Apollo81

This is true for lower HCP totals but becomes false when you're not bidding a slam and the partnership has 30ish+ HCP. My intention in posting the above is not to apply this comment to the hand from this post, but rather to offer it as general advice.

I voted "Blast 3N playing standard, but bid 3H with these methods "

See above.

Actually, now that I think about it, is US citizenship required for a person to be on a USBF international team?

In particular, re this statement: "This year, the highest-placing team consisting entirely of U.S. citizens will be nominated by the ACBL to the United States Bridge Federation as team USA #1 for the 2008 World University Games in Lodz, Poland. (The USBF, at their sole discretion, may accept or reject this nomination.)" Why would the ACBL think that a team of players, born 1983 or later, each taking at least 7 credits, all from the same university would constitute a good team at the international level, where the requirements are 1980 or later, no specific credit requirement, and not necessarily all from the same university? It just makes no sense at all. I realize of course that the USBF is under no obligation to listen to the ACBL, as the last sentence says.

Jan, Please comment on the content of this? http://www.bridgeiscool.com/CollegeBridgeC...nnouncement.pdf Thx -Noble

Suppose you held, NV all ♠J9x ♥10xxx ♦109x ♣xxx The context is that you're playing a strong club system, partner has shown 23+ HCP (possibly a hair less if he has a 5+ major) and you've shown 0-5. No one has said anything about shape. Your options at this point in the auction are: edit 2♦, artificial, GF unless partner rebids 2N (23-24) 2♥, 0 tricks for hearts 2♠, GF if partner has 5+ hearts, 0 tricks for spades Partner's non-jump rebids after either 2M bid are NF. Which option would you choose? I think all three are defensible.

3♠

100% of 5 holdings. There are only 3 ways for RHO to hold JTxx. Also RHO would not always lead the J from J10xx, which makes J109x more likely. Taking into account the club story as well I actually think RHO will have led from JT or J9 twice as often as he will have led from JTxx. I'm not really trying to argue that ducking is the "right" play, I'm just trying to show you that its closer than you think.

If I could demand a cuebid via a 3♠ or 3NT bid then I would do that. I took the OP as "we're not playing any methods that allow you do demand a cuebid"

I'll also cede that bidding RKC over 3♥ in the given auction is strictly worse than bidding 3♠ since partner could bid 4♥ and you have a clear signoff over that. But I would not pass if partner raised my 3♠ to 4♠.

I dont think anyone was suggesting this. My original post was intended to mean "After I put up the dK and get in with the hA I will continue low in diamonds rather than high"

Let me clarify. I don't know what "any min" means. Does that mean I can't have a 5332 14-count? Does that mean I can't have a 5422 13 count? Those are certainly minimums for the overall range of my 1♠ opening, but clearly hold extra values. If I can still have those hands, then I am not going to cuebid with QJxxx Axx Axx xx over anything partner bids, I'm going to sign off in 4♠. If partner continues by cuebidding 5♣, THEN I will cuebid one of my aces, but how does partner know I have two aces? Am I to continue to slam now if partner signs off? In my experience, cuebidding is often the "right" decision in hindsight, but at the table partners often have different views of whether one should cuebid with a given hand in a given situation. Now maybe this is just because I have not always had expert level partners, but I suspect bad results from cuebidding are both under-reported and under-remembered by people who experience them. Let's say my structure over this 2NT was something like: 3♣: would not accept a 3-card limit raise 3♦: some extras, but still min 3♥... various better hands Now I would feel obliged to cuebid after bidding either 3♣ or 3♦. I'm not saying bidding RKC is so great an action in this situation either, and I can hardly argue that it is better than cuebidding in theory. Merely trying to give an alternative point of view to these sorts of auctions.

Thats what we've been discussing, see my first post

Since "cuebidding below game is not mandatory" I will bid RKC.

Yes, clearly worth a 3♣ bid here since you have the best possible hand for your bidding.

Yes clear opener

Is this likely to be settled by the end of the spring NABC?

I can answer one of my own questions: "AGE LIMIT: The competitors must be born between January 1st, 1980 and December 31st, 1990." From http://www.bridge2008.net/ INFO tab I don't see the answer to the credits question on their site though.

Given the GNT conflict issue, does it make sense to do the FISU trials Sat-Sun and the Intercollegiate Championship Thu-Fri? I would imagine there would be fewer players wanting to play in the GNT and Intercollegiate than the GNT and FISU trials.

I also gain when it was Jx.

I'd duck the first trick, then duck a diamond after the continuation listed. This may not work as well when West started with ♦Hx, but it still gives me the added chance to play spades for 5 tricks when RHO started with ♦J109x

Hasnt this already been posted? How many hat colors are there?

You should be able to design a good NT structure that includes a signoff in clubs.

Good problem, as Hannie said. I'd bid 2♠. An agressive 2NT is my second choice, followed by a too-strong-by-the-♣J 1NT as a close third.