skjaeran

I'd rebid 3♦ with my regular partner here, showing 55 and inv strenght.

Agree. Peter Bidding 3NT slowly like this shows about this strenght. So I completely agree. Parnter, having misbid this far, will now be able to see that he's got a monster for me. 4♣-4♦-4♠ should still get us to slam.

Ditto. The only way I imagine bidding would work out is if partner provides a lucky source of tricks, like KQJxx of a minor or QJ of spades. Anyway it's a really easy pass. Ditto - very easy pass IMO.

What you refer to as Jacoby 2NT in ACBL (and mostly online) is called Stenberg in Scandinavia. Alvar Stenberg of Sweden invented this convention prior to Jacoby. Originally it showed a GF raise, these days it's often played as inv+. There's a lot of response schemes out there. Nobody over here play the standard Jacoby response scheme (maybe an exception for people who've been taught online by americans). I play 2NT as a GF raise with my partner. Our responses are: 3♣= any minimum, 11-13(bad 14) =>3♦=relay 3♦= 14+, any singleton => 3♥=relay 3♥= bal 15-17 (6322/5422) =>3♠=relay 3♠= (13)14-16 any void =>3NT=relay 3NT= 18-19NT 4m= 17+, void 4M= 17+, void OM (This scheme also works if 2NT is inv+, responder rebids 3M over 3♣ to sign off.)

4♣. Bypassing 3NT might turn out to be wrong, but I think 5♣ is a better prospect than 3NT. Pass isn't an option to me, like Josh I'd rather bid 5♣.

Seems strange to me too. I'd have thought a AWMW should be automatic in this case and a PP very close too.

Well, it was his lead..... Seems quite normal to ask what't been shown before making an opening lead.... :D

According to the Encyclopedia experts in North America and many other parts of the world abandoned the traditional 4th-best lead during the 70's and 80's, adobting the 3rd/5th lead. The Encyclopedia say that you lead 3rd from 3 and four, 5th from longer suits. This lead seems to have evolved from what's been standard in Norway since the late 50's after players in Oslo started playing what's been later known as standard count. They also gave count on lead, leading high-low from an even number of cards and low-high from an odd number. The standard lead in Norway is thus to lead 3rd from 3 or 4, lowest from 5 or 7 (or even 9 if that ever happens) and normally 4th from 6. The count aspect of the lead is considered more important than conforming to easy rules of the thumb (like rule of 11 and rule of 10/12, although these rules still apply).

I give count at trick 1. It might help partner later. As for the defence:

Agree.

I don't really know Ingberman, but the sources I'm able to find say that Ingberman use 2NT as the weak bid in the sequence 1♣-1♠-2♦, not 2♥.

That's usually called "Two-way Drury". Yeah, and I do just the opposite with my regular partner - and reverse too, of course. That should be up side down 2-way reverse Drury? :(

Good luck Phil, Arend, Han and Brian!! With some luck you migh beat them. But don't care about that. Sit down and play like you've never done before and have a hell of a time.

I refuse to make a discard without knowing the bidding and play! :lol: I can only guess that someone played a couple of rounds of ♣'s....

1♥ - 1♠ 2NT(1) - 3♣(2) 3♥ - 3♠ 3NT - 4♣ 4♦ - 4NT 5♣(3) - 6♣(4) 7♣(5) - 7NT (1)=18-19 (2)=transfer, showing 4+♦'s (3)=4KC (♦) (4)=asking for 3rd round control (5)=♣Q

1♠. I see no reason to preempt on a hand that might easily cooperate in a constructive auction.

With this horrible hand I'd try to find the bid that will give us the best chance of not getting partner overentusiastic, and that's obviously 2♦. It's much harder to make 5♦ than 4♥, so 2♦ is the bid that gives us the best chance to stop comfortably low.

If this is a natural game try, we're not going to stop short of game. I'll bid 4♦ on the way to 4♥ to show 3-5 and a good ♦ suit. It's just possible for partner to find a great 6♦ with the right hand now.

I'll go with the middle of the road 4♦. It might be enough to buy the hand or it might push opps too high or in the wrong strain. I'll bid once more over 4♠ but defend 4♥.

That's the main reason for our style - to be able to apply T-Walsh more often. We open 1♣ on all balanced 11-14 and 18-19 hands, even with 3=3=5=2. We have an agreement that we might open 1♦ with this distribution if the suit is VERY strong - that hasn't come up yet. I even opened 1♣ once with ♦JTxxxx, but that was possibly stretching it too far (our opponent at the other table thought hard about opening 1♣, but landed on 1♦ playing similar methods).

I'm brought up in a school where you alway open 1♣, and still prefer that. This is standard in Norway, and also in the Swedish "Modern Standard" which I played once upon a time (in that system you open 4c suits in the order ♥-♣-♠-♦, Norwegian Standard is up-the-line with 1♠ showing 5, thus 1♣ is opened with 4=3=3=3). The upside is that it's far easier for partner to give preference to our best fit. The downside is that it sometimes gets more difficult in competitive sequences, but my experience is that you're able to do fine even then. With my regular partner we open all out of range balanced hands 1♣, and 1♦ with 5+ unbalanced (except 4=4=4=1), thus we're systemically bound to opening 1♣ with 4-4.

That's in fact how I usually have played it. With my current partner it show (23)44 and 13-15. (Doubleton in the opened major and 44 in the minors.) With our light opening style we should probably adjust it to 14-16 though.

Most are planned AFAIK. But some cancel appointments and sometimes Roland is short and ask people on the fly. That often happens to me.

Hi Jilly. I don't really know why you think the 1st is good and the 2nd bad. IMO the 1st was bad, but lucky - you had no idea partner held a 6-card suit which would allow you to make a grand. Better start with 1♠, when partner rebids 2♦ (that's the correct bid IMO) that should show 6 (unless you rebid 2♦ on 4♥5♦) and could drive to the grand. On the 2nd you got to the safest game contract at IMPs, so nothing to worry about.

Ditto this, but add in one thought. I'll trust partner to make correct carding plays. However, I ain't trusting 100%. As a redundancy, I'll win that high club with the club Ace, just to be extra cautious. Well, I thought I'd win with the ace, but I'll not let partner in the total dark. Then again, I'm used to playing with awake partners who trust my suit preferences. Playing with a total unknown I might have won the ace too. :P