marcD

Good problem . I do not have the agreement that partner's dbl shows at least Hxx in the second suit so for me , on general principals, the double is more of the take out / Do Somtehing Intelligent type (penalty dbl of diamonds , no natureal bid, points). I think it is a close call but I would pull to 3♣ .

Thought this hand is far from being a wtp hand. The 3 options I would consoider are pass, 1NT and 2♠. 2♣ would promise a rebid in my system. I think it is a close call between Pass and 1NT

To be honest, I have never seen anyone play this. I also think it is unsound as you will often end up too high. Actually I think it may be a worthwhile idea . I play 1NT 10-12 non vulnerable and x is penalty. At MP you sometimes want to compete over 2♠ (say with a hand with 2 places to play) with 8-12 HCP . Guess it should be non forcing which create other problems. May be the best solution is not to play 10-12 at MP in the first place

Think you are confusing MP and bridge :) .2♣ and 4♣ are reasonnable alternartives but I think the higher variance 4♣ has many ways to win. I would probably bid 2♣ at the qualifying stage of a strong event and 4♣ in the final stages . Do not like 3♣ at all (unless it is intermediate whatever that means) and 5♣ is beyond the last guess level : they will simply double

I play that gadget too but a more typical hand for 1♣-3♦ would be - xx KQTxx KJTxxx (or a hand just a tad stronger say AQTxxx in club where 4NT would be a misbid) . The key point is that the bid shows a high ODR . Here with 3 aces and no fillers the hand does not qualify . In spite of the spade void I would still reverse (the alternative of 2♣ being even more of a misdescription). Not confident this will lead to a good result though

Not sure why partner is bidding 3♣ ahead of my possible dbl. Guess he must have heart shortage and would pull a penalty double of 2♥ . So 3NT seems ok (he seems to have some values since he did not run over 1NTx) . I would have dbled 2♦ to show values and clearly establish this is our hand.

I guess their system is not for the faint of heart. It is definitely high variance (their 2 level openings seem unsound and the breadth of their 1NT opening is scary) . They do not seem to mind occasional/not so occasional bad results and their main objective is to bring their opponents into unfamiliar territory and make them work (their lead conventions are in the same spirit I guess). They have declarer and defensive skills to survive most of the time. In a different way Meckwell do the same thing : they are way ahead in the experience curve of playing ultra thin games. I guess both pairs seem to think you can expect top level opponents to make mistakes if you do not push them around.

Tempting to open 1NT as rebids are going to be a severe problem over 1♠ and 1NT. However there are too many flaws (the hand is a bit too strong for 1NT, could be down a couple or more in 1NT with hearts playing much better) playing standard i guess I would rebid 2♣ in both cases and then describe my hand as balanced 16-17 over 1NT (still an underbid but at least hearts are not buried) and non minimum hand with 3S over 1♠ I play 2♣ forcing (Gazilli like) so over 1♠ I can use 2NT to show a medium hand with 6H and 3S . Not ideal but still a step in the right direction. Good and UI prone problem. I have noticed that people who play standard are often unable to produce 2♣ in a normal tempo and that their partners bend backwards to keep the bidding open (less of an issue with screens but still)

I would have bid 3♥ to show an unbalanced hand before . That would give partner a better chance to make the right decision. Now I have to guess and I guess pass

Pass. Do not know what partner has. Think this is a last guess hand : Partner bid 4♣ preemptive to make opponents guess. I am not the one who is supposed to guess

I'll go for the simple 7♣. 5NT might be pick a slam but this is not clear cut and am afraid it would be interpreted as GSF.

