effervesce

Hmmm.... what's wrong with an immediate 5NT bid? 1 loser hand, unbid suits... what else could a overcall of 5NT mean. Granted, KQJxxx of clubs would be preferable but you can't have everything.

4♣ looks like a cuebid to me. I'd bid 3♠. Too strong to pass, can't bid clubs, don't have the hearts to raise to 4♥, and can't bid 3NT. Partner's bid will make everything easy.

2♥ as showing extras seems a reasonable agreement to me. With both diamonds and hearts and a not-that-strong hand partner could just make a neg X. So unless partner has a decent hand, he won't have heart support anyway. If he does have one, you're not gonna miss a heart fit anyway when partner bids them later after a 3♣ call by you now.

Are you NS or EW? If partner was unfav vul bidding a direct 5♣ after the 3♣ preempt looks normal to me. At fav vul I'd pass.

1) 2♣, too many possible def tricks, and a crap suit to boot. 2) 4♣ 3) Pass. X will likely get a spade bid from partner.

The strong ♣ wouldn't come up nearly enough, and the upper limit of 17 HCP for the limited bids is not useful enough. I prefer: 1♣ in 1st and 2nd: 15+ (16+ if bal.) 1♣ in 3rd and 4th: 17+ (18+ if bal.) Isn't 1♣ not coming up that often a _good_ thing?

Given the title was _assess_ the blame, the blame is missing a cold slam :) 100% of blame for east, although the method used is terrible, east's still hand is great opposite most (if not all?) possible hands west could have.

This idea of 1♣ as 18+ intrigues me. What do people think of the playability of the following system 1♣ 18+ any 1♦ = 11-17, 0+ diamonds no 5CM or 6Cm unless 6-5+ in minors OR 15-17 with a 6+ minor 1♥/1♠ = 11-17 5+ suit 1NT = 15-17 bal 2C = 10-14, 6+ suit 2D = 10-14, 6+ suit 2M = weak two 2NT = weak, minors It seems to me that opening 1♣ as 18+ greatly improves the usability of precision systems utilising semipositive responses, with 1♦ GF, 1♠ negative, others semipositive. OTOH, I doubt there are supposed benefits of a higher minimum of 1♣. People would be even more eager to interfere, and they're even less likely to miss game by interfering.

Many ? 0.001% of bridge players can still be regarded as many I suppose :) (Assuming 100 million bridge players, that's 1000 people).

Make one of the kings an ace and I'd open it.

(This is getting a bit off topic for an EHAA thread, but...) Assuming you mean both majors, weak, or at least relatively weak, then I see the attraction of an Ekren style bid. Not so sure why your teammates would want 2C for this purpose though - it works OK as a 2D call and trickier as a 2H call. Also, only putting GF hands into 1C leaves 1M very wide ranging indeed, especially if you like opening the odd rule of 18 hand with a 1 bid - but even if you stick to rule of 20 it is at the limit of workability in my opinion (SAYC). On the other hand, I am really quite dubious about the merits of a traditional 1C system limiting 1M to 11-15. It tends to make the 1M bid very accurate, but at the expense of making some sequences rare or unused compared to what would happen with a wider range opening. In other words it tends to prune the bidding tree. I can't see that is desirable from a theoretical point of view. Pitching the strong version of 1C at ~18 or so seems to be a happy compromise to me. The only real downside is you have to really be thoroughly on your toes when there is an overcall. It is sometimes said that either/or clubs give some protection against wild defences - but this is really only true where the 1C opener is in 1st seat and therefore overcaller has an unpassed hand opposite. The question is all rather academic though - my partners are my teenage/early 20s offspring - they are still learning and another system is the last thing they need at this stage. And I am not one for pickup partnerships even if I could find someone playing AUC. So, it will have to wait a while until they're ready for more serious competition. Nick With a 1♣ as 18+, how do you propose to deal with the increased point range of the minor openings? 2♣ as 11-17 seems unplayable to me, and a 11-17 nebulous 1♦ still usable but more difficult to use.

