glen

If you could please do not describe 2NT as a "transfer to clubs, many types". A "puppet to 3♣, many types" would indicate better that ♣s are not promised by the 2NT response.

+ happy to see this forum integrated with blml +

We have played this for 3+ years, see: Maestro Doubles The bad news is that the murder occurrence is very low - we almost never have 1NT-Dbl-Pass-Pass(10+). The good news is that the 1NT-Dbl-Pass-Bid showing less than 10 comes up all the time, and with advancer becoming limited, the doubler stays low. We are happy with the approach even though the murder rate is dismal.

If I was sitting South and dummy came down for the first board you gave, I would have asked "what was 1♠ please". As it is, I don't think this discussion is useful. Edit: This is wrong as noted by the next post - I misread the auction.

Relating to this thread and the more recent "A Discussion of Modern Inflation Causes" thread, the latest issue of Fortune has this article: The great inflation cover-up

I stopped reading after that point. That is such a waste of bids I can barely contain myself. What an inefficient use of precious space! You could think of it as 1♣-1NT(GF bal)-2♣(ask)-then 2♦ etc. following the +chart+

At trick 4, with South on lead, 1) If a ♣ is led, 5♠s + 4♣s + 3♥s = 12 2) If a ♥ or ♠ or ♦ Q is led, 5♠s + 3♣s + 3♥s = 11 3) If the 2 of ♦ is led, then guess - if declarer goes up K, then down 1 is possible To me doesn't look like TD can adjust this board due to possible ♦ guess. --- --- Sometimes the TD can get the adjustment wrong even when two tricks left and the player on lead only has winning cards: [hv=d=n&v=e&n=st984ht952dqj6c65&w=sk52hkdt98542cjt7&e=saq76hqj763dcak83&s=sj3ha84dak73cq942]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv] 3NT by West, North on lead. Here's the 11 tricks played (defense winning tricks bolded): 1) ♠ T A 5 3 2) ♥ 3 4 K 5 3) ♣ J 6 3 Q 4) ♦ A 2 6, ♥ 6 5) ♠ J K 4 6 6) ♣ T 5 8 2 7) ♣ 7, ♦ J, ♣ K 4 8) ♣ A 9, ♠ 2 ♦ Q 9) ♥ Q A, ♦ 5, ♥ 2 10) ♦ K 4, ♥ 9, ♠ 7 11) ♥ 8, ♦ 8, ♥ T J Dummy wins trick 11 and has good ♠ Q, ♥ 7 left when time runs out TD adjusts board to -1. My protests to the ACBL TD seem to have failed that day, based on the hand records in myhands (unless myhands does not have the final, final hands, which it should): Board 9, adjusted to -1 What can you do? Oh well, on to another tourney...

What happens if this is the more likely case: If partner bids 5♣ without any hesitation, his set of hands would look like this {y}. Opposite set y, I make slam about 70% of the time. If partner bids 5♣ WITH a hesitation his set of hands would look like this {x}. x is a tighter set than y that does not include the best 70% of hands in y, and includes some hands that were not in y that make slam very bad. Opposite set x I make slam about 30% of the time. Because of the hesitation, there is a much worse chance of making slam thus you can take advantage of the UI by not bidding slam. You need to think of this not as a specific hand but as a set of hands that partner can have. Now you might wonder how the slow set x hands can be worse for slam than the in-tempo set y hands. The in-tempo 5♣ hands are hands that can't make a red suit cuebid, and thus are game forcing hands that have values in ♣s and ♠s - these are great for slam. However a lot of the slow 5♣ hands are hands that could have cuebid on the 4 level but don't have a lot of extra values - a whole bunch of these that could have cuebid ♦s are bad for slam purposes.

No, your x xxxx Axx Kxxxx is clearly silly since it would not cue 3♦.

Given that a 8 point hand makes slam but can't get there opposite your example hand and the given bidding, the example hand you gave would not bid that way - that is the example hand is not possible. Hands with a good ♣ fit and the ♦ ace have to cuebid 4♦ over 4♣, since 3♦ was just a general force, not a bid that showed first round ♦ control. I'm still waiting to see an example hand that would bid the way that was given, and that slam does not have chances.

And opener with Axxxxx x x Axxxx is now expected to bid 6 opposite your example hand and given the bidding?

I have yet to see an example hand that would negative double, then cuebid (not bid 3NT) and then raise 4♣ to 5, where slam is CLEARLY wrong

Clear for opener to bid 6 regardless of the 2 minute tank, given the previous bidding.

On a related story about change: Miracles of Evolution

This came up today in a morning match. Partner opens 1♠, Blue Team Club + Benito's 1M-3m Roman Jump Raises, your bid? [hv=d=n&v=n&s=sakqhjt3dj753c841]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

Not only that, but, this just in, during longer matches you can only play Multi against players old enuff to drive a Multi defense

Do a news.google search on 1929

In Monday's bulletin, the final attendance: 8,553.5 tables

1) MP oriented systems should not be complex, and thus all complex systems are essentially IMP oriented or flawed for MP purposes; 2) Of the systems I've put on the web, the MP oriented stuff has received little interest relative to the other systems.

Haven't seen this in the bulletins - did I miss it?

I like the current matches tonight, as they may be some teams we will not see later. For Justin's team we will able to watch him in the semis and the finals.

Since the non-nat forum has not been marching into the new month, here's a link to v1.1 of the Shark System: Shark System Notes Outline: 1♣: 16+ 1♦: 11-15 unbalanced, no 6+ card suit 1♥/♠: 8-12, 4+ card suit 1NT: 13-15 Bal 2X: 11-15 6+ card suit I noticed this on Claire's What's New page: Claire Bridge What's New

To echo the above, if I read this correctly, the bidding went 1♣ (artificial)-1♠-2♠-4♠, and declarer played LHO not to have led a singleton ♦ - is that right?

If you don't want to waste a two level opening, and are willing to suffer some complexity, try BRASS With 20-21 balanced, open 2NT, so 2♣ covers the rest of 18+ balanced. Sometimes 2♥ or 2♠ is played from the weak side, but the counterbalance is that 2♣-2♥/♠ stops low opposite 18-19 balanced without a good fit. As far as I know, nobody but us are using it (except with range 18+ to 20-), and we are quite happy with that, so please move on now to the next post.

No, this is wrong for pairs - you often see first-time partnerships win at pairs - if you have 300 pages of "prepared" notes for a pairs event, you are over-prepared, or, put another way, you are preparing for the wrong success factors.