Flameous

I'm bit puzzled, what was south's 6♥? South must hold ace and other honor in hearts in addition to ♣A so he has 12 tops possibly with heart finesse. Declarer has two possibilities for 13th, either double squeeze as diamonds as the pivot suit, this should be easy to see for both of us. So if partner holds diamond stopper, he should keep it and I'm guarding the suits after the declarer. But the situation is different if partner holds just Qx of diamonds. Then we can't just go around throwing our diamonds away. My approach would be, independent of the methods to first discard ♣Q, this should wake partner up. Then I'll follow with 5 or 7 of diamonds, which ever is positive attitude so partner knows to discard ♦Q from doubleton. This requires a lot from partner but so does squeeze defense in general. I must also say that I have liked these problems/analyses. Very insightful and also makes you think about other kinds of signaling methods.

http://www.oocities.org/gerben47/bridge/magicpass.html There's a link for Magic Pass, seems to be pretty close to what I figured. I think there are better approaches though. I'd look for modern Swedish two-way pass systems. It seems you don't actually need other minor to be "strong" opening, you only need it if you want fert but I doubt it's actually needed with good structure. I'd rather aim for freeing whole 2-lvl for pre-empts to handle most weak unbal hands. http://www.bridgeguys.com/pdf/forcingpass.pdf There seems to be some outlines for possible systems. I have never tinkered with 2-way pass systems so can't really tell how it all works out. I have sketched some semiforcing pass systems but they seemed a bit too much hassle. In Finland I'm allowed to play anything if playing 6+ boards against the same opps, so once I outgrow my junior years, I'm probably just going with straight forward strong pass.

Ace, I think responder here already told otherwise. If he wanted to SO in 3NT after hearing a heart stopper, he should bid it. Thus 3♣ already suggests towards slam. Thus I take 3♥ simply as a cuebid. Whether it denies one in ♦ depends on agreements and style. Mike, what do you suggest opener to do with stronger hands if the max for this is 13 count? I guess it's possible to jump to 3NT with 14+ but that seems quite problematic. I'd at least make a split so that 2NT is min or max and 3NT then is 14-15. Without specific agreements about this kind of sequence, I'd just split my range later with NS3NT.

These restrictions mainly make it seem like you could play something along Magic Diamond's older brother. (Can't remember the name right now) Pass = 0-8(*) or 17+ 1♣ = 13-16 unbal or 15-17 bal 1♦ = 0-8(*) 1♥/♠ = 8-12, 4+, canape 1NT = 12-14 2♣/♦ = 8-12, 5+m, no 4M You have two weak bids there and 9-11 bal isn't handled yet, but I think there could be something tweaked from this. Of course it has all the problems MD has, ie: two opening vulnerable to pre-empts, 2m openings and the major openings... well they are double edged sword. I think it's possible to do something better, I just immediately though of MD with those constraints. My second though now is something resembling semiforcing pass system. (Pass as 0-7 or 12-15 bal) straube, if we split ranges something along 0-7, 8-10, 11-14, 15-17, 18+, natural systems only operate with passing and pre-empting on the first two steps. Having pass be a strength promising bid (or 2-way) instead of denying it allows you to open more weaker hand types. Usually this is regarded as an advantage.

All I can say is that Zia played 12-14 2NT opening. (Only NV I think) For each his own... :P

You can't have 4 any as side suit in 2M opening, you are just too high. 5M4C is likely the best approach, giving you cheap artificial Gazzilli type rebid in 1M-1NT sequences. 2♣ is too wide range for such a high opening. 15+ should go to 1♣.

Damn. I've stayed up waiting all night <_< (2am now) Maybe I'll try alarm clock or something...

For the actual subject, I can just say that I play fitjumps in addition to limit+ Jacoby and I like them. I have very little constraints for them, either 3/6 or 4/5, strength is something along mixed+, most restrictive thing is that I always want 2/3 honors in the side suit. (1♠ - 3♥ is nat inv though) 1M - 3M is wide ranging, more like pre but includes mixed raises that can't be handled with other bids. Vul it's more like mixed raise anyways. I was just dazed by Ben playing all splinters as voids. What you use 3NT for? Since if it's free, you could just play funny splinters. Funny splinters for those unfamiliar: 1♠ -> 3NT = Any singleton splinter, 4♣ asks 4x = Void splinter 1♥ -> 3♠ = Any singleton splinter 3NT = Void splinter in spades You can switch them if you like but this enables you to hide the shortness more often after 1S - 3NT - 4S

Assuming south hand was first in turn, pretty much the same playing standard. This is a situation you can't really handle without some gadgets. Point is that S is GF after 1♥ whenever N holds 5 hearts but there's no way to show that type of hand. Possible solutions are 2♠ jumpshift and 1♠ rebid if played forcing. It's also possible to fit that hand type in 2NT but you are losing accuracy in NT sequences then.

Ken would just bid 3NT cause stoppers are for losers. :lol:

This is really interesting hand. With Rodwell being up so much, I'm going to quote other famous author, Krzysztof Martens, who has written: "In theory, planning in defense should aim at minimizing the values or specific cards necessary for partner to hold in order to set the contract." Here it is more like optimization: You can beat if partner holds 8xx KJxxx Jxx xx by switching to a heart. On the other hand if partner holds xxx KQxxx Jxx Qx you must play clubs. I doubt very many get to the point of seeing both these successful defenses and actually making comparisons, but now we should make the best choice of defense based on partner's 2♥ bid. We hold the ♥T so partner can't hold KJTxx, so it's more likely he holds KQ?xx. (I'd assume 3/5 or 2/3 for fit bids generally) Then it comes much to partnership style but I think partner often holds another card in addition to those hearts. He is forcing to 3 lvl opposite short hearts anyways. If it's ♠H, we are beating anyways, so we should tend to place partner with ♣Q. After all this thought process which might have holes and is foggy at best, we might agree that playing clubs is best after all since it only requires partner to hold cards we already tend to place him with. No way could I pull that off at the table :P

I just realized that one thing that hasn't come up is how many boards per match?

