skjaeran

This is about what I would have expected, I'm quite surprised by some of the posts here. And why wouldn't partner bid 2NT instead of double with this? I'm probably just as surprised by some of the posts here too - the other "half". :) Double allows partner the option to leave it in if HE has a bunch of trumps. 2NT should be used with a more distributional hand that really doesn't want to defend. As they say in MSC: Doubles are flexible. So you prefer partner to make a penalty pass sitting in front of (under) the 6c♥, instead of make a penalty double sitting with a trump stack behind. In the last instance partner might perfectly well be able to make a penalty double if anyone runs to ♠'s.

I see. So west keeps ♠K ♦74, dummy must throw a ♠ and east keeps ♠x ♦Qx. When south tries a ♠, west wins the king and can lead a ♦ through dummy.

If you're in a normal contract (almost at whatever level), it's odds on to play for overtricks risking going down, since every 3rd IMP is worth a VP. I regularly employ such tactics, and see WC players like Helgemo doing the same. Of course this doesn't apply in longer matches or playing straight IMPs. Then your mantra obviously is correct. Sorry, but this is BS. Of course I have played Swiss teams with short matches converted to VP's. Long ones too. Have won many of them as a matter of fact. I repeat again, your objective at IMP's is to make the contract. Overtricks are secondary, even when playing at VP's. It is simply foolish to risk going down 1 in a cold game for the off chance of gaining 1 vp for every 3 overtricks. So you win one VP every 3 overtricks, big deal. If just one of those risks loses, however you lose 6-12 IMPs. These odds do not pay off. No matter what you or Helgemo may do. I will allow for the distinction of playing at top level WC play, you can reasonably expect that the pair at the other table will be in game (or the same contract), and that in order to gain an IMP (or VP) you might need to squeak overtricks out on occasion so that every board is not a push. This is somewhat truer, imo, in a long match, where if playing for a overtricks in a long match were to fail, you have more time to make up the possible loss (but it could pay off as well in a shorter match where the overtrick(s) are the deciding IMP/VP's). However, most people are not playing at that level of play, and for anyone else, it is simply idiotic to recommend trying to play for overtricks at any form of IMP/VP scoring. At any level of play other than top echelon, bidding and making your games is what wins IMPs, VP's and matches. Not making overtricks. :D You shouldn't just disregard this right off without doing the math. Of course, since going down will always cost more IMPs than the one IMP won for the overtrick, you need heavy odds in favour of the play for the overtrick. Suppose you play in 2♠ vulnerable. Going down will cost 6 IMPs comparing with 110 at the other table. Which converts to 2 VPs. One overtrick will earn on average .33 VPs, 1/6 of the 2 VPs lost when going down. So if there's at least 86% chance for making the overtrick, playing for the overtrick is winning in the long run. For the same to be true for a non-vulnerable game, the odds for the overtrick must be 91%, and for a vulnerable game 92%. The lenght of the match isn't important, it's the lenght of the tournament. (If you think in "short term".)

Always. The objective at imps is to make your contract. Have you ever played Swiss Teams with short matches (7-10 boards), IMPs converted to VPs? If you're in a normal contract (almost at whatever level), it's odds on to play for overtricks risking going down, since every 3rd IMP is worth a VP. I regularly employ such tactics, and see WC players like Helgemo doing the same. Of course this doesn't apply in longer matches or playing straight IMPs. Then your mantra obviously is correct.

Correct. Those scoring changes were made in the 1987 laws edition. I remember scoring 1030 in 4♠xx one week and 1080 the next week in October 1987, when the Norwegian edition of those laws where enforced. :D

A somewhat surprising sequence... I must hope partner has a ♦ stop, and I'll lead a low spade to take away dummy's entry - the ♠A.

4♥ is clear. I've got a nice hand, with a good 4-card trump holding, a nice side suit and 6 losers.

This auction doesn't exist! :D (If opener thought his/her hand qualified for another bid, it should be double.) Partner made a penalty double. I've got no certainty of making anything higher. I'll relax and await partner's lead.

This is an absolutely clear penalty double. I don't care much why opps bid like they did, whether someone missorted the hand, psyched or pulled the wrong bidding card. I'm going to trust partner and pass here.

I play a 5cM system where the 1♣ opening is either natural or balanced 11-14/18-19. 1♦ shows an unbalanced hand (5+ or 4-4-4-1, normally a singleton, but 5422/6322 is possible). Thus the 1♣ opening shows 2+♣'s - (only a doubleton with any (443)-2 or 3-3-5-2). But I disagree that the opening shows either shortness or lenght - that would be true for suspensorlike openings (where 1♠ = 0-1/2 or 5+ ♠'s). I'm classifying my system as red. Except for the 1♣ opeing it would be green. Showing shortage means showing a length <3. Shortage in ♣'s include void and singleton. The Vienna system (still used by a few in Norway) where you open 1♣ on a singleton on 4441 (other suit openings at 1-level show 5c) is explicitly defined as red by the NBFLC. Often an exception is made for a short minor opening. Shortage is defined as 2 or fewer. Exactly two certainly fits in that category. Or would you argue that a bid that showed exactly one club did not show shortage? I know perfectly well that both a void, a singleton and a doubleton are all "shortage" by the definition. :D However, having an opening containing a continuous interval of length of a suit, is not the same as showing shortage or length in the suit. By that definition all strong conventional openings at the 1-level and all 1NT openings allowing semibalanced shapes would make a system HUM. And we all know that's not true. In fact, the same goes for a natural 1♠ opening, which we all know can show any number of ♣'s from 0 to 6 (or even 7 for some). I accept that you "might" read the definition to mean what you say (bad wording IMO), but I'm quite confident that's not what it's supposed to mean.

