skjaeran

I know this, and it's very strange, since Helness has been around at top level since early 80's (junior european champion 1980). Toghether with Leif-Erik Stabell he made up one of the stronger pairs in the world for some years, before Stabell moved to Zimbabwe. I'm not at all sure who I'd say was the stronger player of Helgemo and Helness - that's very hard to say. But If I'd had to choose only one of the for the Norwegian team (obviously anyone would have both), I'd choose Helness. Since he's the most experience player and great for team morale.

1. It's imperative that we cash our minor suit tricks before they disappear on dummy's spades (unless partner holds the ♠A). So we need to decide if partner is more likely to hold the ♦K or the ♣A. Partner's lead is from KX53, KX5 or 53. 53 is a priori the lesser chance. In addition, if partner held a doubleton, he'd have quite a few clubs, and might have decided to lead the ♣A. So I'll return the ♦6. 2. Looks like there's a ♣ ruff. And as other's have noted, if declarer has QJxx, the overtrick might still score well against 3NT. So I'll continue ♣5.

That's in fact quite a lot of time for Helgemo! He's often much faster than this, but mostly on "mere technical" plays. When there's several possible plans and he's got to judge the layout, he uses more time. But still far less than most world class players. I've seen him play a 5♦ once, where he glanced at dummy for only a second before executing a squeeze without the count in about 15 seconds, without a single pause for thinking (or breath). (European junior teams 1992.)

I'd play a club towards dummy at trick 3. I can't win if west is void. When he follow I win the ace and return to hand with a trump. If east had a ♣ I draw trumps throwing ♣T and play two rounds of ♣'s. If east was void in ♣'s I finesse ♣T, trump to hand, ♣ to J, ♣K and trump to hand, drawing trump and claim an overtrick.

I just watched that hand on vugraph from China. I'd double, planning to pull 3m to 3♠. Due to my good suits (A and K and good interiors) and distribution, I don't think a mere 2♠ is adequate. I also agree with the actual action taken at the table after the double.

Seems like a pretty ridiculous action, so just what you'd expect...

Well, just shows that we who bid 5♦ expected a better hand than this for the double - and that we would pass with the actual doublers hand. Nice fit IMO.

1) 2♣ - do you play Garbage Stayman? Yes 2) 2♠ = Transfer to ♣'s 3) 2NT = Transfer to ♦'s 4) 3♣ = (43)51 GF 5) 3♦ = (43)15 GF 6) 3♥ = 31(45) GF 7) 3♠ = 13(45) GF 8) 4♣ = Gerber 9) 4♠ = 66m, slamish 10) 4NT = Quantitative 11) 5NT = Quantitative to grand A) Weak with both majors (Garbage Stayman). B ) GF Relay C) Natural Invite, doesn't promise a 4cM D) Natural GF with major sidesuit E) Same as above. F) Smolen G) GF Relay H) Natural inv., doesn't promise 4c♠ I) Natural GF over 2♥, showing 4c♠, GF Relay over 2♠ J) Natural GF with 4cOM K) 3♥ over 2♠ is undefined I believe, should be balanced slamtry in ♠, 3♠ over 2♥ = splinter L) Splinter M) Splinter N) 4♥=splinter, 4♠=Exclusion BW O) Quantitative (with other M)

I haven't played Ogust (I've alwayes referred to it as "Blue Club" though) for a very long time. It's more or less standard to ask for singleton over a weak two in Norway (except that most play Multi). I'd like to play both (2M-2NT=singleton ask, 2♥-2♠/2NT-3♣=Ogust), but haven't been able to convince recent partners to do so Playing the Smith signal (reversed), some of the upside from coded 9/10 and Journalist leads is of little value, since both partners are able to signal whether they like the lead or not before regaining the lead. Of course, this doesn't apply to third hand decisions at trick one.

OP by Hannie:

Agree. I'd upgrade this hand to 19, which is too strong for a 1NT overcall for me. Except for that, I agree that 1NT doesn't have to promise a ♣ stopper here.

You would go down Hannie, where Geir in fact made an overtrick! (The overtrick wasn't there of course, but came in the wash as opps tried to beat him.)

Agree

To me this is a rather obvious 1♠ response. 1NT is good on values, but we can still get to NT later if the bidding goes on. I'm very comfortable if I'm later able to make a "values" double. 2♠ is a clear overbid with this holding IMHO, though I know many would choose that.

Happy birthday, have nice one Phil

Dont assume a good 12 if I ever sit opposite you :o Ok my apologies, I misunderstood the tone of your post. No problem Jilly B) Be sure, if you were opposite, I'd just invite game, since I know you like opening light. Playing with Foo or other extremely sound openers, I'd go looking for slam...

I expected exactly this hand, didn't you consider 6NT then?, maybe you have only 11 tricks, but maybe they ruff a club as well..... Maybe I should - I didn't. But, no, I don't expect a ♣ ruff.

Declarere led a low ♦ off dummy, catching north's singleton ace, later ruffed a ♦ in dummy, setting up the suit.

Coded 10s and 9s is similar to some part of Vinje leads which I used nearly 20 years ago. And also in some aspects comparable to Journalist leads. My first encounter with Journalist leads was in the Nordic Junior Teams in 1987, when we played a danish team. I was declarer, and in two 3NTs where I got a J (denies) and a ten (implies) leads I could more or less claim both contracts (only overtrick(s) were at stake) after the opening lead. At the other table both contracts failed after standard leads, when the danish declarer guessed wrong at trick one. That being said, I've used Journalist leads myself in regular partnerships later, with some success. My clear impression is that they give away too much information (that declarer is the long run winner). But there's no doubt that on some hands the defending side has the upper hand. Like Mike, I'm happy if opps use leads of this kind.

agreed. Ditto

Pass is obvious at any form of scoring. If someone pointed a gun at me and forced me to make a bid, I'd put 3NT on the table, not else.

The reason I'd GF vs a BI is that then I would be playing a very plain and simple system, where we would be sure to have a fit. Besides, I'd assume that BI would be playing fairly sound openings , a good 12 and upwards. Btw, I'd be expecting to be dummy anyway, so it's not an attempt to "hog" the hand - a tactic I don't like at all, whatever kind of partner or tournament I'm playing. Whatever faults there might be to my character, arrogance is not among them. :)

3♥ would clearly be forcing IMO, I've never played a raise of a reverse as NF.

Agree with Tim that it looks like LHO liked the 3♠ response from RHO, and has a source of tricks there. The 3♦ bid doesn't have to be a 5-bagger either. So I'll go for the ♠ ruff(s) and lead the ♠T.

2NT the 1st time is a stand-out IMO. Having failed to make the normal bid, I've got to double now. It's obviously t/o. Partner will expect me to either have a somewhat weaker hand with 44 in the minors (with longer suits I'd bid an unusual 2NT now) or longer and stronger ♥'s (trap passing). We MIGHT be better off now than after making a 2NT overcall last time, but that's just lucky.