skjaeran

Very common-sense-replies from Helene, Mike and Han. B)

Pass, double (ELC) and 1NT are possible to me - in that descending order. I don't like to overcall on such a suit at all.

3NT - 6♣ - can't be much easier. B)

I'd prefer to open this hand at the 1-level; systemically I'd then open 1♣. Our sequence would start: 1♣ - 1NT (10-12) 2♦ - 3♦ After that we should have an easy ride to 6♦.

The play: ♦A, ♦ ruff, ♣K, ♣A. If all follow, cross to ♥A, draw the last trump and claim. If RHO holds ♣Jxxx ruff another ♦, ♥A, ♥Q, ♠A, 3 more ♥s from dummy, ditching ♠s. If RHO ruff in I overruff, draw the last trump and claim. If he don't I'll be in dummy with two cards left and capture RHOs trumps.

I'll GF with a shortness showing 3♥. As others, I'm passing 3NT, else bidding 5♦.

Reverse Kokish is called Romex game tries in Norway. (Actually, most here saying they play Romex actually play Kokish. Anyway, it's not very popular here.)

Cool I hadn't noticed that these were legal until now... ACBL-land is really weird. I'd never dream of transfer advances being illegal in any jurisdiction - except in tourneys for beginners only.

I think there's a good case for both definitions (invite or pree). Sometimes RKCB isn't enough to uncover the solidity of a suit: say you have Ax x AKQJT9 Axxx and pard opens a vuln 3♥. If you RKCB and get 5♦ as an answer, you won't get to know whether pard has KQxxxxx or KQJTxxx for a suit. If in this case you have 3-5 as invite, pard will know to pass with hand 1 and bid 6 with hand 2. You can make a cuebid and jump to 5♥ to ask for trump quality though.

Very odd as most would play a 2NT bid by the redoubler as showing a limit raise +. I guess its forcing, but I must admit this is a bid that would not exist with any of my partners. I think many play 2N as limit+ raise with four trumps. At least I do. So do I... and all I know.

Yeah, that's probably Wikipedias fault. That Verdens Gang gets it wrong isn't surprising at all - the journalists there are able to misspell nearly half the norwegian words; how should they get this one right? But I'd have thought Aftenposten would get it right.

Agree with Helene.

Agree with all Mike said above. And passing this hand over 1♦ is beyond me. I'd normally overcall 1♥ or 2♥, but even 3♥ is remotely possible.

Probably, but nothing is perfect - you might have bypassed your only making game. The big upside for 4♦ is slam bidding.

As do we.

GF 3-card raise.

The requirements vary according to suit length and quality. Roughly I need 18-19+ in 2nd and 3rd seat and 15+ in 4th to double and bid a suit (except that I like Equal Level Conversion). To double and bid NT I require 19-21 hcp in direct seat and 15-18 in balancing seat. No difference due to vulnerability or suit. This is down to partnership agreement. Most double and bid a suit with less than I require. NT strength in balancing seat also vary according to partnership agreement - I play 1NT=11-14, but 12-16 and 15-17/18 are also normal.

Didn't you dare to type number 10? :)

just pull to 5♦, wtp? Except that I rate my chances far better in 3NT than 5♦? - no problem at all.

Google hits for "Boris Spasskij" = 8620 Google hits for "Boris Spassky" = 127000 The wikipedia article begins "Boris Vasilievich Spassky (also Spasskij)" So uh... whatever :) If the normal english spelling is Spassky those numbers aren't surprising. :) Actually, I'd never seen it spelled that way until here. Which isn't strange. I've never read chess columns or articles in english.

I'd pass this south hand with partners where this distribution would systemically be a 1♦ opening, and open it 1♣ with all my regular partners. :) Our bidding would be 1♣ - 2NT(13+ bal.) - 3NT. Alternatively p - 1NT - Stayman - 3NT.

Without transfer advances 1 and 2 would be forcing for me, 3 constructive/semi-forcing (in practice I've never seen partner passing). However I strongly prefer transfer advances.

This is a clear opening to me. Systemically I open this 1♣ in 1st and 2nd seat and 1♠ in 3rd and 4th.

1. Yes. 2. Never. A negative Smith for the 1st suit operates as a positive for the 2nd suit. 3. No. It would be to make sure he could read your signal or see your discard if suspecting a singleton in the suit. 4. Yes, I'd play the 7. 5. Yes. 6. I'd return the 3 to give correct count. (UDCA, original count for me.)

1. and 2. are clear upgrades in my opinion. I've never played the 20-22 range (I'm used to 20-21), but that wouldn't affect my evaluation of the hands.