skjaeran

Can't tell what I'd do without knowing opps agreements over a natural 2♠ overcall. If I thought they might be in trouble after intervention I'd bid.

Hmm. I perfectly understand why all lead a trump here. But I'm not so sure that's as obvious as all seem to think. Our spade suit isn't very powerful - it would be much more obvious to lead a trump with say AJ9xx in spades. As it is I think it's a close decision between a trump and the singleton diamond. I'd probably lead a trump more often than diamond here myself. But I don't think it's as clear as all seem to think. Btw - double is pretty outlandish.

I'd not be too surprised if dummy hit with a singleton club here. So I'd be reluctant to try a low club lead. I'd most probably try to take away their ability to take ruffs, and start with a low trump. No reason to rule out partner having a trick of his own here.

No, if you bid 4H and partner bids 4S, then you have a 100% clear-cut sign-off. Well, that's your opinion. Mine is different. I'm with Arend here.

agree agree agree agree agree agree agree :P

Agree 100%. Actually I can't understand why people don't play 1H as forcing, but still.... Actually I play 1♥ as forcing, both when 1♦ is natural and when it's a transfer.

I think this does create an unexpected agreement/understanding and should be alerted. Damage is another thing.. I don't think so. This is no an agreement with partner. It is your personal choice. Sometimes you fool around, sometimes you maynot. But when you do such a thing in a regular parthership you very soon create implicit partnership understandings that need to be fully disclosed, and thus alerted.

I don't know how familiar you are with conditions in Europe, but that is exactly how it works. Everyone pays for the elite teams through their membership fees to the respective federations. It doesn't matter if it's football (soccer), handball, basketball, volleyball, ice hockey, field hockey, and of course bridge. At least in Scandinavia we don't hear significant objections although everyone knows that only a tiny percentage makes it to the national teams. Denmark had two teams in Shanghai (women and seniors) and they were funded by the 26,000 members of the Danish Bridge Federation. Roland And the players on these 'elite' teams are professionals? (I wasn't really referring to Europe (Scandinavia's governments are usually socialist, no?) but that's fine as long as we're comparing apples to apples.) Some are, some are not, but we don't distinguish. The members contribute to the *team*. As far as governments in Scandinavia are concerned, I think it's fair to say that your knowledge is not world class. Norway has a social democrat prime minister (Jens Stoltenberg), Sweden a conservative (Fredrik Reinfeldt) and Denmark a liberal (Anders Fogh Rasmussen). Roland Helene, could you please explain to Roland the difference between 'usually' and 'currently'? Thanks. Jon, I don't know if you know the difference between socialist and social democratic. Norway haven't had a socialist government since WWII. From WWII to the mid seventies we had a social democratic government most of the period, with two short term non-socialist governments. Since then we've had several changes back and forth. The situation in Denmark and Sweden has been similar, though not equal.

I'd just barely raise to 3♠ on A and B. C and D are clear raises to 2♠ in my world.

I'd open 1♥ and rebid 3♥. 2NT is out since it's a conventional GF in my methods. Besides I don't think a natural 2NT is right with both minors wide open. We'd get to too many 3NT losing the first 5-7 tricks. If partner rebid 3NT over 3♥ I'm a tad more confident that we'll make. I'm sure we've got enough tricks after either route, but the latter seems to be better regarding opps possiblility to set us before we gain the lead.

Obvious 1♥. With three suits you keep the bidding low as long as you can to make it easy to bid your suits naturally and find a fit.

At IMPs I don't think I'd stop short of game here. I can play 4♠ vs a singleton (some times vs a void too). So I'd get to 4♠ (or slam obviously) unless partner showed 6c♥.

I'd have bid 4NT quantitative over 3♣. The alternative being 3♦. Can't see that any convoluted sequence after supporting one (or both) of partners suits will help out in any reasonable way.

I agree with those saying the spade suit is too weak to jumprebid in 2/1. In Acol or Acol-like systems it's mandatory to rebid 3♠. As BillHiggin I'd be surprised if I ever found a sequence at the table stopping short of slam on these hands, whatever system I played.

Oh no, playing 7NT you need 20 tricks on top to claim! :)

I'd surely have opened the south hand. The actual south obviously apply a sounder opening style. Two somewhat weird actions by the opponents put him in a troublesome position where a too agressive choise was made. I've no complaint regaring norht's double - it's minimum but fine with me. On this hand a light opening style would have worked far better, as south then would be declaring 1NT instead of 3NT. Nothing proved by one example though. I voted south was an idiot, but that's too strong an expression IMO. I probably shouldn't have voted at all. :)

Low spade.

Basically I learned to play very early, 8 or 9 years old after having played card for far longer than I can remember (probably started to learn to play simple card games at the age of 2). Thus bridge has been a part of my life for as long as I can remember. I've always liked the game for it's puzzles and challenges. New situations come up frequently. New bidding techniques are developed. You never stop learning. I'd say I play partly because of the challenges the game offer, partly out of habit and partly for social reasons.

I'd never pass here, not even opposite myself. :) This is a powerhouse. I'd invite opposite a light opener, raise to game opposite a more conservative opening style.

I'm playing a 2/1 light (2/1=GF unless rebid) with a NF 1NT response to 1M. We use 2-way bids in the suit below the opening: 1♠-2♥ and 1♥-2♦ is either a natural 2/1 bid or a weak 3c raise 3-7(8-) and a direct raise is constructive (8+)9-11 (a bad 12 possible). So far this has been working well for us. I've played that a few times, once it came up and wasn't a big success... Of course, one hand doesn't prove anything, but I'm skeptical :) I also wonder why it's not either natural or a constructive raise? 1M-2M is more preemptive, and with a constructive raise opener will be able to bid more after 1M-2(M-1) The main reason is that as we play it the by far most frequent sequence will be 1M - 2(M-1) - 2M, leaving more space to explore when partner's got the natural 2/1 hand. Playing it as you propose the bidding will frequently be 1M - 2(M-1) - something, making it harder to distinguish the natural 2/1 hand and at the same time steal useful bidding space. After 1M-2M (constructive) it's also easy for opener to just blast game, invite game or invite slam (which all of them are more frequent than over the weak raise) without having to think about the possible natural strong hand with partner.

I'm playing a 2/1 light (2/1=GF unless rebid) with a NF 1NT response to 1M. We use 2-way bids in the suit below the opening: 1♠-2♥ and 1♥-2♦ is either a natural 2/1 bid or a weak 3c raise 3-7(8-) and a direct raise is constructive (8+)9-11 (a bad 12 possible). So far this has been working well for us.

4th best diamond.

I play 4♣ as GF. I'm not sure a pass would be forcing here though. If I was sure it was I'd pass and pull. Not being sure I'll bid 6♣.

XX of Stayman show a strong 4-card suit or 5. XX of Jacoby show 3+ in suit transfered to and a holding in RHO's suit that suggest it's better for partner to declare, that is xx/xxx/Ax/Axx. Pass showing a doubleton in parther's suit.

Me too.