This is about what I would have expected, I'm quite surprised by some of the posts here. And why wouldn't partner bid 2NT instead of double with this? I'm probably just as surprised by some of the posts here too - the other "half". B)

If you really have 10 cards in the two hands; start with ♣ towards the king or the king from dummy (due to which hand's got the lead). You'll always pick up AJx with RHO (the 1NT opener). If you have only 9 cards; start with a low towards dummy, in case LHO has singleton ace. If nothing happened, play opener for AJx - that's best odds from what we now of the hands. (At the table more information present might twist the odds.)

I'd have made a limit raise last round as other posters. Now I think it's an obvious raise to game.

This is a clear 3♣ IMO.

Gerben reasons just as I would. So I agree with discarding the highest diamond now (not sure if that's the 7 or 9, there's a mixup in the OP.)

I play a 5cM system where the 1♣ opening is either natural or balanced 11-14/18-19. 1♦ shows an unbalanced hand (5+ or 4-4-4-1, normally a singleton, but 5422/6322 is possible). Thus the 1♣ opening shows 2+♣'s - (only a doubleton with any (443)-2 or 3-3-5-2). But I disagree that the opening shows either shortness or lenght - that would be true for suspensorlike openings (where 1♠ = 0-1/2 or 5+ ♠'s). I'm classifying my system as red. Except for the 1♣ opeing it would be green. Showing shortage means showing a length <3. Shortage in ♣'s include void and singleton. The Vienna system (still used by a few in Norway) where you open 1♣ on a singleton on 4441 (other suit openings at 1-level show 5c) is explicitly defined as red by the NBFLC.

And in many cases, I'm sure it's a surprise that not everybody plays it the same way. It's shocking to me that so many people play it as 5 hearts. Perhaps the issue is the auction: P---P--1♥-P 1♠-P-2♥-P P---X To me, that is 100% takeout of hearts, so having a bid to show long hearts and short spades is redundant. Wait for partner to reopen, and then convert the X. If partner doesn't reopen, they were making 2 spades anyways. I mean, that's the whole point of takeout doubles. This last double is clearly t/o for me. I can bid 2♠ naturally, both over 1♠ and over 2♥.

That's one good point. The other is that if we bid 5♣ now, we'll almost awlays be playing 6♣ when 5♣ is making and probably 7♣ when 6♣ is making. And we might get hammered when it's a bad save (or a phantom). Sure, bidding could be right, but I just don't think that it's the percentage action.

What on earth make you think the pair were weak players? Don't jump to conclusions. You can still draw interferences when playing against unfamiliar methods. But it's more work than when playing against familiar methods. And still fun.

1. Because people are familiar with weak bids, and have a defense already built for it. Transfer openings do not have even that level of familiarity. 2. Because the ACBL has effectively banned transfer openings from its MIDCHART competitions. Asking why I banned them from the GENERAL chart is an exercise in futility. They think it's too complicated even for relatively high competitions, and regardless of whether I agree with them, that's good enough for me. As far as I know, nothing that is banned in MIDCHART is allowed in my GENERAL concept. 3. Because Transfer openings generally use Symmetric Relay systems, and Symmetric Relay has been banned for GCC by the ACBL. 1. But they do have a defense against a natural 1♠ opening, haven't they??? It can't be hard to just use the same defence (t/o double, natural overcalls) as against the 1♠ opening (if they don't want or are unable to do anything fancy). If the opening is 1♥ they've gained a bid they didn't have if the opening was 1♠. So they can attribute some meaning to the 1♠ cuebid. Or not. 2. I still fail to see why they've done so both from the Midchart AND General chart. But then I'm familiar with much more freedom, even if we've adopted the WBF System Policy in Norway, which took away a few possibilities. How anyone except beginners can find the transfer principle complicated is beyond me. Isn't it standard to play transfers in other positions? :blink: 3. I'm not familiar with Symmetric Relay, but expect them to be allowed at all levels here. Why are they banned in GCC byt the ACBL?

The same goes for transfer openings. Why should a 1♠ opening showing some minimum number of hcp and 5+♠'s be allowed and a 1♥ (or 1m) opening showing the same be disallowed? Except for it being unfamiliar, there's no logic at all implying that is should be disallowed, since the opponents have more available bidding space and is better placed to defend a lower opening.

To me it's more important who playes at the table than who the commentators are, and what language the commentators type. Only once (that I can recall) have I switched tables due to who the commentators were (or, rather due to their comments at the time).

4♥. Stopping on a dime in 3♥ just making is too small a target for me at IMPs. I don't invite in these situations, just punt game.

Far from automatic. I'd be tempted to bid, but pass it is. Partner is still there.....

5NT. With ♣A and ♦K partner will definitely bid the grand. I hope he won't with only one of them.....