While I am enjoying watching the event on BBO on my sleepless nights , I am very much surprised 1/ there were no screens used for round of 32 (at least that's what i understood during the bbo broadcast, hard to believe) . I cannot imagine having a field of that caliber in Europe playing without screens. 2/ Also, there are no running scores or hand records available (no bridgemates or equivalent?, may be all tables are not plmaying the same boards). I remember following on the web a championship final in Poland where all the results where streamed on the web and hands records were available ; It is a great complement to BBO. I cannot imagine this not being done is due to lack of technology skills in the US . Is this because of security concerns ? (I do not think money can be the real issue either)

I would routinely double on #2 (partner knows not to expect too much minor support) and #3 (light but perfect shape) . I would double #1 only at these colors (passing is theorically right but risks being stolen)

deleted misread the bidding

Agree; This is actually why i dbl : this is a one bid hand and if so dbl comes closer to describing it than 1♥

2NT Natural not scrambling. Think priority is to describe hand type. Hope partner does not pass but even if he does it does not have to be worse than player 3♦ in a 4-2 fit if i invent 3♣ or 4♥ if partner raises my 3♥ call .

I think it is too dangerous not to balance. Clearcut to double rather than bid 2NT . True I may go for a number from time to time but passing is simply giving up. Good things can happen : we can score a partscore swing or push the opponents to 3♥ when their limit is 2. I may pass if I feel we are ahead.

1♠ then 5♥ over a possible/probable 5m. 4♥ will make 5m from opponents easier not more difficult and then what ?

For whatever it's worth I have been playing an ambra based approach for the last 3 years and here are the trade off I chose - I use 2♣ with club invitational hands or any GF hand which wants to relay - 2♦ shows hearts. Only 2♠ by opener is NF (misfit, minimum) , 2♥ is a waiting bid either mini or 18+ , all other bids show 15-17. over 2♥ responder shows a GF hand with 2♠ , 2NT 3♣ 3♦ 3♥ are inv - We bvid 2♥ with good diamonds (generally 6+), forcing to 3♦. opener shows minimu with 2♠ or 15+ with 2NT. 3♣ by responder then shws 4 hearts hope this helps

I want to be in game with that hand facing a strong NT. With a regular partner 4♦ showing 55 in the majors without slam ambitions. Barring that Stayman and over 2M I raise to game , over 2♦ 3♥ smolen (5S4H) and probably 4H if partner does not raise (passing 3NT is a possibility but I do not think it is a long term winner)

could you elaborate on why you think it is not playable in a 2/1 10+ HCP ? I play 2♣ GF with generally balanced hand or inv+ clubs (repetition of clubs is only NF sequence). the overall system is ambra like (2♦ shows hearts 8/p+ and 2♥ shows diamonds inv+, 1NT semiforcing).

This belief is widely held, but, I believe, incorrect. If you pass holding spades when the opponents have a heart fit, the auction may continue 2♦ pass 2♠ pass 4♥ If you pass holding hearts when the opponents have a spade fit, the worst that can happen is 2♦ pass 2♥ pass 2♠ I agree and indeed play that leaping michaels show ♠+minor against multi. However, i think the critical issue is to have an agreement . Lack of preparation explain why multi is still around (I do play it in some partnerships but my experience is that it is not that effective against top pairs)

I would bid 4♠, 4♥, Pass too. Not that the first 2 bids are risk free but they seem a reasonnable shot. do not like 4♠ on 3 especially against precision as I could go for a number while 4♥ is not even making : seems partner is loaded in ♥ or we are heavily outpowered

I do not think the issue is only jugement but preparation . Some Unusual systems/Fert bids do work for some time as long as opponents are unprepared (not to mention issues about full disclosure). Even something as mundane a Ekren 2♦ or 2♥ involves a learning curve and I do see the need for protection of players for whom is not their only occupation in life (irrespective of their skill level). As for preempt, i actually think the opposite is true : I would rather preempt freely against stronger pairs. They will tend to better than weaker pairs judge on average but they are bound to get nailed sometimes whereas you can rely on weak pairs to make mistakes without pushing them around. Why increase the variance against weak pairs when/if the mean/average is in your favour ?

I guess 3NT is always a possibility so it would cross my mind but tough call to defend if there was indeed an hesitation on the other side of the screen . The situation is tricky as a winning 3NT call will often trigger a director call from some opponents whether partner hesitated or not