skjaeran

It's similar to what I play with my regular partner: x= negative, at least two places to play 2♦=hearts, at least constructive 2♥=spades, at least constructive 2♠=transfer to NT, ♣-stopper, inv+ 2NT=constructive 4+♦ raise, non-inv. 3♣=inv+ ♦ raise 3♦/M=nat pre

I raised to 4♠. I've just got the values to make a forcing pass, I believe. But I'll still double. Chances for beating them twice is quite good.

ditto Count me in too.

I'd bid 3♥ now, but I'd not been in this position with my regular partner. I'd have "raised" to 2♦ on the previous round - a 2-way bid in our methods; either a weak 3c raise (3-7 hcp) or natural 2/1. Sry, wasn't aware this was in the B/I forum. :P

It's close between 2♥ and a preemtive 3♥. 2♥ might be best, but I'm sure I'd bid 3♥ at the table.

I'm aming for game only, even the 5-level could be too high. It's very close between 4♥ and 4♠, which both might be the winning bid. There could be problems getting to the ♥ tricks in a ♠ contract, but the same applies to ♠ tricks in a ♥ contract. I think the latter might happen more often of the two, and thus I raise to 4♠.

This is an issue for agreement. I normally play 2♣ as natural here and 2♥ as showing strenght.

I also agree that east hasn't shown his hand with the first double. But I'm confident that it's a bad idea to show it as the bidding has proceeded.

Quibbles is the word. B)

I disagree. Absolutely prefer 1♦. I normally open the my longest suit, and with such suit quality descrepancy in favour of the longest suit, there's no question to me about opening the longest.

I think it's correct to pass as no preference with this east hand over the double. 2NT by east would be scramble to me, suggesting two places to play. After pass west would bid 3♦ and east happily pass.

In the partnerships where I have discussed this, 2S X XX P couldn't happen here, as we play this as a penalty pass. I am not saying Mike is wrong of course, just that it may be dangerous to pass the East hand with no agreements. (Given our agreements, I would bid 2N.) On this hand, I would certainly prefer to have Mike's agreement :) The standard meaning of pass here is no preference. So undiscussed I'd not think it possible that partner would take it as penalty. I don't think it's very useful playing it as penalty here - that will happen so seldom I prefer to play it as no preference. And then 2NT by doubler is Scramble.

Agree. Passing could be right, but I's prefer to have the ♥T to go for penalty. Only 1 down (or even a make) is a distinct possibility. And I don't think +100 is good enough.

Double seems obvious IMO. I'd love to have another ♥, but you can't have it all... If agreements restricted me from doubling, I'd pass, not bid 3♦.

Sorry to correct you, but we get the government the majority deserves. Well, if you can't convince enough to your view and get the government you think you deserve, maybe you really don't deserve it.....

1. I don't know what you're referring to here. 2. You can look over and replay a hand my clicking the "Movie" button on the bottom of the screen. There you can recap the bidding and play at other tables as well. 3. If you move your cursor over the quitted tricks you can see the play to the last trick until that's quitted too. 4. Before bidding you can click on "Alert" and write the explanation PRIOR to making the bid. Or after making the bid you can click on your own bid and type in the explanation. During bidding you can click on an opponents bid to ask for an explanation/alert as well. 5. 64% is the updated NS score in the session, 80% is the NS-score on the last board. Same for EW (35 and 20). As you can see from the total, these are rounded (the scores doesn't add up to 100%).

This is the first time I've come across a situaton where the ACBL system policy is less stringent than the WBF system policy - that's nice. And I prefer the ACBL attitude (on this point - NOT ELSE). B) The WBF rule isn't enforced as strongly as what your question imply. You're allowed to up- and downgrade hands. But you can't open some strength interval of hands (like the 8-9 NT) and pass with some other, stronger interval (like 10-12 or 13-15 NT). The WBF rule is there to disallow forcing pass (or weak opening, if you prefer) systems and similar things. But it's worded in such a way as to disallow a few other possibilities (like yours) - intended or not.

