skjaeran

I'd never bid 2♣, might get us to a 3-3 fit (or even 3-2 in my methods). 2♦ is ugly. I prefer a negative double. The only other alternative I'd consider is 1NT - I'd pick that over 2m.

Ehh, why?? Even vulnerable you need some TRICKS to make 3NT. Look at your hand - where do you find the tricks to make 3NT??? You've got ♠Kxx and an empty heart suit. What you DO have is defence. So defend. That's even what partner has told you to do!

1NT for me. I don't redouble on a marginal hand when it's 333 in the unbid suits.

Yeah, with the somewhat lacking agreements given in the OP, so would I.

I'm bidding 6♣, P/C. We might make a slam, but more often, opps will take the 6♥ save.

What would 3♠ be - natural and forcing? (Fit jump is possible.) Personally I strongly prefer transfers here, and would bid 2♥, planning to support clubs later, if needed.

Easy 3♠ for me. 4♠ if I'm a little deperate.

Thanks all! No poker afterwards, a mix of the bar, sushi, sake, beer pong, more bar, cafe, and drunken jlall. I would like to note that everyone played great, but our Norweigans are G0000000DS (thanks for letting us borrow them Harold!) But it feels good in a ridiculously tough field, we pretty much played a sick team every round. Kudos to jlall for sitting out the match we played his team hehe. Congratulations Josh - great effort! Jørgen showed up here at our Bridge Festival at Lillehammer earlier this week, very satisfied and smiling all the way around. He was very proud and happy, and very satisfied with the performance of you and your partner! I've been at Lillehammer since Wednesday 23rd. Preparing for our festival and being CTD since Friday 25th. At last got to sit down and play yesterday in the Norwegian Swiss Teams Championship. We're 6th out of 85 with five rounds to go. Looking forward to an exciting finish, hoping for a medal.

In my experience there's two factors in favour of 3rd/5th leads: 1) Generally easier to read (the opening leaders length in the suit) 2) Less prone to force you to lead a card you really can't afford

The most astonishing bid to me is east's 4♣. I'd much rather try 6♣, if I had to chose between those two bids.

I double for takeout, suggesting both majors. Having passed originally I'd expect this to show at least 54/45.

Playing 1NT as NF, I'm really not into this discussion. In my environment this is a clear pass. Playing a forcing 1NT it's obviously a different matter. I'd think 2♥ would be best in the long run, but that's not totally clear to me.

I routinely bid 2♣ with this hand. I prefer 2♦ to show five in fact, and T9xx isn't even close to that. I'd often bid 2♣ where it's more marginal than this (this is a clear 2♣ IMO, I wouldn't consider 2♦ at all). The reason I prefer this style is 1) that opener more often is able to describe his hand over 2♣ and 2) that your're far better off after a 2♦ response if that promises five (or four very good).

I'd do this in my head like this: 255/15 = 225/15 + 30/15 = 15+2 = 17.

As all other posters and voters, I completely fail to find a problem here. Obviously there's a story coming.

Your partner probably double because he had a clear minimum, and didn't want you to make a bid at the 5-level, being afraid you'd go down. This is wrong thinking. He should see that he's got no wasted values in the opponent suit, and that all he's got will be of value to you. Thus he should make a forcing pass, and let you make the final decision with the best possible information. (He should have 4-card support here, but AKx is still great.)

I've been playing unbalanced 1♦ for four years now. We routinely open 1♣ on 3352, I even once opened 1♣ on 3262 with ♦JTxxxx. We don't treat all 5422 hands as balanced, but look at honour placement. So with 2452 (for example), we either treat the hand as balanced and open 1♣ or as unbalanced and open 1♦. Originally we opened 3352 18-19 1♣, but later decided to put that hand into the 1♦ opener; thus 1♦-1M-1NT show this hand for us. The main reason we decided to open as many hands as possible with 1♣, was our T-Walsh structure, which in our opinion gives us a head start in the auction. A side effect is that it's much easier to compete in our minor after our 1♦ opening than in normal better minor systems (basically, opener always have 5 (4441 is the only exception). The opposite is of course true for our ability to compete in clubs after a 1♣ opening - but not to the same degree.

I'd never consider downgrading this. I've got 15 hcp and good honour combinations. Of course I'm 4333 and have no interiors, but it's still an obvious 15-17 NT to me. When partner asks for a 4cM, I'll let him know, even if it's four spotcards in a 4333 hand. Let partner evaluate his hand and fit.

Most tournaments and club games in Norway are match pointed. Last year there was a large IMP-scored pairs tournament in Kristiansand. But most people rather wanted MP, so the reverted to the traditional scoring method again this year. Teams are IMP-scored in general, BAM is almost unheard of - we had it on our annual festival a few years ago, but changed to a Patton variation.

Don't entirely understand that comment. Devaluing Spade values seems reasonable to me. Despite your Ace of Spades, you would rather that partner's Spade values were elsewhere. Well, yes and no. :blink: Give partner Kxx xx Ax AQTxxx, and it's still an excellent slam. But I strongly doubt you'll reach it after a spade splinter.

I expect us to make at least ten tricks here and the opponents to make at least nine tricks, more probably ten (or more). At IMPs I don't consider this a problem - I'm always pulling. This will be a big winner every time at least one side can make a 5-level contract. I believe that's happening close to 50% of the time, and then pulling is a BIG long term winner.

I don't fancy a 3♠ splinter from south. That would make partner devalue Kxx of KQx. The bidding was fine until south jumped to 5♣, which was a bad bid. Much better make a forcing raise to 4♣, and initiate a cuebidding sequence. After 4♦ from north (showing a top honour for me), bidding the slam is easy.

Is this used on other sequences, or only when the "transfer" is to opener's first suit? This is what we call the xyz-convention in Scandinavia. After any 1x-1y-1z, 2♣ is a puppet to 2♦, planning to play there or make an invite, 2♦ is a conventional GF. There are several schemes for continuations and the meaning of direct jumps after 1x-1y-1z.

I think there are reasonable limits to this, especially in XIMPS. For example, bidding 7NT without looking at your hand That's illegal. Period. Law 7B1(1997):

I grew up with the GF variation, and prefer that. These days FSF sequences are rarer for me than they used to be, opening 1♣ on almost all out-of-range balanced hands, using a T-Walsh variation, 2/1 (light) and the xyz-convention. FSF now only applies when opener rebids a new suit at the 2-level after 1/1, having opened 1 of a red suit.