Ant590

I like the idea of playing "system on" after 2/3 level overcalls of 2♣. I'd be a little bit worried about pre-empting partner, however, despite showing these types of hand well.

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=sk82hkq92d873c932]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Playing 2/1 in a teams of 4 match against reasonable opps, you have the following (uncontested) auction: 1♦ - 1♥ 4♣* - ? *splinter agreeing hearts Partner's other bids that would have agreed hearts were 2NT=near GF raise or better asking responder for hand type, splinters in the other suits and 4♥ itself. Are people bidding 4♦ (agreed as last train), signing off or something else altogether?

Csaba, are you just really good at using the search function, or do you keep a record of interesting threads somewhere? If the latter, care to share?

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=s632hkdaqj865caj7]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] You open 1♦, and partner responds 1♠. What's the best rebid here? 2♣, 2♦, 2♠, 3♥, 3♦ all seem options

I would upgrade in all seats, but guess I need to seriously reconsider these things!

This is what me and my partner were considering, so basically one shows doubt about 3NT, probably with a doubleton in each of partner's suits. But bidding the non-GF step (2NT for us) to see if partner can break it seems sensible on some occasions too, so then how do you end up in 3NT! Ah, well, good to know me and my partner are having trouble with auctions where there is no expert standard it seems :)

Say you have the agreement to play Lebensohl after a reverse (I think the same question applies to Ingberman too...) How do you play the difference between 2NT - 3♣ - 3NT and 3NT and 4th suit - something - 3NT Two options seem to be (1) One shows doubt about strain (2) The slow option was seeing if partner was going to break transfer, so 2NT then 3NT is a mild slam try I'm sure there are more, and better ones than these though...

Yeah, this feature would enhance the vugraph operating experience. It doesn't take too long for an operator to acclimatize to the shift, but it would be nice to have a way of rotating the table (in an ideal world even to make things a little diagonal). I recently only had to deal with a quarter-turn rotation of the table relative to the computer and it involved my head going crazy for at least one board (anyone who watched the countless undos on the first board of the English Premier League recently will testify to that!).

I haven't read R. Hughes's book, and this might be telling everyone what they already know, but here goes! You can save a lot of space with Question & Answer relay-type auctions if you employ run-ons. In other words, if you structure your responses to the questions such that the most space consuming answers show better hands, then these hands can automatically answer the next question. An example of this is actually RKCB, where the next question "do you have the Q of trumps" is answered automatically if partner has two keycards, the most space consuming response. Spiral scanning and symmetric-relay type bidding follow this principle. Of course if your relay auction is not a linear series of questions, but allows partner to ask a variety of questions then you can't be too crazy with the run-ons. Like I said, sorry if this was teaching Grandma to suck eggs.

I normally use the 'dummy echo' in a doubled contract to say "relax partner, this is making"... perhaps this should be disclosed to the opponents too!

Does anyone know if the 2008 appeals booklet will ever be produced?

I realize that the strong option in the original post was strong balanced, so the following is an aside. I have asked many EBU directors whether it is allowed to play the following as part of a multi at level 3: (1) Weak two in major (2) Acol two in diamonds all agree that (2) is frequent enough for legality at level 3, and I believe this is almost close enough to a mini-multi (in terms of the hands which would want to pass it) as you can get. The odd favourable poker pass is disallowed, but most of the tactical passes with long diamonds are safe enough. Sure you may miss 6♦ sometimes... For me this is evidence of a clear loophole in the way the clause of the orange book was worded.

Sitting south, you hold: [hv=d=n&v=b&s=skhkt4dq853cakq72]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Pass - (1♠) - ?

Another (probably dumb question), do any of you rebid 1NT on a 4=1=4=4 after 1♦-1♥?

Hey all, I appreciate it is expert standard to A. Opps bid one suit only, cuebid asks for stop B. Opps bid two suits, cuebid shows stop Now the logic behind A is clear, otherwise you would have to swap a natural bid and the cuebid. But why is the expert standard reversed for case B?

I would pass

I think the tabs are great, but I think it is counter-intuitive to have to re-click a tab to hide them. I'd have a third "hide" tab that does that, that becomes "show" when the sidebar is minimised.

Sorry if this has already been answered, but to operate vugraph does one need to use the win version, or is the flash one ok? If flash works, are the feature-sets similar? Ant.

Best to always look at: http://online.bridgebase.com/vugraph/schedule.php This is set up to automatically display in your own timezone.

What is the "standard" meaning of these doubles/2NTs 1. (1♦) - pass - (pass) - dbl (2♦) - dbl 2. (1♦) - pass - (pass) - dbl (2♣) - dbl 3. (1♦) - pass - (pass) - dbl (2♦) - 2NT

The 2NT bid is fine, it is the responses that many experts change. One easy structure is: 3♣ = any minimum 3♥ = club shortage 4♥ = never really bid, but suggests a solidish suit with nothing outside Then the hands that would bid 4♥ in standard Jacoby now bid 3♣, giving partner space to make a slam try if needed. However, this gives the opponents an easy lead-directing double (or the inferences from a lack of one), and often it will go 1♥-2NT-3♣-4♥ and you have not gained anything. In a pick-up partnership I wouldn't bother really though. Missing the odd tough-to-bid slam is the least of your worries...

One tiny point not at all related to the question: With bidding sequences, it's usual to place the opponents' bids in parentheses rather than your own. Also if the opponents are silent throughout it's usual to just put our side's bids.

I currently play mini-splinters after a major opening, i.e. 1♥ -- 3♣ = invitational splinter or GF void splinter 1♥ -- 4♣ = singleton splinter This is part of a 2/1 system where a 2/1 is GF except if responder rebids his suit. If responder is a passed hand, is it better to play fit-jumps (which most people seem to do?), or stick with the mini-splinters? Are the mini-splinters a dumb thing in the first place?

One must also not forget protective Gerber (as witnessed by a friend): 1♣ -- Pass -- 2♣ -- 2♠ 3♣ -- 3♠ -- Pass -- Pass 4♣* -- alerted...

I would (and did) play a pre-emptive version of Multi-Landy: 2♣=majors 2♦=weak-only multi 2♥/♠=5+♥/♠ & 4+ side minor 2NT=minors I've also play rough twos in the past: 2m=4+m & 4+major 2M=weak