Me and my partner would be happy to find a team. We have pretty open schedule if that's a plus. We'd especially love to play first couple of matches as a training before White House.

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/51026-why-walsh/page__view__findpost__p__609515 Ind. post of the year

Transfers are evil, m'kay? B-)

http://toohighagain.blogspot.com/2011/04/transfers-unbalanced-diamond-structure.html There is the structure I've been playing for a good while with okay results, and we haven't really fine tuned all the relays. Our responses are quite weird but they seem to work somewhat. 1♦ -> 1♥ = Nat or GF relay 1♠ = Nat 1NT = Naturalish 2♣ = Multi sort of bid, either simple raise in ♦, weak in either major or balanced inv (This sounds horrible but it works when it comes up) 2♦ = Inv+ raise, may have 4 card major (Pretty much always 5+♦) 2♥/♠ = Reverse Flannery 2NT = GF with clubs 3♣ = Inv with clubs 3♦ = Pre Reverse Flannery might be a bit overkill there to handle all the major hands since 4-4 heart fit would be easy to find after 1♠ too but it does help making some bids forcing. Other use for them might be 4M6+C hands since those are really the hard ones to handle.

Antrax, west is ruffing the club if lead was a singleton. Seems more likely that you should use ♦ entry now to draw trumps.

West lead a club instead of spade. He can't have the ace so only reason is a club singleton. So west has something like xxxx Txxx ?xxx J and E holds AQJxx J ?x Qxxxx, the red suits could be other way around but I think odds are against it due restricted choice implications. (Note that this isn't a restricted choice situation per se as E could play J from JTx, it becomes one after deducting he doesn't hold 3♥s) So I'll start finessing hearts. It's good to note that it costs a lot this time if E holds JT doubleton. Such is bridge. If E does the mistake of discarding a club on hearts, I can eventually throw him in with the 4th club to get a spade trick. I'm not sure how to play diamonds.

Some thoughts regarding earlier posts. First for what comes to agreeing system, there hasn't really been a problem in Cayne matches for asking something. They have even asked for elementary stuff like 0314 or 1403. Sure it's better with people who have some firm agreements but I don't see it that big a problem. What comes to playing a TM to qualify, it seems a lot of work (I still remember winning Christmas Swiss teams bit too easily year back ;)) though I'd like to get some top pairs. I'm not actually sure if forum regs form any regular partnerships? But I'd say they are stronger than pairs that play first time together. I'd suggest this to follow some kind of pattern where we have the core of 4 pairs who play, one team every other week. If a "top pair" like this can't make it, the fill in is from the larger pool of forum regulars. (And possibly partners off the forums if it goes to that) This would help to keep the quality of the team high quite constantly, yet during long periods of time, all regulars would get chance to play. Also I'd suggest it's the skipping pairs' job to get the subs and not MrAces, though if you know it two weeks in advance or something, it's quite easily handled with one forum post I think :rolleyes: With all this said, it seems it's time to force my partner to forums :P He's been reading some stuff here anyhow so might as well make appearance.

Would the players/partnerships be cycling regularly or would it basically be just one team from BBF always playing? I'd have no problem playing occasionally with my partner, but couldn't promise anything regular. Would be good practice to get beaten by some pros :lol: Good idea and could get some more attention for the forums :)

1. I pretty much always play Kokish so this hasn't come up in ages but I'd assume 5+ 2. I treat it as 5+ but it is often bid with just 4, not with xxxx though. In auction 1C (1D) 1H (1S) I think it always shows 5, you have double for just 4.

3♣ has the problem that it shows extras. Sure we have them, but not in a way partner expects. If it typically shows 54 and 15+ count, could have 55 and 12+ count, certainly 66 and 9+ count is enough for what comes to trick taking potential. Problem is that partner likely can't evaluate in time. Compare to situation where partner bids 2NT over 2♠ and we get to bid clubs couple of times. Couldn't quite expect partner to take all our room away. Now I don't see any other bids but 5♠. I'm hardly sure of making it but partner has trumps for me so even if partner happens to hold enough diamonds to beat, 5♠ might be making. If 4♠ was picture bid like it would be for me, suggesting 4♠ 5+♥, concentrated values and minimum GF, I'm passing and bidding since them I only need club singleton for slam.

I somehow though the hearts might well be AKJxxx/QTxx but I didn't really think why N would win the ace. On the other hand I would never lead small from KJx in teams, I don't want to be blocking the suit every time. MPs that would make more sense.

I use Namyats (or 3NT actually) to show solid or solid without an ace opening with 8+ playing tricks without quacks. Direct 4M is somewhat weaker though could contain a solid suit. This sequence shows something without solid suit but about 7-8 playing tricks, not rich in aces. Opposite unknown partner playing fast arrival, I think this is sort of "just leave me be" -bid, suggesting you should hold some trump support and many controls to bid on.

It seems the two shapes for N are 2614 and 2623, former with T9xx or QT9x or the latter with T9x (or QT9?). ♣8 might suggest that N holds the Q but S might just discourage to make his partner cash the hearts so I'm not too sure. I'd just play the a priori odds and cash the ace.