MFA

You have described this as "silly" and "waste of energy", not exactly "do whatever you want" is it for you? It was a one-line answer to your one-line rethorical question post. Now we are talking. The subject of how to handle unfamiliar methods is quite interesting. Having a set of pre-prepaired well-oiled defenses makes good sense. If not I'm very big on keeping it simple. I play a system with some unusual bidding myself (transfer-responses at 2-level after a 1M-opening for instance) and sometimes opponents tackle that horribly by making all sorts of strange agreements that I just cannot wait to let them launch in practice. Typically this happens after a series of questions where they suddenly start to see ghosts allover, where there really are none.

asking one question is "spending too much energy"? You can do whatever you want. ;) I agree (and as I noted the cc implies 1♣ is forcing), but the first question I would ask this pair if I sat down against them would be: "is 1♣ 100% forcing - never/ever passed?", just to ensure we could employ the right defense against their opening. It seemed to me that you were about to devise some ingenious defense based on whatever words that happen to come out of the opponent's mouth at the time. My point is that I find this a waste of energy and a wrong approach, since you will be playing their ballgame with unfamiliar sequences and agreements, should you decide to play fancy and not just natural. Also I find the question somewhat silly since you can't oblige your opponents not to pass 1♣ in the future anyway. No matter what they answer you. So why ask like this?

It seems to me that you are spending too much energy on the opponents' system. I couldn't care less if 1♣ is passable. Clearly one should defend against this 1♣ opening as against a normal 1♣ opening. If the opponents are willing to take such dubious inferences from your pauses and make such huge violences of partnership system on that basis, the more the better!

It actually does not state it, just implies it by stating 1♣ is natural or 22+ - one would hope an opening that can be 22+ would be forcing. 1♦ reply to 1♣ is 0-5... ... Surely one needs a forcing opening or it will be impossible to handle the strong hands reasonably.

Natural as I play.

You have a point about the actual sequences, Ken, but you must concede that given reasonable agreements about the continuations after the mini-splinter, it must be superior to start the process as low as 3♦ instead of 4♦. Getting to exactly 5♠ is hardly a triumph on these cards.

I like 3♦ and it's not illogical to raise 3♥ to 4 when partner confirms the 4th trump. I have no strong feelings about the game/not game decision but would probably raise myself.

For me, 3♦ could be based on a void if the hand has exactly invitational strength. 4♦ void gameforce 3♦ void inv OR singleton inv+. The relay clarifies.

Nice thread! My style is to blast 3NT with any 4333. Not because I expect to gain from playing 3NT with a 4-4, but because I expect to lose so little doing so with 4333 that I earn more from not revealing anything when we don't have a fit. But I'm surely ready to learn.

The swindle play is to start with a small from the ace, planning to insert the T and if necessary finesse against east later. Against some opponents it loses only to the stiff J or KJxx in east, but as west gets good enough to duck smoothly with Kx, this plan becomes less attractive. In the actual hand, one has to worry about a club ruff as well, of course.

Excellent point! I would say that a swing caused by bidding is more likely to be random than a swing caused by card play. This natural variance doesn't mean that the good player will gain more imps from good bidding than from good card play. I would say that it's close to 50-50 in importance.

He doesn't need all those spades, since he knows from the bidding that I have stiff ace. xx, AJxx, AQJxxx, K Kxx, AJxx, AQJxx, K or perhaps even KQxx, AJxx, AQJT, K The point count makes it overwhelmingly likely that I hold the ♦K, and 7♦ is then the correct shot over 7♥/7NT, since I might have the ♣Q as well.

I assume you are thinking of some 4-4 ♦-fit magic. Imo, if partner has this in mind he shouldn't express concern about the ♥Q. For me, the actual sequence is an attempt at taking 13 tricks without running hearts, just as Frances is talking about. If he wants to play a 4-4 fit in diamonds, he should bid 5NT->7♦, or if there could be doubt about 0 or 3, 5♥->7♦ (after hearing my 6♦ bid).

Agree with this cuebid is a cuebid :P. 2♣ after 1♠ is NF, wtp :P.

Fortunately, when somebody tried to concede the right for everybody to have a political discussion on BBO on how the rules of bridge should be, the TD didn't allow that concession either. :P

I don't like it in general. I think that concessions should be a captain's prerogative and that a TD or the organizers should refuse to accept a mid-segment concession from a pair or an individual. Absent special circumstances, of course.

I would bid 4. Sure it might be bad, but partner is not likely to raise 3 when it's right. 3♥ is usually a competitive move with a 7-bagger that hopes to catch at least a reasonable dummy, so we could win the partscore battle.

Only nv. 2♠ vul vs not is :blink:.

Hmm, I find it a big difference, and I would certainly double with the minors reversed. Me too.

4-4 majors, please bid your major, I want it on your hand? Hmm seriously, if partner doesn't know what 5NT is, then I disagree with the bid no matter my hand.

Pass, but I hate it, double is not crazy. 1NT I don't understand at all, it's just a silly overbid. Silly because nothing prevents us from agreeing 14-17NTs, if we want to overcall 1NT on bad 14's.

... and what would the incentive then be to NS to enter the correct result in the first place? :rolleyes: Introducing penalty points is a delicate matter. The margin in the women's final was 1 imp and in the seniors' 2 imps just to give an example. The world champions shouldn't be just the ones who are better at producing the correct running score for the public.

I think the Bridgemate desperately needs a feature, where one could easily check all the scores of the session. Our team in Beijing had a long, continuous struggle after the matches with correcting mistakes with the Bridgemates. Just as we had had in Pau. This is not fun. If it were possible to run through the scores at the end of the session, things would be much easier.

IMO is 2♣-X to show clubs unplayable after a 10-12NT. It should show about the same as a penalty double of the 10-12NT. A 10-12NT is war. If we don't fight back, we'll get killed because of our reduced bidding precision. There will be tons of games to bid and tons of various awkward strong hands. If we use our most precious weapon (the double) to show the least valuable feature (a club suit), we have surely lost the first battle. Catching up later after having to pass 2♣ with just about any strong hand is not going to be easy. Given that X showed clubs and a decent hand, further bidding should be constructive and oriented towards finding a possible game, not a runout (would pass). 2♦ is therefore a constructive, natural move. Having shown my clubs already, I would now bid 2♥ and pass any simple, NF reply from partner.

Unless something very weird is going on, hearts are Jxxx - Axx. I'm going to continue with the ♥Q. Either east will let me in with the ♥K in dummy for the spade finesse or he will make some shift, which is also ok.