skjaeran

I think Netherlands might be hard to beat this time. Our team and Italy's are weaker than normal. Our team should be among the top six, and qualify for next years Bermuda Bowl, and might fight for a medal if all three pairs do well. The new format is to Italy's disadvantage I think. They won't benefit from clobbering all the weaker teams, since there's no carry over to the second round.

The double is just ridiculous, and so is the lead. If 3♣ was NF, east would be stronger than promised after two bids. Doubling wouldn't be just as ridiculous whether 3♣ was forcing or NF. I'd never ever consider adjusting the score for N-S. I might consider a split score, with 3NT+1 for E-W. But from what's been told here I don't think I would.

It is quite common for screen regulations to allow illegal bids (e.g. insufficient ones) to be changed with no penalty, because partner has no information. Yep have seen this happen multiple times. What happens when an illegal bid is pushed through to the other side? Then the normal laws (no screen) kicks in.

Obviously I'd only double if I was too strong to overcall 1NT. Else, doubling isn't just sick, it's plain stupid.

Passing here is too dangerous and unilateral to me. I'm not that afraid they'll make, eventhough it IS possible. I'm more concerned about missing out on a better score. +300 is bad if we have +600 available, +500/800 even more so if 1370 is there. I'll make the slight overbid of 4♣.

Move the ♥Q to spades (Qxxx xx Ax KJTxx) and it's a perfect double. I agree that playing FNJ, 3♣ and 3♦ should show the same degree of fit.... There's two possible bids, 2NT natural and 3♣, not playing FNJ. I'd settle for 2NT.

But you never know that everyone is in 4♥. There's always a few who for some reason didn't get to game. If you play safely to make and there's ten tricks there, you lose the few matchpoints you were going to get.

That's a common misconception. You're not competing with those in 4♥ anymore. You've already beat them or lost to them in the bidding. You should still play to maximize your score, compared to those few (if any) who hasn't bid to 4♥. It's when you have overbid you should play different - then you need to find a way to make your contract, since else you're in for a bottom.

I expect partner to be 2-5-0-5 or something like that, with a hand not strong enough to make a GF 3♣ jump the previous round. After I supported clubs his hand is much better. 4♥= Hx 4♠=A/K or better 4NT= RKCB for clubs 5♣= sign off, minimum and no slam aspirations I consider 4♦ forcing to at least 5♣.

The first one is easy. If the TD conclude that declarer did ask for the queen of clubs from dummy, that card is played. What happened after his call has no consequence. He is allowed to change the card in dummy from a low club to the queen. If this affects the play from the other players to the trick, they're also allowed to change their cards without penalty. The second one is impossible to judge from what you tell us Ken. I have no clue to what cards are remaining. Please give us the hands at the time of the claim. From what you tell I get the impression that he's waiving the card he already ruffed. In general, I'll never adjudicate a disputed claim without seeing all hands.

1. Too lazy to put in the needed effort to reach the top of my potential ability. 2. Not talented enough to be really great at bridge. 3. Play too fast.

6♣

Yes, this looks like an obvious pass to me. I don't see that the previous hands affects this at all. As it is, I totally agree with LHO's previous auctions. 3♠ looks pretty obvious to me, though I can see some would bid 4♠. I'd not consider passing over 1♠ with the second hand conservative at all - in fact I don't know many who would make a t/o double with a subminimum and xxx in hearts. I do know many who would overcall 2♣ however. I don't like that at all though.

2♠. We know we're in a decent fit, as opposed to after a 3♣ bid.

I can understand that in some styles the first three aren't good enough for 1♥. Surely, though, 975 AJ9854 void KQ83 is an opening bid in anyone's book? Of course it's an opening bid. But playing constructive weak two's, 8-11 and a 6-bagger, opening 2♥ is a better description. And it makes 1M..2M better defined, as the minimum for that would be stronger than for most people.

This would be strength showing for me. Or convertible, whatever you like to call it. Partner will pass most often, but bid with a shapely hand. 4NT would be purely t/o.

"J974","AKJT742","4","4", (1♥ or) 4♥ "86","QT98765","AT","87" 3♥ KQ93","KT76532","2","Q", pass or 1♥ "953","AK9872","3","QT6" 2♥ "985","AJT975","983","A" 2♥ K","KQJT762","52","J76" 3♥ "9","KQJ974","J8","T962" 3♥ "7","QT97543","K6","K98" 3♥ "J64","JT98543","KT","5" 3♥ "4","AQ7653","T2","K832" 2♥ "J7","QT95432","Q","732" 3♥ "2","AKT7543","98","J74" 3♥ (or even 4♥) "942","AQT742","9","A94" 2♥ "Q76","AKT863","J","T92" 2♥ "7","KQT6543","KT","964" 3♥ "K97","AJ98432","87","Q" well, well "K","AQJT83","T8","8765" 2♥ "T84","KJT972","","A653" 2♥ "62","KQT8642","42","64" 3♥ "975","AJ9854","","KQ83" 1♥, actually in range for 2♥, but too much playing strength "Void","Q986532","93","A742" pass "AK6","QJT754","9","642" 2♥ "87","QJT9853","75","A3" 3♥ "J","KQJ9854","82","K75" 3♥ "75","KQJ643","3","KT85" 2♥ "T","AKJ764","753","Q42" 2♥ "VOID","KJT8643","86","Q765" 4♥ "953","AKJT87","6","943" 2♥ "J5","AT98643","7","K62 3♥

Obvious 2NT opening IMO (or 2♣...2NT in my mehtods). I really don't find these two hands particularly interesting....

I have no idea, but one of the players who held this hand at the USBF trials passed this hand in the opening seat, and passed again over 2♥. I found both decisions quite surprising. You guys really find passing a balanced 11 surprising? 11??? This isn't an 11-count to me...but I do open 11-counts. B)

5NT here logically just promise the possesion of all KC. Responder is unlimited, and opener is thus forced to bid 5NT to inform partner of this. I agree with passing 6NT. As a TD or AC I would never allow a grand after a BIT with this hand. And I'd never bid the grand after partner hesitated either. Passing obviously is a logical alternative, and the BIT definitely suggest bidding on over passing. Very easy decision in my opinion.

Why? Because that's the only position I really feel I need it.

Still there.

Double would't enter my mind here, other calls might. Pass seems sensible though.

Clear 1♠, not even close to 2♠. I can't understand the pass over 1♠ by partner. 2♠ is stand out, and I'd rather bid 3♠ (sure, it's a huge overbid) than pass. Ken, the only position I play Herbert negative is after (3♣) x (p) ?

Easy pass. Of course it's possible that bidding would be the winning decision, and then that would net us a bunch of IMPs. But that's very remote. The odds are (heavy) that neither side can make anything at the 5-level.