skjaeran

What rule makes this clear? Thanks. Law 69B: Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn.

Are you kidding? I'd not even think about 2♥ on the previous round. That's a sure road to get way overboard. Now I'm bidding 2NT, lebensohlish.

Agree, one of very few partnerships playing this method. Seems it was more or less obsolete already when I started playing some 30 years ago, eventhough my memory can be faulty. :unsure:

ELC = Equal Level Conversion. Playing ELC you can double a major with 4 cards in the other major and 5+ ♦'s, planning to bid ♦'s if partner responds in ♣'s without promising extra strenght. You can find more about it in this thread: http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=20987

There's two possible bids by south in the balancing position; the mainstream 3♣ or an agressive 2NT. 2NT is in fact not as agressive as it seems at first glance. Partner will often provide a stopper - or the suit might be blocked. I prefer 3♣ but won't argue with anyone preferring 2NT. Over 3♣ north should either pass with a balanced eight count with quacks or try an agressive 3NT. I'd expect pass to be odds on, and I'd certainly chose that non-vulnerable. 4♣ I can't understand at all, you don't want to be in 5♣ with that north hand.

If you're talking about vugraph matches, you can indeed find them. Go to the "Bridge Library" then "Vugraph archives". There you'll find the matches up to 2004. More recent matches are found by clicking "All recent broadcasts" whih brings you to a website with recent vugraph files. I don't think you can find other team matches. But those you kibitz should be saved on your computer.

On the first hand I'll try 5♥ after partner's forcing pass. I don't think we'll get rich defending 4♠, +300 at most I believe. The ♦QJ are great cards here. I think we're favourites to make 5♥. On the 2nd hand I'd rate: 1: 1♠ 2: 1NT 3: pass 4: 2♣ (I don't like it, but it's an option.)

I liked the hand before the bidding started... :rolleyes: I don't rate partner's chances in 4♠ here as good, so raising is out for me. The alternatives are pass and 4♥. I do love those game bonuses at IMP's so I'll have a try at 4♥. If partner is 2-1 in my suit's I need them to be divided 3-2 and 3-3. Not that great a game. But I'll give it a shot. Even 3♠ might go down too. B)

I'd rebid 1NT, showing 18-19 with stoppers. That's by far the best description of my hand. 2♣ is an alternative, but to me 1NT is far superior. X is t/o here. Switch the pointed suit holdings, and that would be OK. If you double and partner bids 2♦ you won't love it at all.

Banning psyches is illegal, it's against Law 40A: It's also against Law 75B: Some SO's ban psyching conventional bids and/or conventional replies to those. That's allowed by Law 40D: If an SO asked me to be a TD and they had banned psyches I'd tell them that such a regulation is illegal - it's not bridge any more. And refuse to be TD unless they changed the regulation. Except for that, I agree with Han and Ralph.

That's often occuring - some honour card makes it harder to see a simple and effective line which you never would miss if you didn't hold that card.

Helge Vinje was a leading Norwegian expert on defensive methods, the author of "Det norske fordelingssignalet: nøkkelen til godt motspill" (The Norwegian Distribution Signal: the key to good defence. As far as I know this book was never translated) in 1960 and "Presisjonsmotspill i bridge" in 1976, also published as "New ideas in defensive play" in 1979. In Vinje's first book the count method known all over the world as "Standard count" was published for the first time, having been in use by the leading players in Academic Bridge Club in Oslo for some 3-5 years. The Norwegian lead was also described in this book. The main idea is to tell partner at early as possible the number of cards in the lead suit when leading a spot card - in the same way as you give count. Thus you lead high-low from an even number and your lowest (low-high) from an odd number. Form four you thus normally lead your 3rd highest card, on occasion your 2nd (for example froom K532, since the 5 is easier read as 'high' than the 3). From 6 you lead 4th, since the 5th will often be read as the lowest in a 5-card suit).

As far as I can see you don't need to do anything special here. Just win the ♥Q, ♠ to A, ♣ ruff, ♠ruff and ♣ruff. Position:[hv=n=sj9hq93dkj83c&w=skt3h4dq976cq&e=s876hjt85dcj9&s=sahak762d5c65]399|300|[/hv] Now yoy lead the ♦K off dummy, and east only gets a trump trick.

Pass seems clear in the first auction. In the second I'd have overcalled 2♣ previously.

5♥ now. That's the bid that most realistically can help partner to bid 6♠ IF that's where we belong. In other circumstances (5-level, other vulnerability) I often will bid a side suit to help partner decide if opps bid once more. That doesn't apply here, where you can be quite sure they won't bid again, and where you'd always double them at the 6-level (unless partner bids slam over your 5♥). Looking at Josh's post it seems we're on the same page here.

Ahem. There's just 13 clubs in a normal deck. When we've got 8, opponents usually has 5 combined. :unsure: Why wouldn't Chagas play low from KQx/KQxx? I'd think there was three holdings Chaga would be playing the king from: K, KQ, KTx. So I'd take the ace, eliminate hearts and exit a spade. If Chagas win and lead a low club I insert dummy's 8. If Chagas has KQ I can't go wrong of course, and if he's got K, whoever wins the spade is endplayed.

Declarer should have a singleton club. That should be obvious from the bidding. He's got something like AKJ AKTxxx KQx 3. (He could of course have one spade more and a diamond less.) The only possible way to beat it is thus a diamond ruff.

Agree with opening this at the 1-level. The main suit is far too weak to consider a forcing opening IMO. 4NT might be preferrable by north on his 2nd turn (I'm not convinced), but 4♦ should be (close to) forcing. I can see passing this broke with 3-1 in the minors, not else. South has a huge hand in context here; 4-3 in partner's suits and the ♣K. So I'd put all the blame on south.

If you would like to open hands like these you should use the Tartan/Muiderberg (or whatever they're called in your area) 2M openings showing 5M and 4+m (maybe always 55 vul), treating this hand as a 2-suiter, combined with the Multi 2♦. Having passed I can see no problem now - you've got an obvious 1♠ response.

Saying you should have bid 2♦ is resulting. Your pass was rather obvious.

Yes, but in ACBL-land, TRaSH isn't legal against natural NT Openings. It is (apparently) legal against both artificial 1 and 2♣ openings. On the contrary, Ralph. TRaSH against a 1NT opening (and any other defense against a 1NT opening not allowed on the General Chart) is legal in the ACBL in events that permit Mid-Chart conventions, as TRaSH is a pre-alertable Mid-Chart convention. The General Chart allows all defenses against 1NT openings which show at least one known suit (except that double and 2♣ do not require a known suit). If a conventional defense to a 1NT opening uses any other bid besides double and 2♣ which does not promise a known suit - such as TRaSH - it is a pre-alertable Mid-Chart convention. In Norway no defence to 1NT is considered Brown Sticker. So anything is legal at all levels.

Even the best can have a bad day -- "best" doesn't mean "perfect". And an average team can get lucky. Isn't this why many sports use a "best of 5" or "best of 7" format for their championship events (e.g. the US baseball playoffs and World Series)? That's the same reason why the USBC KO-matches (in the latter stages) are 90 boards too, not 32/48/64 or whatever lower number of boards you can see elsewhere.

I'll win the ♣A and run the ♠T. Assuming this wins the trick and west follow suit I repeat the finesse and draw the last trump if it's 3-1. Then I lead a ♥ to the king (west is forced to duck) followed by the ♣K and ♣J. If (when) east puts in the queen I discard a ♥, endplaying him.