skjaeran

I might want to make a 1NT reply to 1♠ on occasion with this hand, playing a NF 1NT (which I do play), but not with a forcing 1NT. But normally I'd raise with support. I'm used to having two raises available, 1M-2M as a CR (good 8 to 11/bad 12) and 2 under as a 2-way bid (week 3-card raise or natural), which is used by many 2/1 players in Norway (some have changed and play 2♦ as the 2-way bid also over 1♠ - I do with one partner)).

Try this site: http://prismsignals.com/ You don't need to use the signals to benefit from the theory.

My experience is that it's good to show a side suit first at the 3-level with extras, to find a possible source of tricks, and then ask about singleton if appropriate. The usefulnes of showing a singleton first has always eluded me, probably partly because I'm unfamiliar with that method. :lol: Recently I've used a more complex method that distinguish strength and shape more clearly.

I was open team coach for our open team in the European Teams Championships in Pau this summer, and as such recorded about 2/3 of our teams matches. I remember having 2-3 results in the wrong direction (of something like 400 boards). This surely was due to an error somewhere between my input and the results being imported to the result file. I can say this for sure, since we entered the whole auction and all the cards played up to a claim or the last trick (unless getting lost halfway through the hand), and know for sure that i had these things right.

In my partnerships, where the xyz-convention apply, it's on here, and 2♣ would be a puppet to 2♦, either to play or to invite (in some strain). When not playing xyz, this would be FSF for me.

The loss to China in the womens semifinal was a small surprise to me. The loss to Japan in the seniors final was a huge surprise to me.

You would never bid 3♦ to show both majors unless you (for some reason) thought that there was a decent or better chance that partner would understand it. And whatever, you've got UI from partnes non-alert. Passing the double is obviously a logical alternative.

3NT. Expect to have a decent chance of making. If not, I doubt we're getting rich in 3♥x.

100% agree with what Ole Berg wrote above - we've got exactly the same experience in Norway where Bridgemates are used extencively.

No I play this simply to help partner make a good decision at the five-level in the anticipated competition. Agree.

It's not standard. It's part of what's called "Italian style cuebidding" and seems to be gaining increasing acceptance in the expert world though. Depends one where you play. Adam seems to believe that nothing is standard unless it is in ACBL. However, a large majority of bridge players live outside the ACBL. This IS standard in Europe (I believe, can't be sure about it though). In Norway, where I live, it's been standard for more than 30 years. So much so that I can't say I've ever known anyone to cue aces first. I don't know if there's a world wide standard on this issue. If there is, my guess would be that italian style is prevalent.

Have you ever hear about dislosure? Whatever the rest of the system is, as long as you don't disclose it, it's illegal to play it.

4NT can be whatever you agree upon. The default meaning of most jumps to 4NT among non-experts would be Blackwood (of some version). I don't think there's a default meaning for such jumps among experts, though in many (obvious) sequences it would be quantitative. This particular jump to 4NT doesn't make sense to me, as others have pointed out already. You'd be interested in knowing more about partner's hand before driving to slam, with almost any hand you'd hold.

Partner saw me passing his stayman response. Obviously, partner knows what he's doing - easy pass.

I'd double. Agree that 1NT is insane.

Since I've denied a spade control, 4♦ from partner shows a spade control, since without it he'd sign off in 4♥. I'll just KC now. I'm more concerned about a possible grand than not making six.

Add me in on 3♣ p/c, 2NT=asking showing values. That's how I've always played it (though these days I play 1M-2M as OM+♣), and it's more or less standard where I play, I believe. It's the same thing as playing 2-suited 2M openings showing the bid major and a minor. You should play 2NT as a valueshowing (inv+) asking bid and 3♣ as p/c. This is an approach where you give yourself space to investigate and at the same time involve partner (essential if opps bid).

Easy pass, not even close to a bid.

I would not upgrade this hand, although I know a lot who would. Normally I need a decent 5-bagger to upgrade. With 4432 I need more fillers than here. But this one is close for me. Opening 1♣ with transfer responses, I'm more able to distinguish strength and fit than most.

I think it would be useful if WBF made some default alert rules for use in international competition. Then SO's can adopt those rules if they want. I am against forcing SOs to uniformity. The Ducth BF decided to make Jacoby transfers non-alertable, makes some sense in a country where more than 99% of club players play them but may make less sense elsewhere. In the Netherlands, a strong 1NT opening is not alertable but a weak one is. Again, makes some sense in the Netherlands but would be absurd in many places. What do you mean would be useful? The WBF did just that ages ago.

That's true, and my partner on the occasion is also a pretty light opener. However, he's often a trick better than most as declarer... :blink:

Agree that's the best solution.

That's because I wanted partner to be able to raise to 6♦ on Axxxx x AKQxx Qx for example. It's an absolute maximum for his auction, for sure.

I disagree. They should ban the two players involved from international play for a very long time. But not do anything at all with the rest of the German team, in Beijing now or next years Bermuda Bowl.

I held x QJ9 T98x AKJxx I might have bid 3♥ or 4♦ over 3♦. 3♥ would have made it easy for partner as it was - he'd have jumped to a natural 4NT and I'd have signed off in 5♦. As it went, partner raised to 6♦ after a long tank.