skjaeran

IMO Before, Over (2♣), 2♥ = 10. _P = 8, _X = 4 Now, over 2♠, _P = 10, 3♥ = 8. Unless 2N would show this hand (but it seems natural to me) LHO didn't raise ♣. Nor did RHO rebid them. I have a void. Partner rebid 2♠ rather than make a take-out double. IMO partner's hand is as black as our red suit prospects :( You got this one on upside down, Nigel. Partner bid clubs and opps spades. I'd have bid 2♥ over 2♣, planning to rebid 3♦. Now it isn't as clear, but I can't see me passing again with 12 red cards. 2NT it is, planning to rebid 3♦ over 3♣.

Easy double. If we don't double with this hand, we might as well scrap t/o doubles here - we won't get a hand better suited than this one.

I'm not happy with the 3♣ rebid at all, but we seem to have survived that stupidity (except for partner's actual hand, that is....). Now I'm bidding 4♦ - even after the auction this far, this can only be a slam try in clubs, saying that I have a great hand for a club slam after this sequence. I doubt partner can imagine anything better than what I've got here.

1 and 2 would be inv+ 4c raises to me. 3, 4 and 5 natural. 6 I prefer as Good/Bad.

I'd raise to 3NT as I always would in a MP event in Norway. Not used to playing BAM - maybe it's the wrong tactics there. But I had to know my opponents, wouldn't I?

The laws are clear here - you should only explain your agreements. I faced this problem myself a year ago, playing the final of our national club teams championship. RHO opened 1♣ and I held a hand with a 6-card heart suit. I was evaluating my hand, and contemplating making a weak jump overcall (by bidding 2♦ showing a wjo in either major in our methods), but deciding the hand was too strong I put 1♥ on the tray without thinking.... RHO pushed the tray through the screen, and it dawned on me that we use transfer overcalls, thus I had showed spades. When the tray returned I duly alerted my overcall, and explained it as spades - correctly explaining our agreements and not my hand. I was lucky on the occasion, when my overcalled made it impossible for our opps to find their spade slam, instead bidding to 3NT. B)

This matter was brought to the attention of the EBL Grand Assembly during the championship. Of course, this is not a case for the Grand Assembly, rather for the Executive Committee. However, the actual match in this championship should be treated according to the CoC. As far as I know, this means Lebanon should have been awarded 0 VPs and Israel the highest of 18 VP, their own average VP vs the rest of the field or the average of the two teams right ahead of and right after Israel in the total rankings against Lebanon. The Lebanese ladies were present at the opening ceremony and team presentation the night before the opening match, and did give their line-up for the match. What we were told was that the team captain received a telephone call from the Lebanese autorities in Amman refusing them to play the match against Israel.

The facts here isn't 100% correct. I was at the table as a recorder, sitting between Versace and Molberg. Versace received a diamond lead to the queen and king. He cashed two rounds of trumps and claimed. He had 13 obvious tricks, since he could discard his singleton heart on dummys fifth diamond and ruff his clubs in dummy. However, he claimed in a way that indicated that he conceded a heart trick. Since I couldn't hear what he said, I asked if he had claimed twelve tricks ("+2" I asked twice). When he said yes, I entered +2 on the Bridgemate. Versace and Aa both entered 680 on their scorecards. Both Lauria and Madala (kibbing) had to hear what was said, since I spoke clearly and pretty load. Regarding what happened after the match, Versace was the one starting shouting, not me. But he's no match in a shouting competition! B) What he intended to do when he came running up to my face, I've no idea about. Be that as it may be - I don't care much for his behaviour, nor Bocchis at the other table. Away from the heat, they're both nice guys, and I don't think there's any hard feelings involved now. We discussed the case after the incident, and decided that we'd agree to 13 tricks, since it was quite possible that the whole thing was a mix-up (Versace could be of the misconseption that he had lost a trick before the claim), since Versace for sure would have made all the tricks if he played the hand out and since we didn't want to have a trick that we really couldn't have won through regular play (this obviously was after the heat had dropped).

Thank you all! This has been two wonderful weeks, I can tell you. After a somewhat rusty start the first couple of days, our team played very well for the rest of the champioship. Surely we had a few not so good performances, but all in all our players did very well. Molberg-Aa was consistently good at the qualifying stage, but dropped maybe a little in the final round. Helgemo-Lund had a sound game, except for 2 or 3 matches. Brogeland-Lindqvist struggled a little from the start, but from the 3rd day at the qualifying stage they performed strongly, and were outstanding throughout the final round - a fantastic performance! At the end of the qualifier, the NPC and I was pretty confident that our team had it in them to win. Even a disappointing Friday (round 14-16) didn't hurt the team spirit at all. When play started Saturday morning, our players were more than ready to fight for the victory. A very satisfied squad (no Brogeland, he's underway to Biarritz) received a warm welcom at Oslo airport this afternoon by our secretary general, vice president, family, friends and supporters.

I couldn't find an appeal about it and that surprises me. 6S-1 seemed like a heavy punishment to me. I strongly agree with your opinion. I attended the appeals hearing with our pair. Brogeland was very clear that he didn't know what he'd have lead with the correct explanation (4225) instead of what he was told (4441 with a weak diamond suit) - he might either have lead the ♦A or a low heart. 5 other tables in the open series played 6♠ by south, 3 received the ♦A lead. We were expecting the appeals committee to change the TD's ruling to a weighted score somewhere between 25 and 50% 6♠= and 50-75% 6♠-1. The decision was really a surprise.

Seems good to me.

I've got a real powerhouse overcall here. Pass and double surely is out. I'd try 5♣, hoping to hear 5♦ from partner....

Agree with everything Justin said here. wtf double????

Where did north find another bid? It's a clearcut pass over 4♥ to me.

I play 2NT as conventional and GF.... Then 3♣=a 5-card minor, 3♦=4-card hearts, 3♥=5-card, 3♠=♠Hx, 3NT=55m. With some 3♣ also include 6-card hearts.

Agree with Han and Noble. 1♠...3♣...4♣...4♠ (if allowed).

1♠ for me. I want to get in there now.

Just seems backward to me. If I don't have a GF raise, of course 4NT should be BW and not quantitative. These answers just feel like "Well, I don't play precision, so I'm going to answer like all the previous bids were Standard American". ???? 4NT quantitative is still more useful than Blackwood or KC for hearts even if I lack a GF raise. Even if not having a forcing raise is stone age, the rest of our methods shouldn't be stone age too.

To me this is an absolutely no-brainer 4♥ opening NV 1st seat.

3♠ for me - the only other option is in fact pass. Michaels with this sort of hand would never enter my mind. I know that 2♥ might strike gold on occasion, but it's still a bid that would make me puke.

4NT is 100% quantitative to me. I really dislike the start here - how can we be lacking a GF raise? 4m would be natural and slammish, 4♥ a delayed 3-card raise. Partner might go on over that, but that's odds off. The only real alternatives for me are 5♥ and 6♥. At the table I'm pretty sure I'd chose the latter.

West 100%. 2♥ is by far a better bid than 2♦. Even 1NT would be better than 2♦, although that misdescribes both shape and values (values just slightly). East has a clearcut pass over 2♦.

If you use 2M as inv+ or forcing bids with corresponding minor or some such, 2♦ would be NF. Else 2♦ would be forcing. 2♦ forcing would be a stretch on the actual hand, I MIGHT chose that bid nevertheless.

Against a suit contract I almost always lead my systemic honour when leading from such a suit.

1♣ for me. (1♦ with a pick-up.)