skjaeran

Geez is not playing 2clubs natural here more important than checkback by a passed hand? Mike, isn't it 40 years since people quit making natural low-level ♣ bids? ;)

There's got to be a reason why partner didn't open with a preempt. Playing with a reasonable partner I'd be quite certain of sitting opposite a 7-9 count with 4-6 in the majors, maybe even a bad 10. At IMPs it's more of a question to reach the best game than reaching game. Agree with bid_em_up and Josh, 3♦.

I play Manco here, so I'll pass to show half a stopper or a full stopper. If partner redoubles to ask, I'll rebid 3NT, showing a full stopper (playing partner or RHO to hold the ♥J).

It's hard to understand what "those cards" east's double shows can be. If he's got them, either opener or partner is very light..... We might make slam, but I can't see a reasonable way to bid it scientifically. I don't think it's wise to redouble to show strenght so I'll just blast 5♣ before opps find their major suit fit. If I'm left to play this, I guess I can claim after the lead.

I don't care so much about the play right now. But have to say the bidding is incredible. I'd rebid 2NT, conventional GF in my methods. Other's use different versions of a 2♣ relay (Gazzilli, Cole, Witch etc.) here. Very strange to see a top pair using none of these, and have to rebid 4♥.

This is a tough one - need to know my opponents here. If I know them to be a very strong no-nonsense pair, I'd take the save at 6♠. Else not.

Since when is 1C - 1D - 1H - 2H game forcing? The traditional Walshesque meaning is a hand like xxx KQx KJxxx xx good luck in your 3-3 fit. They way we play Walsh in Norway, a 1♥ rebid shows a 4-bagger and an unbalanced hand, a raise to 2♥ by responder is GF. I have no qualms about rebidding 1NT with this opening hand. With Frances' responder hand I'd not bid the ♦'s at all, just respond 1NT. (In my preferred methods (our version of T-Walsh) this is a 1♠ response btw, showing 6-9 "balanced" or ♦'s and unlimited.)

Some 20 years ago I played strong club (Power Precision opening style) with relays for distribution in GF+ auctions, italian style cuebids and a modern version of Culbertson's 4-5NT (no BW!). Worked fine. After that I played Norwgian Standard (5443, 15-17NT) 2/1 F1, with some 2-level gadgets (Multi, weak Flannery). Italian style cuebids, RKCB. Nowadays I play 2/1 (GF unless rebid), (14)15-17NT, 5cM, unbal 1♦, 1♣ nat or bal 11-14/18-19 with transfer responses. Transfers after 1♠-1NT, USP, some transfers after opps overcall our 1m openings. Italian style cuebids, RKCB. 2-way reverse ud Drury, 2-way M-raises (1M-2M=sound, 1♠-2♥ and 1♥-2♦=weak raise or nat 2/1). Minisplinter/Bergen combination. Sound wk2's (garbage Multi NV). We open most (all?) 11-counts. Lighter with distribution.

2♠.

2♠. This position is very different from (1♦) - x - (p). I'd bid 1♠ with the balanced ratty 11 count with 4♠'s. 2♠ shows a distributional hand with a 5-bagger and 5-8 hcp (or thereabouts). I expect 2♠ to have some play, to preempt opponents bidding and have no game interest, unless partner comes to life.

I frequently raise after 1m-1M with 3, always with an ubalanced minimum. Thus rebidding a 5-bagger is almost never a good idea. There's several methods to check partner's handtype and trump lenght if you're strong enough to invite or force to game.

I won't sell out to 2♠ at any form of scoring. Playing good-bad 2NT, I'd bid 2NT, else 3♦.

Me too.

This is an absolutely automatic 1♥ overcall to me. I'd never consider passing, and 1NT is out. I'd not upgrade a 14-count with a duce high 5-bagger to 15. :( We need to get in at once, else we might be out of this auction for ever, and lose the partscore battle.

3♠ is forcing here in my methods. I'd cue 4♦. :rolleyes: In standard I'd raise to 4♠.

Late to this post having been away at the nordic teams championships since Monday. On the 1st board I'd rebid 3♦ at any form of scoring. This hand has too much potential for a mere raise IMO. There's a game bonus even at MP. :rolleyes: On the 2nd board north's got to act over 2♠. You can't sell out this easy with that hand.

Not far off. East's hand was: ♠Kxxx ♥xxx ♦AKJTxx ♣- East of course was marked with ♠ support and a long ♦ suit. I thought he was void in ♥'s and doubled, hoping to get a ♣ lead. The operation was successful but the patient died, as west quickly cashed out all the tricks. I didn't think too deaply, I must admit. I should have gathered that east held 3 ♥'s, making a void with west almost certain, and a ♣ void. None have come up with the winning bid so far though.... :)

Here (Norway) you respond at the 6-level with 2 KC and a void, 5NT with an odd number of KC and a void. Except for that, no difference.

There's no problem this far, unless I disagree to the 1♦ opening on board 6. There's no auction after my opening.

You're playing against opponents who knows what they're doing. The bidding was the same at both tables this far. I can tell you that both east players thought they could make 6♠ - meaning they expected it to be at least a favourite to make. Try constructing the east hand before you decide what to do - that might shed some light.

Agree with Josh and the Hog. I'd never think of bypassing 1♠. Why on earth give up the master suit like this??? Rebidding 2♦ preempts the bidding, we often end up in the wrong strain or lose needed bidding space.

[hv=d=s&v=e&s=sxxhkqjtxdqcaqtxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP 1♥ 1♠ 4♥ 6♠ ?[/hv] You're playing in a KO teams match vs strong opponents and you've got a strong pair as teammates at the other table. Partner's 4♥ bid shows a distributional hand - preemptive, with normally 5 card support, occasionally only 4.

Partner might have a (5)6-count with only 4 spades, so there's no hurry to bid 3♠. You're just minimum strenght (distribution is a plus of course). So passing should be fairly obvious - partner is still there with a chance to bid. With ♦Axxx partner will be short, and reopen unless his absolutely minimum. On this hand, partner will double 3♦, you show your support with 3♠ and he raises himself to game.

I'm not a worrying guy, besides, I don't know you Paul, so why worry? :lol:

I agree with this. Having had good results at defense all my life, I've been too lazy for such an endeavour. I'm sure I'd have profited too.