pashadia

Thanks for your quick replies. Is there still room for balanced game tries? would 1♦! - 1♥! - 2♣ (presuming shows 5♥4♣) - 2NT be GF or GI ? I would be very interested to see a write-up, is there one ? Thanks, B

Can we have more policemen on BBO? BBO police to have more? How many more police BBO? How many police BBO? BBO police? BBO police?

Then, in any case, I don't actually want to partner them again. People who tend to lose focus are not really competitive anyway.

Hello. I'm trying to find some playable transfer response structure for Moscito 1♦ and 1♥ openings (showing 4+♥ and 4+♠ respectively, about 9-14 HCPs). In a post somewhere, there was a reference to Paul Marston (the inventor of Moscito) playing transfer continuations from 1NT upwards (1NT->♣ .. 2M-1->2M). This is a very interesting approach, however in partnership bidding I've found out there is a problem with small balanced hands, less than a GI, and lacking a fit. For instance:[hv=s=sj92hk2dat32cj432]133|100|[/hv], has a problem lacking a response over 1♦. There are a few possible resolutions to this: 1. Not playing transfers at all relieves the pressure by being able to bid 1NT NF on these hands. However, this breaks the constructive options that transfers would give. 2. Envisioning a structure where the small NT hands go into the relay, however that bid becomes more crowded than a 2/1 1NT forcing response. 3. Having 1NT as a transfer to clubs, but not promising clubs. Opener would bid: 2♣ with some club support and 5M, 2 other NAT, 2NT as 4M5♣ and 3♣ as 5-5. However it becomes a problem to open balanced hands with only 4M in the major, but these would rather be opened 1NT regardless of ODR or other issues. 4. Passing the opening with more values, but this might very well lead to a 7-8 IMP loss if the opponents do not reopen. Could someone with more experience in this point me in the right direction? I can't find any references to this on the web, except perhaps the MagicD advisory of passing and perhaps doubling for penalties later. While I like MagicD, this advice surely comes from a world where a bottom is a bottom. Bogdan Agica

Hi all. I was the Romanian partner :lol: The main reason I doubled instead of bidding 3♠ was that partner might easily have something like xx KQxx Kxxxx xx, for instance, which could easily resolve in a +500 or +800. This was a Junior competition, after all. Very good point about 2♠ on the second round, me and gwnn are playing that now.

I think that this hand is an advertisment for Support with Support and for DSIP doubles. First: Since I have bid hearts (through X), partner is merely raising my suit. Passing the dead minimums is fine, but anything else with support should bid 3♥ (or 4, or 3♠, for the stronger hands). Saying that partner is not out of the auction is wrong, because of two reasons: spades might be raised to the 3rd level, and even on the 2nd level, he might have problems with 35xx or so. Bidding 2NT G/B instead of supporting hearts is suicidal for the same reasons, whenever the spades are raised to the 3rd level. Second: In order to accomodate the large interval of the 3♥ bid, action doubles (DSIP) over 3♠ are very much needed. Responder will bid 4♥ with most unbalanced hands, but for the balanced hands in the inviting range, he might have a problem -- easily solved with a double. Opener will pass with a balanced hand. (Of course, vulnerability is important for this discussion). But how often will they make 3♠ when we're both balanced and have 22+ points ?