we don't need to consider providing suggested defences because the methods are illegal: the question is whether making people provide suggested defences is a better solution than banning the methods in the first place. Or perhaps that isn't the question and I'm missing the point completely. I'm a little sleepy right now.

Think I'd try 3NT.

Free, you're being inconsistent. There may be a case that people should have defences to everything that's legal, but that wasn't really the question under consideration. I tend to agree with Adam ; incidentally, I'm now tempted to try using some of those odd meanings for bids that I hadn't met before. :P

I would pass and pass. Can people explain what makes this worth a double?

Why is that? Would partner not rather upgrade vuln. at IMP's? Partner upgrading a lot was part of the conditions.

I agree with the first two passes, and could go either way on the fourth, but unless I'm misreading the auction I feel fairly strongly that you should make another move on the third hand.

I agree with Trinidad. I will always try to find out what my opponent's first couple of calls in an auction mean (of course usually a CC will do this for me rather than asking) - if I didn't then it would convey UI to partner. After we get into an auction that I'm clearly very unlikely to act on then I'm happy not knowing until the end of the auction. Which is why I don't like your opponents' action in the first example (especially if they hadn't asked about previous bids, but to an extent even if they had). If I am going to ask, I will avoid leading questions -- asking "is that weak?" of 1♣ certainly fails here. But I can't see anything wrong with what the opponents did in the third example. Unless they never normally ask questions before bidding (as opposed to passing), then asking questions some of the time here conveys just as much UI when you don't ask as when you do. It's still very much a live auction and one where they might want to come in (particularly if 2♣ and 2♦ were weak bids), so in the absence of CCs I would ask about this every time, regardless of my hand. I hate giving UI to my partners, and staying silent [again, if there are no CCs] definitely would give UI.

I answered 3♥ before noticing that it was MPs ... I think I still bid 3♥ at MP but it's less clear. I would definitely have bid 2♠ rather than 1NT, though, even if playing 4cM.

I'd also prefer stayman if the system will allow me to show 5 spades after a negative response - then I can splinter in clubs opposite a 2♥ or 2♠ response. I think that having transferred 3NT is right, though. Playing in 3NT with a 5-3 major fit is ok, but looking to play there with a 5-4 fit seems a bit extreme even at matchpoints.

Was about to post Justin's auction. I'd like to think I'd find the 6♣ call. If I were dozing I might not.

How is 'shut up' an insult?

At matchpoints and if the field is weak I think 4♠ is justified. Wouldn't dream of it at IMPs.

Not stupid. I probably wouldn't have the guts, so would pick 3♠.

If it's run as a team match, can one silence kibitzers at the moment? I thought that disabling kibitzer chat merely prevented them from talking to the players ; talking to other kibitzers would still work. At any rate my vote would be to allow people to talk. I'd love to see this match.

At the table my imagination was suggesting ways that 3♦ could make on a cross-ruff, leading me to eschew a double (I bid 4NT), but I suppose that this is unlikely in the extreme.

Carrying that to an extreme would lead to abolishing takeout doubles, Roland. A certain amount of trust in the opponents' bids is eminently reasonable. But I agree that a lot is unjustified.

I treat this one as a case of eliminating possibilities. At these colours I'm too heavy for 2♥ or 3♥ - partner will never play me for this much. The shape is horrible so I can't quite bring myself to open 4♥. Which leaves 1♥ and pass. Which I pick is down to partnership agreement on how light we open.

Wouldn't have occurred to me that 4NT might be blackwood on this auction.

I would double on your hand. I don't think pass on your partner's hand is totally unreasonable (best chance for a positive score). I want to say it depends on the state of the match, but IIRC this was board 2 ...

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=skxhktxdkqxckqj9x]133|100|Scoring: XIMP (P) 1♠ (2NT) X (3♦) P (P) ? 1♠ is 5+ cards, could be lightish; 2NT was unusual.[/hv] Thoughts?

[hv=d=e&v=e&s=sk5ha987dkj7532c8]133|100|Scoring: XIMP - - - (P) 1♦ (2♣) 2♠ (P) P (3♣) P (P) ?[/hv] You open fairly light. 2♠ was (obviously) NF, 5+ cards but will be a good suit if just 5, around 7 to a bad 11 points. Three questions: 1) Do you think double here is better as takeout or penalty? 2) If double is takeout, what do you bid? 3) If double is penalty, what do you bid?

would really like to suggest playing in diamonds here, which leads me to be wary of bidding 3NT. I voted for 3♣ with no particular idea of what I was trying to achieve. Some vague thought of bidding 3NT next round - but would this be showing a 5th heart? I'm not used to support doubles.

After (1NT) X (XX), it makes sense to have some way of responder naturally running to a minor at the two level. e.g. 2♣, 2♦ natural, pass for opener's minor after which pulling to the next step up asks for opener's major? Otherwise I agree with Adam.

Torn between a trump and the club knave. Think I go with the club.

The question is whether to bid 2♠, describing our hand better, or to double, catering to partner having a penalty pass. Will doubling then pulling 2red to 2♠ show extra values? I'm inclined to think not[1], so I shall venture a double. [1] but I am exhausted at present. I may think differently when less tired.