Rossoneri

So how would your strategy change at IMP pairs if it was: i) A small field say 10-12 pairs vs a bigger field say 24+ pairs ii) 2 session event vs a longer event say spanning over 2 days

Thanks! :o

Minor problem: Switzerland flag was displayed as Macau's. (I happened to click on uschiwho's profile and the macau flag came out but country was displayed as switzerland)

Ok. Conversely speaking what about Board-A-Match? Play the same as you would at MP Pairs?

Maybe I wasn't searching correctly or hard enough, but didn't really manage to dig up anything.... So my question is: How do you play at IMP Pairs? Similar as you would to normal teams? Or would there be some differences here and there as it is pairs?

I have a team of 6...Not very flexible with time though so that might be a problem.

1. What does partner's X mean? I will take pass though... 2. X

Playing the overcall structure...no...you need at least 6 HCP.

Nope, as far as I remembered you were okay...I actually privately messaged one of the commentators whom I felt was overdoing things a bit. I think yesterday (Sunday) the same group covered the final session and that was fine. Thanks for all the hard work!

I just finished watching the 3rd segment of the Finals of the above-mentioned event and I was rather disappointed with the commentators. The standard of the play was far from perfect, but in my opinion, so was the commentary. One pair gave a wrong stayman response on board 4, and the commentators kept harping on that mistake all the way even till board 10. I could list many other examples, but the overall impression I got from the commentators was that they had very little respect for the players. Maybe I might be over-sensitive, but the general tone that was impressed to me was rather sarcastic. I do not see this happening when the particular few commentators (mostly European) in question are commenting on European/American events. I do not see such comments being made when players in these events make such mistakes.

?? Partner will probably pass with Axx, that's what he means.

Yep.

if only anything new was ever written there... My sentiments exactly! And here's mine: http://bridgeofangst.wordpress.com

Well...did W think 2♣ was meant to be a UAC in ♠s? I usually play 1♠ = 3 or 4 ♠s, 9 or 10 other cards. 1♠ = 13 cards sounds outright ridiculous.

Sorry lead was ♠2

[hv=d=s&v=b&n=skhak92djt52ck942&s=saj4ht754dq98caj5]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Bidding went 1NT-2C-2H-4H. What is the best way to play?

With 3 one can bid 2 directly, With 4 one can bid 3 directly, With good values and support one can make a cuebid FYI my partner and I play 1♣(1♦)1♥/♠ as 5 carders. I didn't ask for the simple solution, I am asking for the optimal solution.

For the first sequence I suggested support X and partner raised this point: you already showed 5 cards in suit z so why not just bid 2z with 3 card support? (8 card fit)

1x(1y)1z(2y)X Should this be pen or t/o? 1x(1y)1z(2y)p(p)X Should this be pen or t/o? When do you want to play X as penalty at MPs?

If you look closely I conceded that it might be in his context but I did not meant it to be insulting in this particular context. If W had talked to me in a different tone, I might even apologise, but the further the conversation the developed, the possibility of me doing so became more remote.

What about redoubling at MPs to protect your slam bonus? Is that reasonable?

Another endorsement for inquiry: I have tried reading kelsey (my friend actually bought the complete volumes) and couldn't understand. After reading Ben's blog, I finally understood and managed to carry out a squeeze successfully about 2 weeks after reading it.

And time to settle on a good lineup B) You will need one if you want to have a less stressful time as captain.

What I can see is that this whole debate about systems is rather analogous to languages and learning them. And then in every country you have your dialects and what-have-you-not...

I believe so. Now I am kicking myself for not joining this league but another one which seems to be inferior to this.