OleBerg

Maybe that a point-counter would bid 4♠. If you play strong NT's, 3♠ is fine. However, if 3♠ can contain 15-17 bal., I'd bid 4♠. Point counter? What, 3+18=21, so pass? I assume, that this time you are only pretending to be silly?

2♥, and it is no underbid. Partner is in the live-seat. Against competent opposition, in a strong homogeneous field, I wouldn't even consider 3♥, if they press with 3♦.

Maybe that a point-counter would bid 4♠. If you play strong NT's, 3♠ is fine. However, if 3♠ can contain 15-17 bal., I'd bid 4♠.

Pass. Wtp for an intermidiate player.

He even did it electronically. Bridgemate.

So are we.

One wins by not going for a number when partner thinks you actually have your bid. Well, you just have to educate your partner then.

You don't even have to think. Just lean back, and the ♣A will lead itself. B)

But seriously; the key to understand 1♠, is to consider how unlikely it is to get hurt, and how likely it is to gain a profit. If partner has a balanced hand, you will seldom get into trouble (Unless partner partner can be 15-17 bal. in which case you need some agreements to slow him down), and if partner has an unbalanced hand with 5+ clubs, your playing strength surely warrants competing, often even to the 3-level. You are oversimplyfing. I agree. Neither did I. The point I wanted to put forward (I didn't succeed), was that 1♠ is odds-on, when you consider it a little, assuming your partner doesn't hang you.

Me or OP?

One advantage to following the law, and respond 2♠ with something like 6 hcp, is that partner will know you're quite broke, when you reply 1♠, which is a wtp? for me.

In the preface to his book "To bid or not to bid" Larry Cohen tells how he asked Bob Hamman to comment on the manuscript. Hamman simply scratched out "or not to bid". But seriously; the key to understand 1♠, is to consider how unlikely it is to get hurt, and how likely it is to gain a profit. If partner has a balanced hand, you will seldom get into trouble (Unless partner partner can be 15-17 bal. in which case you need some agreements to slow him down), and if partner has an unbalanced hand with 5+ clubs, your playing strength surely warrants competing, often even to the 3-level.

Maybe: ♠ T9xxx ♥ xxx ♦ DBxx ♣ x

X and X. Had it been MP's, X and 1NT.

1♠ at my first chance. Now it depends on agreements. With an unknown partner of more than intermidiate status, I would expect it to be take-out, making 4♠ obvious.

This is great, as long as you don't need to provide approved defenses :) In Belgium we use similar rules, except in low level competition. Belgium is not the Netherlands, and not France! :P You have to provide defenses, but they don't have to be approved. They are expected to be honestly something you believe will work. This has been the practice for the 22 years I've played, and there has not been a single instance of accusations of providing bad defenses. Worst cases has been that the opponents gets a few minutes to make written agreements, the time going from the pair not providing the defence. In the flagship-tournament of the Danish Bridge federation, you will often get away with not providing a defense, at least not in writing. Needless to say, there are no constraints on the defenses. Ps.: Federation is with a non-capitol on purpose. (Whats the name of a letter that is not a capitol?) I was wrong here, I just found out. In Denmark you dont have to provide a defense. (You had to in the old days though, but I hadn't noticed the recent improvement.)

lowercase Embarrassing :). How many times haven't i read: "Our passwords are case-sensitive."

This is great, as long as you don't need to provide approved defenses :) In Belgium we use similar rules, except in low level competition. Belgium is not the Netherlands, and not France! :) You have to provide defenses, but they don't have to be approved. They are expected to be honestly something you believe will work. This has been the practice for the 22 years I've played, and there has not been a single instance of accusations of providing bad defenses. Worst cases has been that the opponents gets a few minutes to make written agreements, the time going from the pair not providing the defence. In the flagship-tournament of the Danish Bridge federation, you will often get away with not providing a defense, at least not in writing. Needless to say, there are no constraints on the defenses. Ps.: Federation is with a non-capitol on purpose. (Whats the name of a letter that is not a capitol?)

Well, being serious now, I've seen a number of things online (from frustrated bidding theorists mainly), saying that the regulation of bidding agreements is one of the things keeping new (and particularly young) people away from the game. But I've never seen much in the way of actual evidence that it is really true, other than grumpy observations that the average age of players in many areas is rising (and has been for years). So, is it actually true that Denmark or the Netherlands really have a much higher proportion of younger people playing? And if so, can we really attribute this to the bidding system regulations - or do such countries have a vigorous schools bridge scene - or some other reasonable cause for this difference? Nick No idée, but here are some numbers to compare with: Number of registered bridge-players in Denmark: 26.000 (Steady in the period described below): Participants in national Junior tournaments (# of players). Year: Pairs Teams 2008 32 46 2007 36 44 2006 40 52 2005 52 54 2004 52 41 Should this turn out to be high numbers, reasons could be: - Distance. Denmark is so small everybody can get to the tournament by a 4 hour train ride. - Money. The difference between rich and poor is smaller in Denmark, than almost anywhere else. Everybody can afford to play bridge. (And I do mean everybody). Furthermore, there is a strong tradition in Denmark for non-profit clubs. But when they get there, they are not scared away by out-of-date, silly regulations.

Well there are 120 ways to play them in five rounds, and 20 ways to pick the first two. New I couldn't count. Fortunately I still have a point.

No thats right....Denmark is part of Sweden, isn't it? Exactly, and we all wear horned helmets. :)

It depends on agreements. My agreement is, that if we bid a game V vs NV, and we didn't have a stronger route available, we are in a forcing pass situation. So the double is simply no interest in bidding on. 5m would be a descriptive bid, also saying, that if the opponents bid 5♠, we should consider bidding 6♥. Personally I have no agreement about 4NT, but "Another stain possible" makes sense to me, especially at IMP's. I know, however, that being in a force here, is not nescesarily standard. If we are not in a force (I wouldn't be at any other vulnerabilety), double simply says: "I have extras, make an intelligent decision."

Just to avoid possible misunderstandings, Denmark is not a part of the netherlands. ( But we are very alike.) Apart from that, I think you could easily be right. Not hard to imagine a youngster discarding the game, when she/he has thought of a new agreement, for instance a dual message signal, but is told it is illegal, because those playing it will probably cheat. Take the OP's example. If we have 5 cards that we can spare, there is 120 ways to play them in two rounds, but you can only use two of those. Not the way to organize a serious mind-competition. IMHO that is.

Yes. In pairs too.

From the Danish "Players manual": Law 101 - Allowed partnership agreements. A. Teams Tournaments In Teams Tournaments any system and partnership agreement is allowed. Teams tournaments with less than 8 boards a match, is treated as a Pairs Tournament is this conjecture. B. Pairs Tournaments and single Players tournaments In Pairs Tournaments and single Players Tournaments Brown-Stickers and HUMs are not allowed. Not a long way from perfect.