6♥ for me. They may make, we may make if they misdefend. Partner has a good chance of a singleton/void club. Also, given the bidding, RHO is void in hearts. Losing a few hundred instead of gaining a couple hundred is loose change compared to you getting it wrong, or them getting it wrong.

Pass due to too many soft values. Make the singleton/doubleton Q's aces or kings and I'd bid 3NT. Also, you're vulnerable. It's very easy to concede several hundred undoubled.

But they don't guarantee 5+, only 4+.

Ditto Andy

It is curious to me that David Ben-Gurion was involved in what can only be described as "terrorist activities", and the PLO was held out as a terrorist organization for 25 years before gaining recognition. My point is that terrorism is the violent arm of a political movement. I am not an expert on Iran or the middle east so I try to get my information from people who truly are experts in this area. This quote, to me does not imply a certainty that Hezbollah would nuke Israel - it reads to me like a statement from someone who feels that Israel "stole" the Palestinian homeland and are thus non-deserving of the state of Israel. It seems doubtful that the groups who would like to live in the land occupied by Israel would make that land inhabitable by using a nuclear weapon, not to mention the potential of damaging holy sites. When their 'statements' have been backed up with suicide bombings and rocket bombardment of civilian areas, any less than paranoia about them obtaining nukes would be insane on Israel's part.

Was 1NT sandwich NT? In which case to play. If it was a strong NT, you could play it as a transfer I guess. *shrugz*

The problem is not about self-defense. If Iran would only use them for self-defense this would be a non-issue. However, Iran is a regime which does not agree that Israel has a right to exist. If they could make nuclear weapons, they would CERTAINLY allow Hezbollah to obtain such weapons (Iran is a major sponsor of Hezbollah) - and Hezbollah would not hesitate to use any weapon they obtain in attempting to destroy Israel. See wikipedia's entry on Hezbollah. For example, Hassan Nasrallah, Hezobollah's leader has said "I am against any reconciliation with Israel. I do not even recognize the presence of a state that is called 'Israel." In short, Israel is (very rightly) worried about Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, as it is close to 100% certainty that if they did obtain nuclear weapons they would be used against Israel.

3♦.

Ace and (after seeing dummy) probably another trump. We have the balance of power, and if you don't lead trumps alot of tricks will be cross-ruffed. Could be wrong, and you need to set up tricks before you lose them, but that's life.

3♣ then bid 3♠ then 4♠.

Transfer to spades. Certainly not pass - wouldn't be surprised at all if the opps had 7+ top tricks from the start. If RHO bids diamonds, 4♠ should be decent. If he doesn't, I'll settle for inviting.

You don't bid 2♠ there with a singleton heart? Huh. OK, now I have heard of such a system. xxx x AKxxx AKxx I think I'd still prefer to bid 2♣. With Hxx or better sure I'd raise. 1♠ to 2♠. Just like people might rebid 2♠ with AKQJx, one might prefer to show honor location. Geez. I've be happy that i've got ruffing values along with my weak trumps and good fillers for partner outside. 2♠ stands out a mile to me there. I'd much prefer bidding 2♠ on xxx x AKxxx AKxx than on, say, AKx x Kxxxx Axxx (which i'd still be bidding 2♠ on), but would feel even worse with say KQT x KJxxx AJxx. You are certainly right about preferring to ruff with small trumps, but we like to keep a usable shape relay from 1♦ - 1♠ - 2♣ - 2♥ which you can't really do after 1♦ - 1♠ - 2♠.

You don't bid 2♠ there with a singleton heart? Huh. OK, now I have heard of such a system. xxx x AKxxx AKxx I think I'd still prefer to bid 2♣. With Hxx or better sure I'd raise. 1♠ to 2♠. Just like people might rebid 2♠ with AKQJx, one might prefer to show honor location. A 2♣ rebid also saves space for shape relaying.

Suppose instead you hear (see): (1♣)-1♥-(1N)-P; P-? Pass.