skjaeran

Clear 2♦ for me. Can't imagine me passing with this.

Bridge is easily teached to kids if you start with "Minibridge". That means extremely simplified bidding - one partner in each partnership delivers his partner a note telling his distribution and hcp. The captain in the pair place the contract according to a decision table (if the strenght is more or less evenly distributed between the two sides there might be a competitive auction between the two captains). Thus they learn what's generally needed of values to bid game, small slam and grand slam, and can develop their playing abilities. Later on they can move on to real bridge and learn true bidding. Having more than basic playing skills and having learned the purpose of the bidding, this should be an easy transition. And best of all, at this point you'll have only those really interested staying. Which means it'll be even easier to be a teacher. And you'll have a good chance of getting these players to continue playing and become club members and tournament players.

Partner is more or less marked with 3163 distribution. I think LHO is more probable to be 4414 than 4423. I expect partner to have sound values for his overcall and rebid, so I'm inclined to bid now. I'd try 2NT - it should show ♣'s and ♦ tolerance.

I open 1♣ on both. In my current methods this is systemic, since 1♦ shows an unbalanced hand with 5+♦ or 4441 with a singleton ♣. But playing other methods (better minor) I still prefer 1♣. This is a 'cultural' thing btw.

North's first double is perfectly OK. You lack some shape maybe, but that's compensated by extra strenght. The easy way to bid this hand is to get in fast and get out fast - unless partner keeps you in the auction. Sure, I know a lot who would pass. Overcalling 1NT is close to lunacy IMO. I've got no idea why east passed over 1♣ - X. I'd strongly prefer a bid here - what depends on methods. South's hand has a major flaw for 1NT - lack of the requisit strenght. 1♦ is more than obvious. As for the rest of the auction - no need to comment. It speaks for itself.

Playing a club now would be careless, but not irrational. Declarer already proved twice that he's able to make careless plays, not that it matters. :( 1 down.

He cannot play trumps. Can't play for any trumps to be outstanding, special rules on that. He can't play a single card - it's the TD's job to judge the outcome after a disputed claim. Btw, there's nothing in the laws saying that the TD can't rule that declarer must play trumps when it's clear that there's no outstanding trumps. (I know some SO's have made stupid rules concerning this......)

I guess this reply belong in another thread. :P (The 1♣-(3♠)-? thread)

This is a rock solid 1♦ opening. Only 10 hcp, but 6-4, two aces and very good interiors. What more could you ask for? :P

Sounds a reasonable decision. The outcome of the hand seems obvious - contract made. Some disciplinary action seems called for, most probably a heavy warning IMO.

At IMPs we make our living by getting to game if possible. If we have a 4-4 ♥ fit that's a far easier game to make than 5♣. So to me it's obvious to show my heart suit first. We can get the club suit into the picture later on if needed.

I did Me too, but possibly after Ken's post.

My sequence shows extras - some potential. And we DO open quite light. The ♠9 and ♥JT is what allows me to bid once more. I'd not do it if you take away the ♠9 or the ♥T - that's how borderline this is for me.

With methods I used with my previous partner we'd have a chance at these hands. All sequenced would start: 1♥ - 2NT 3♣ - 3♥ 3NT - 4♣ Where 3♣=natural non-minimum, 3♥ ask for singleton and 3NT denies. To be able to learn what side king opener holds, responder would then have to fake a 4♣ cuebid. Bidding would proceed with ♦K: 4♦ - 4NT 5♣ - 5♦ 6♣ Responder would thus be able to bid 7♣ holding ♠Ax opposite the ♦K and ♠Axx opposite ♠K and play 6♥ on the other combinations. Opener need a king in a pointed suit to show more than minimum. I don't claim we'd actually bid like this at the table. But it's a possibility. In my current methods we'd not be able to bid this, unless opener elected to show this hand as a 15-17 5422 - which wouldn't happen.

Hmm, wouldn't that show a better hand? Well, I think this IS a better hand. ;)

What he said. Ditto. If partner denied 3c♠ he might show HH.

Agree.

For me it's close between pass and 2♦. 3♦ vul is too risky - it might cost too much or may lead to a bad save (as it dit here).

Playing standard (or rather no) methods I'd rebid 2♥ on both for reasons best explained by Frances. With my regular partner I play transfers here. On the first hand I'd rebid 2♦ as a transfer to 2♥. If partner accept I'll go on with 3♦, inviting game. If partner makes any stronger rebid we're going to game. On the 2nd hand I also transfer to ♥s, planning to rebid 2♠ over a completion of the transfer.

The odds against setting this twice must be overwhelming, so I really can't see any reason to double. Just lead the ♦K and see if they can cash nine winners (or even get to nine having two ♦ stoppers) or not.

I can't imagine bidding less than 4♠ with this hand. At this vulnerability I can't imagine bidding more than 4♠ either. B)

vs a passed partner I'd pass this.

I can't GF on this hand, so has to make an invite. I can't bid 2NT which is right on values with hearts open - I'll wrongside the contract. I don't like my suit much, but nothing better is to be found, so 3♦ it's got to be (for some playing xyz this would be forcing, they will bid 2♣ followed by 3♦).

Depends where you live. It has an 'e' in England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Island and Eire, among other places. It also has an 'e' for non-english speakers learning english outside of North America.

The first one is a Stepping-Stone Squeeze. Not the normal variant, where you lose one trick after the squeeze, using an opponent as a stepping stone to the other hand. Here you don't lose any trick, but uses one opponent as a virtual stepping stone to dummy. A similar ending was discussed in this thread: http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...=stepping+stone The proper term for the second is simply Entry-shifting squeeze. This is the basic form of this squeeze, described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entry-shifting_squeeze