Declarer opened 1♠ and rebid 2♥, and your example to justify your lead is a 20 count with three hearts, and even then I don't see how a club lead is setting him. Come on Halo. Well, I might bid 2H with that hand, and how weak do you think declarer is for his 3NT bid (if he is not just boringly going several off whatever we play.) But OK we make the hand: AKQxx, AKJx, x, K9x and not unreasonably give dummy the diamond KQ and a small doubleton spade. Do you not feel in danger after a heart lead jdonn? On that layout declarer has 5 ♠ tricks and the ♣K in the bag. After winning them he leads a ♦ towards dummy. Your partner can win the ace and let you have your 3 ♣ tricks. But you'll have to give declarer the last 3 ♥ tricks. (The clubs is blocked, you can't get back to partner and the 5th club.) If you're going to argue you'd better come up wiht counter examples where your lead works.

This doesn't particularly interest me, but it's nice that people experiment with bidding ideas. However, this system would be classified as HUM (Highly Unusual Methods) by the WBF (and many other Sponsoring Organisations), making it illegal to use in most tournaments in these jurisdictions due to the combination of opening 1NT with 8-9 and passing with 10-12. WBF Systems Ploicy:

I'd jsut guess to rebid 5♦ in this sequence. The hand will most probably play badly in ♥'s. If the defence can attack ♣'s you'll soon be short in trumps, and never be able to make anything from your long suit. Btw, I disagree with your partner's 2NT bid. That would deny 4-card hearts to me - I'd make a negative double with that hand.

I think a swan is specifically 4711. A giraffe is the generic name for a 7411 hand. 4711 is often called "the perfume distribution" or "Eau de Cologne distribution" after the perfume brand name (which was taken from the adress Glockengasse no. 4711).

The bidding this far indicates that opps are in a 5-2 fit. Partner's expected hand is thus a balanced or semibalanced hand with a 5-card ♠ suit, and at most 5 hcp, probably less. You can't expect any sort of fit. If you double you're aiming for a bad board, going down in som (doubled?) partscore or letting them make 2♠x. This should be an easy pass. The best you can hope for is partner contributing a trick in trumps. You should go passive on defence here, your ♦ holding might be good. I'd either lead a trump (eventhough a singleton trump lead often is bad) or the ♥Q (I know that's no good in the actual layout).

3H Is 3H forcing here? No. Yes, but partner doesn't have the ace of hearts and out if the opponents have BOTH not bid (remember the auction will have been 1D p 1H p ?). Don't worry, there is a zero percent chance that partner will pass 3H given our hand and the opponents silence. He passed 1D so I don't expect him to bid anything. Yes, but again, partner doesn't have these hands. The question is are we more likely to miss a good slam or get to a bad slam by bidding 3S. Considering 3H is, imo, the normal action with a random balanced 18 count, and the normal action with a 15 count and a stiff, I'm just not worried about missing slam by bidding 3H. I am worried that partner, who pretty much is guaranteed to have some black suit wastage will have simply too good of a hand to stop below the 5 level after our 3S bid (think, random 14 count, even wtih AQ of spades or something he will get us too high). I admit I'd most probably have bid 4♥ at the table in this position. But I wholeheartedly agree with everything Justin said above.

This is a very mature analysis imo, very nice. Thanks for the compliment, Justin. I must confess I almost screwed up on that one initially, going to interpret it as count. The defence would be the same anyway. But I agree it's a good point. You've got to stay focused and place yourself in partner's position and think through what information he's got when making a signal to be able to interpret it correctly.

I just did a session as commentator using the BBOTV. No problems at all with the software, but a couple of minor things to comment: With no colour or sound effects, it's harder to distinguish private chat than on the client. Chatting with Roland in norwegian/danish æøåAØÅ typed by me on BBOTV didn't show correctly for Roland using the client. Roland's æøåÆØÅ showed properly on BBOTV. Boards not finished at the other table looks like a push in MyHands.