skjaeran

I always run from a doubled 1-level contract if it's at all probable that we'll do better in some other spot. I prefer 1NT to xx here, for reasons already mentioned upthread.

I tend to act with this hand. I'm pretty sure double is theoretically the best call, but all my instincts say 3♥.

The perfect call now, if it had been legal, would be a double..... B) As it is, I think 3♠ is aiming for disaster. Partner might raise on Kx or xxx. I think it's close between 3NT and 4♥, not at all sure which I'd chose at the table.

Here in Norway fixing for 3 or 5 years is normal, though most people don't fix interest rates at all. I fixed the rate for five year on the loan on my apartment half a year ago. This far it's been a not-so-good idea. But over five years I'd never lose much, if anything on my decision, I believe. Anyway, that's moot now, since I'm moving together with my girlfriend to a bigger place in mid-November. And I'm putting my apartment on sale as soon as I return from Sao Paulo. Fixing for 30 years at that rate seems a very good decision IMO.

I really doubt 4♦ COG is a mainstream treatment here, it's definitely far from standard. With a pick-up expert I'd expect it to be a strong raise to 4♥.

I really don't understand the 2nd double. Opps have bid to the 3-level showing values, and you've got almost nothing. Pass should be more than obvious. Btw, east could easily have bid 4♥ here, which is a very lucky make on this layout.

Thoroughly disagree with this. Consider the following in EBUland: You double the final contract of 2 or 3 of a suit with a double that everybody plays as penalties, but partner fails to alert. You know partner knows it's penalties, but for 90% of his life, partner hasn't had to alert the penalty double here. Why on earth shouldn't you be able to alert declarer to this at the end of the auction to save his ludicrous "I misplayed it because the double wasn't alerted" assertion. Because you're, by law, not allowed to give your partner the UI you're giving him when you correct this MI at this moment. If you end up on the declaring side, you call the TD prior to the facing of the opening lead and inform him/her about your partners misdescription of your call. The TD might then reopen the auction and let the player on the non-offending side making the last pass change this pass. There might still be an adjusted score after the board. If you end up on the defending side, you call the TD after the board has been finished and and inform him/her about your partners misdescription of your call. The TD then decides if the non-offending side has been damaged through the MI, and if so, adjust the score.

x...5NT for me. If partner is relatively balanced, clubs play better than diamonds.

2NT GF really? I'm used to playing 3♣ as p/c and 2NT as inv+. Over 2NT 3m shows a minimum, and responder might pass, whereas 3M shows a maximum with the corresponding minor suit. On what auctions does responder have the flexibility to show his own minor? 2M-4m is a natural GF for me.

2NT GF really? I'm used to playing 3♣ as p/c and 2NT as inv+. Over 2NT 3m shows a minimum, and responder might pass, whereas 3M shows a maximum with the corresponding minor suit.

Never bypassing 1♠ over 1♦-1♥ and having all invites through 2♣: a] Invite with 5-6 b] 3253 with very strong spades (I open 1♣ with 44m) c] GF with 5-6

I've seen a couple of very successful psyches by very strong players. The first one was by Ulf Tundal in the 1987 European Open Teams. Holding a near Yarborough he bid 2♠ invitational facing Grøtheims 10-12 1NT opening, white vs red. Opponents were cold for 4♠ for 650, and Tundal went a few light. The second one is more well-known. Geir Helgemo bid 2♥ over his partners (Lasse Aaseng) 1♠ opening on vugraph vs Germany in the 1993 Junior World Teams final, after registering his RHO screen mates slight problem. After a 4♦ splinter from Aaseng he played in 4♥, escaping for -250 (I believe) - a decent save vs +660 scored in 3NT in the closed room.

Adam, Sounds like Edgar Kaplan, and that's a good thing. RichM I would go further and say that I'd be more comfortable with awm in a position of power to decide laws/conventions than I am with the current people in their ivory towers who never seem to have the time to participate in these kinds of discussions online. Well, that's jeremy69, mamos, bluejak, dburn and me put in our place. Maybe we shouldn't bother posting, as apparently it's not noticed when we do. My apologies for hurting the feelings of EBU, the point I was making was ACBL specific. Given that awm and I am in the ACBL, and furthermore your examples are all in Europe and not the ACBL, I'd say that my point is still valid. Perhaps the members of EBU are satisfied that their voices are being heard, but as a member of the ACBL, the people deciding the laws/conventions seem distant and aloof. How many of them are participants in either rec.games.bridge or the BBO forums? Does the ACBL have a blog for conventions/laws where the members on the committees regularly post? Adam Wildavsky, Vice-Chair of the ACBL Laws Commission, is a regular poster at the Bridge Laws Mailing List.

The most favoured defence vs Ekrens 2♦ here in Norway is that double shows an opening hand, with at least 3-3 in the majors if near minimum. And 2NT as a natural, but minour suit oriented 15-18 hand - 22(45) (or (23)44 with most of the strength in the minors). Later doubles from both hands are then for penalties.

5♥ doesn't exist. None of us has a club control, and we both know it. I play 3♠ as forcing here - 4♠ would be a game try over 2♠.

I fail to see any damage here. Does anyone think EW can get out cheaper in an alternative contract here? The best they can do is to play 3♠, where they can be held to three tricks, as far as I can see.

Agree with your first part. After intervention I think it should be natural.

I'm not doubling, sounds like there's quite a lot of distribution out there. Trying to shorten declarer's trumps, I lead my longest side suit, hence a low club.

North never had the option of playing in 3♠, your partner doubled it.... North had the option of bidding 4♠ before or after you made a call, and, for some reason, chose the latter. If this was because his next bid depended upon yours, or just to confuse matters, you don't know. And there's no logical reason why a forcing pass should apply for your side based upon North bidding 4♠ the previous round or now. It would/could be different if he had passed 3♠ in a position where that might become the final contract.

Is 3♦ totally forced? I would feel tempted to bid 3 spades. Specially if I can hold a balanced hand. No, 3♦ isn't forced at all, opener can drop the relay if he wants, and might elect to rebid 3♠ with the actual hand.

Playing with a recent partner: 1♠ - 1NT 2♦ Transfer, planning to rebid 3♣. With other partners: 1♠ - 1NT 2NT GF relay

4=4=3=2 isnt 10-11% its less than 5% This mostly depend of what the use of 1Nt overcall. Actually, what I was aiming at is that the 2♦ overcall would/might be considered Brown Sticker many places.

Or 2♣ natural, 2♦ WJO in a major (Multi style) and 2M weak/strong with 55 M, if you're allowed to.

I'm rebidding 2NT, conventional GF. With the actual responding hand we'd bid: 1♠ - 1NT 2NT - 3♣ (5+ in a minor) 3♦ - 4♣ (relay, 6♣ and max) 4♦ - 4♥ 4♠ - 4NT 5♠ - 6♣

a. The Stayman does not need an alert even if it does not promise a 4-card major. You alert 2NT if bidding goes 1NT - 2♣ - 2♦/2♥/2♠ - 2NT, alerted as "need not promise 4-card in either major / other major". b. You only announce range of 1NT opening. If the partnership opens 1NT with singletons, the announcement should include this fact. Opener cannot have both majors is not alertable. b. We don't announce range in Norway (yet). However, 1NT which can't contain (one or) both 4-card majors as non-alertable is insane IMO.