rogerclee

I would think it is nonforcing and doesn't even necessarily promise invitational values.

I hate to recommend conventions to B/I players, but you should play that 2NT here shows a limit raise in diamonds, which would have probably made the hand easier. It doesn't make any sense for this to be natural, since you would rather redouble with an invitational NT hand. Certainly south should have doubled 4♥ for penalty, though I don't know why north saved anyway.

Good combination, I learned something new from this.

I would pass, some people like to bid 1N on these kinds of hands. I used to be very opposed to this kind of style over a minor (I still am over a major), but I have come around and now find it to be okay.

4h is the worst bid out of all of these.

You are just so much more likely to get a weak opponent to do something stupid after a preempt than a strong one. They also tend to double you much much less than they should (instead they will always try to go for 3NT), they will bid 5 over 5 way too much, etc. I just don't agree with the second statement (at all). Think about matches where you were a huge favorite to win but lost, I bet they were almost all because the other team played relatively solid bridge while you just had an off day or were slightly unlucky. None of them involved the weaker team doing a bunch of weird things on purpose that just happened to work.

This is not a realistic expectation at all, if you never preempt with a 3 card major you are losing a lot of IMPs on very routine hands. I tend to not preempt with a side 4 card major, and I think it is reasonable to not preempt a minor with three cards in both majors (in first or second seat, anyway). This is the other end of the spectrum, in my opinion this is only a reasonable strategy against weak opposition.

I think this depends on system, I have always preferred a 14+-17 range playing basic 2/1. I played 12-14 for a year or two and found that I did not like starting my strong NT hands with 1m, there were considerable losses when the opponents interfered. I don't like a 10-12 or 10-13 range in a 2/1 system, I think you are really giving up a lot in order to have the (questionable) benefit of being able to open 1N on these kinds of hands.

IMPs, All Red [hv=d=s&v=b&n=saqxhkj9xdakqxcjx&s=skjxxhaqxdtxxcaxx]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] 1♣ - 1♥ 1♠ - 2♦ 2♥ - 2NT 3NT - 5NT 6♥ - P You play a style where opener usually bids 1♠ with a balanced hand and 4 spades. ATB for getting to the wrong slam.

[hv=d=s&v=b&n=sq9xxh42dqxckqxxx&w=satxxhkt8dt97xc86]266|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] 1N - 2♣ 2♥ - 3N You lead the ♦T, small diamond from dummy, ♦8 from partner, ♦K from declarer. Declarer goes after clubs, and partner wins the third round with the ♣A while you pitch your small spade spot (upside down attitude), declarer had ♣Jxx. Partner plays the ♥7, declarer plays the ♥Q, now what?

new suits by unpassed hands as RESPONDER are forcing (unless explicitly agreed otherwise) anyway this is nonforcing, good question, lots of B/I players don't know this

If you respond to balancing doubles like partner is always light, you are basically saying we play 2h here is 0 to 10, and to me this is just too wide a range. I would always rather play methods that force me to bid too much than too little.

two spades

no 3h is not forcing yes, saying you want to force to game and then bidding something less than game is forcing i would bid 2s, we have no idea where we belong yet, i want to hear more from partner.

I prefer 2♠ with the east hand. West really had a very clear 3♥ bid on the actual auction

about 12 years, but only four seriously

spades

lol at doubling to protect our plus score

spade

fixed, sorry, the hand is different now.

A hand from my friend lchen: [hv=d=w&v=e&n=sha64daq54caqjt92&s=sjt87ht9872dkj7c3]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] (4♠) - 4NT - (P) - 5♦ AP West leads the ♠A, you ruff in dummy, and are overruffed by the 6. A club comes back, and LHO plays the ♣K. Plan the play.

LOL

LOL

lol no

I think anything but 3♥ now is really terrible.