nick_s

I don't believe the explanation of the 2♠ bid. Given that this is not a regular partnership, I think it's a limit+ diamond raise. I'm leading A♦ followed by 10♦.

I'm surprised by these responses. To me this looks like a 3♣ overcall, not 2♣.

It's important for me not to practice bad habits - like not counting the hand - like not noticing all the small pips. There's a huge difference in my card play depending on how religiously I do this. The only way I've found for me to reacquire good habits is to play shorter sessions and focus on EVERY hand. After a while, it starts becoming less of a chore again. Hope that helps, Nick

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=sk93hkq1076d6ca653&w=s84ha98dk98754ckj&e=sqj10752h543dq10cq8&s=sa6hj2daj32c109742]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv] Another data point for you (not that this proves anything). This comes from a regional in chicagoland last weekend. Our bidding (I was South) (1♦)-1♥-(1♠)-1NT (Pass)-Pass-(2♠) all pass 2♠ - 1 was worth 0 matchpoints. (We didn't find the diamond ruffs) A double would have worked much better than 1NT here.

Could you explain the reasoning behind this statement please, so 2/1 noobs like me can understand. Thanks

That is what I used to do when I played in the UK (open 1♣). Now I'm in the US and my US partner hates that style. We've considered playing transfer responses to 1♣ to make it safer to rebid 1NT with a stiff, but that's not GCC legal in ACBL land. :unsure: Thanks for the other responses - there's much food for thought there.

[hv=d=e&v=b&w=sa86hk86da6caj972&e=s3haq107dk843cq1086]266|100|Scoring: IMP -- 1♦ 2♣* 3♣ 3NT Pass[/hv] * 10+ HCP

That sounds like a useful treatment. This particular problem makes me wonder what 4♦ instead of 4♠ (or 3NT) should show.

Me too. I'll just throw my comments out there in case anyone else is interested... or wants to help 'correct' my views. I told them I thought they were generally doing a great job. I told them that I wouldn't support online tournaments of any real importance because it was just too easy to cheat. I also expressed disappointment at hard it was to figure out which conventions were legal and which weren't.

Partner held: ♠ Tx ♥ AQx ♦ KQ9x ♣ KQxx opposite my: ♠ Axxxx ♥ Kxxxx ♦ xxx ♣ - 3♣ was down 3 and worth 4 out 12 MPS. 4♥ should go down, but was allowed to make at several tables. I was more interested in how clear you guys thought it was to act on my hand than the stuff about the BIT. Whether there was a BIT or not was a close call. RHO said yes, LHO asked what a BIT was, the kibitzer said there was no BIT. Regardless, this is a new partnership and a new club for me so I wanted to be squeaky clean :) . Partner clearly has a problem over 3♣. Personally, I would have tried 3N, but a timely pass would have worked out best.

I play them when protecting as an unpassed hand. eg. (1♣) - Pass - (Pass) - 2♠ I think this is pretty normal though. Weak jump overcalls don't make too much sense here.

A hand from last night's pairs game at the local club: ♠ Axxxx ♥ Kxxxx ♦ xxx ♣ - Green vs Red (3♣) - Pass - (Pass) - to you the x's are all less than an 8. I decided I had to pass because of a BIT from pard, but I think I would have X'd without it. What do you think?

I would love to see the system that caters for exactly this type of hand! Umm... 3♦, then correct to 3N? :D More seriously, great problem. Thanks for posting.

Ok thanks - this is pretty much what I thought. So a minimum hand for opener would be something like: ♠xx ♥AQxx ♦x ♣KQJxxx ...prepared to play in 3♣ but willing to stop in 2♥ if there's a fit.

Hi, This sequence came up last night, while playing SA with a new partner: MPs Red vs White (P)-P-(P)-1♣ (1♠)-P-(2♣)-2♥ (P)-?? Is this reverse forcing? (I thought not, but wasn't sure) You hold: ♠Qx ♥Txxx ♦J98xx ♣xx Your bid?

2♦ nearly always for me. Consider: 2♦ tells partner about 8 of your cards (5♥ + 3♦), 2♥ only tells partner about 6 of them (6♥).

For the folks that play 1m - 2M as something other than a strong jump shift, how do handle the classic strong jump shift hands? i.e. Slam invitational single suiter and slam invitational two suiter with primary support for opener. For the first type, I'd guess that you have to play 1M...3M as a GF? Correct? For the second type, go through FSF maybe? Thanks in advance

I chose a club not because of how likely it is to blow a trick on the lead, but because a club trick is the most likely to disappear if it isn't established early. ...at least I think it is

3♠ only. The way we play, partner is allowed to be extra aggressive since I've already passed (yes, even at Red/Red). I have to respect that by raising conservatively. For the same reason, I'm passing 4♥. With a pick up partner, I'd bid 4♠.

I believe this style is called an "action double" as opposed to a takeout double. It is alertable. I know of one pair that plays this way, and they err.. rarely trouble the scorers. As far as non-standard shapes for takeout doubles: I find that making a takeout double with a 4333 14 count works well. I'd be interested to know what expert opinion is on this.

I don't think it's clear to invite with the N hand. This is not a very good 8 count - too many quacks. I think I'd pass 1NT not vulnerable.

Pass. Not close. The Law is only a tool. A big takeaway for me from Mike Lawrence's book on overcalls was that Qxx in the opponents suit when they have found a fit is a huge negative. Not only is it worthless offensively, but the opponents are bidding without the Q, so they have compensating values elsewhere.

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=s864hj76dak105ck92]133|100|Scoring: MP Pass - (Pass) - 1C - (2C) - ??[/hv] You play a 12-14 NT at this vulnerability, so 1C is clubs or a strong NT. 2♣ is Michaels. If you pass or X, LHO bids 2♠ which comes back around to you. Now what?

Opponents have 15 HCP between them. We have 8 clubs between our two hands, and both hands are balanced, so I think it likely that West has a weak no-trump. So East can have at most a king. To bring this home, we need spades 4-3 so that we lose 3 spades and the Ace of clubs. The spade splits of interest then, are AJ98 opposite Kxx and AK98 opposite Jxx. I can't think of anything else to go on except that not everyone opens balanced 12 counts with 8 losers. That makes AJ98 opposite Kxx marginally less likely. I'm hopping up with Q♠ at trick one.

This is a continuation/offshoot/hijack of mtvesuvius' poll: "Moving? 3 jacks" which I found very educational :) 1♣ - (Pass) - ? How does partner opening 1♣ as opposed to 1♦ change things for you? Now if partner rebids 1/2NTs, many pairs won't be able to get out in 2/3♣. In contrast, 1♣ can often be a short suit, so 1♣ passed out might be horrible.