skjaeran

3♣. Need to bid my 2nd suit now. I'd not be comfortable having to bid it at ther 4- or 5-level. The playing strength of this hand is immense. With only 9hcp we've got a 4-loser hand.

Agree. I'm not that pessimistic that I expect partner to rebid 2-3♣....

I don't agree with Ron that much, but this time I do. I think 2♥ is a fine bid (not perfect though). 3♥ is an overbid on this hand.

As for the auction here: Over 4♦, 4♥ would be last train to me, and not promise a heart control. I can't understand not signing off over 4♦ though, with 9 hcp in partners short suits - of which ♥Q normally is of no value at all and the ♣K dubious. So I'd blame north 50%, south 25% and system (or lack thereof) 25%.

Just another hand showing the huge problems with the response structure to Jacoby as played in the US (and maybe lots of other places). I don't know anyone here in Norway playing that structure. The normal structure here is to show side suits at the 3-level if you're non-minimum and 3M if minimum. Over a new suit 3M (or 3NT over 3♠) is a shortness ask. Direct jumps to 4-level over 2NT show voids. I've played the above structure with regulars and pick-ups for more than 20 years now - with good results. With my most regular partner I play a complex structure, not comparable to the above or the US standard. I've published it here on the forums at least once before - maybe half a year ago.

I might have tried 5♠ over 4♥ at the table.

This only seems to be the 'proper' way in the US (and possibly Canada as well?) Everywhere else I've played either writes 4S-1, 4S= (or with a tick symbol), 4S+1; or puts the number of tricks 4S 9, 4S 10, 4S 11. Bridgemates have an option (set globally for the event by the TD) either to enter the number of tricks (9, 10 or 11) or to enter the result (-1, = , +1). It's always been the correct way in Sweden too, much to our amusement here in Norway. Here it's standard to write the number of tricks, though - not -/=/+. That is if you make an overtrick in 4♠ we write 11 on the traveller. (Some use the international 'standard', and there's no confusion with that.) On Bridgemates we enter the result (-1/=/+1 etc). The swedes changed their way of writing this after starting using Bridgemates to 4♠+1 when making five.

2♥ for me - natural and not showing extras. Reverse showing extra strength here is unplayable IMO, and I'd not be having such agreements.

I play a 1NT overcall as 15-18. Double followed by NT at lowest level shows 19-21. I don't see any reason to change that on this auction.

3♥ should be, invitational with 5-5 here, else there's no real reason to take another bid. Raising to 4♥ with the north hand seems pretty normal to me.

4♥

I asked him today, he said "I've played it for 30 years I need a rest" lol LOL! Tor is actually going to the US with his younger son who's starting studying over there. I guess they'll be playing poker in Vegas during the EC. :D

I really don't believe so, I'm sure 1♦ - 2♣ is nf over the double in 'expert standard'. Maybe this can be chalked up to one of those things that are standard differently in different countries, who knows. Agree. At least where I play it's standard to play a 1-lever response as forcing after an opponents double, 2-level responses as NF.

pass, 4♣ (would have doubled last time), pass

Are Molberg - Aa playing Viking Club? Not at all! They play a completely natural system. (14)15-17 NT 5443 (1♥=44M/5+) Constructive W2M (6c 8-11) 2♦ is a weak 2 R/W, else garbage Multi

How is it possible to pass 4♥ with that 'monster' east hand. If I'd have to pick a contract at this point, I'd just guess 6♥ 11 out of 10 times....

I'm passing here. But 3NT is tempting....

As for the Norwegian line-up: Brogeland - Sælensminde ended their partnership late January. Grøtheim - Tundal couldn't play both in Pau and Beijing, and chose the latter. Helness was unavailable for Pau. So we have these partnerships: Boye Brogeland - Espen Lindqvist Geir Helgemo - Børre Lund Jørgen Molberg - Terje Aa Brogeland-Lindqvist is a new combination. Helgemo-Lund has played together occasionally over the years. They play togehter in the team series in Trondheim. Molberg-Aa has played professionally in the US the last 2-3 years. Helgemo-Lund, Molberg-Aa toghether with Per Erik Austberg won the Norwegian Clubs Team Championship last week. Molberg played in our junior team in the early 90s, and won a silver medal in the JWT in Århus in 1993. Lindqvist has been part of our anchor junior pair for the last four years. Lindqvist, Lund and Molberg make their debut in our open team in Pau. The teams main goal in Pau is to qualify for the 2009 BB. If the whole team plays well, they'll have higher asprations.

1. 2NT, Jacoby (or similar) 2. With my regular I'd make a strong 3c-raise (2♠), but it's borderline. With a sounder opening style I'd GF, starting with 2♣.

Playing T-walsh in a short ♣, unbalanced 1♦, I play xyz all the time. With some partner's I play Walsh, xy, but not xyz.

In several partnerships I play transfers, and 1♣ - 1♦ - 2♥ show 4-card support. And 1♣ could be short (2+). So 3♣ is obviously forcing, whether it shows a suit or not. In one partnership (no transfers) 3♣ is a short suit game try, thus forcing. With a pick-up I'd expect it to be natural NF.

It really looks like a lead directing double with solid spades and not much else. I'm bidding 4♠ now.

2♣, 2♣, 2♣. Why would anything else come to mind???

I lead spades here. ♥K might be a handy entry later.

Completely agree with Justin - obvious 5♠ at IMPs.