OleBerg

1) 2♦ initially. Very clear. 2) 2♣. Very ugly, but pass wont solve my problems. Alternative is 1 NT. Advertisement: Hand two 2) fits my agreement with my regular partner - Transfer overcalls: (1♥) - 1♠ = 15+ balanced, often contins a heart stopper. Rightsides NT, which is often the case.

If a two-suited opening were available, would you make it? If I had a 4♥ opener, that showed a lousy 5-card suit, and 7 or 8 clubs, I would use it. Unfortunately it is not yet on my repertoire. (Some might prefer to go all the way, and guarantie 8 clubs, but I believe thay are influenced by seeing the actual hand.)

Yes. Problem is, that when partner opens 1♦, you only have 5 hcp and thus cannot bid 1♥. But what the hell, it looks like a misfit anyway.

Partner has spades. With no agreements, even Osama Bin Laden would choose to let one of his cuebids be in hearts.

♠

I heard the Italian Bridge Federation appoints the three pairs that will represent the country. It is the norm in Europe, that the resident federation appoints the team to represent the country. In Denmark this has very often meant, that the team is composed of pairs from two or three different teams. The practice has it's pro's and con's.

East should definitely have returned the ♥8. A wtp.

I am just curious; some say that East should give count, and I would have done so myself, probably without second thought, and simply relying on general principles. But is it really right? I mean, partner has already ducked, so if partner has two diamonds, he will be forced to take the next trick. If West has three, the diamond position will be obvious to him, when declarer either shows out (East has three) or plays a small diamond (East has two). This can be deducted by looking at dummy's 6-cards suit.

Then talk to a strong-club player. (Or similar.)

4♠ wtp?

Hi Marlowe, for your question; I also prefer t/o-doubles, but have no strong feelings about them. Another thing; In Scandinavia, where the weak NT is thick on the ground, a lot of escape systems (after opp. double of 1NT) has been constructed. One is "Nilsland": http://homepage.mac.com/bridgeguys/Convent...DefenseNTX.html which can be refashioned in a multitude of ways. Another is "Sundelin" which is often used NV: 1NT - (X) - ??? Pass = To play (Subsequent doubles are takeout.) RD = To win (Subsequent doubles are penalty until a certain level. Pass is forcing to the same level.) 2♣ = Runout in clubs or diamond/major or one-suited major. 2♦ = Runout in diamonds or both majors. 2♥/2♠ = Constructive run-out, partner may compete with a suitable hand. In my opinion, the need for these conventions is slightly overstated, though they come in handy from time to time. A simple agreement I wouldn't play the weak NT without: If the opponents double 1NT and responder runs to a suit and then redouble, it is SOS.

If 4♦ just promises five-five then i think it is too restrictive to preclude playing in the unbid suit. Indeed. One to consider in the summer break. Thx.

Allow me: LOL ?? LOL !!

Allow me: LOL

Tried that. Very few problems, very little gain.

I play: 4♦ = Slammy with Spades. 4♥ = Slammy with Clubs. OleBerg : And if Overcallers suits (Leaping Michaels) were Hts/Diam, are these your followups: ( 2S ) - 4D! - ( p ) - ?? 4H! ( slammy w/Spades ) 5C! ( slammy w/Diam ) ?? After: (2♠) - 4♦ = ♥+♦ 4♠+4NT = Slammy with hearts, distinguishing number of aces. 5♣ = Slammy with diamonds.

Apart from, at least some of, the kibitzers, it might be, that the players would prefer that the same boards were played at all tables. One reason for that could be fairness. Some distributions are more prone to cause swings than others. Playing the same boards, all teams would have the same number of "wild boards". I know full well, that it is not as simple as that, but it is a step in the right direction. (Edit: Wasn't aware it was knockout. In such cases this wont matter.) Another reason could be the chance to learn. When you, as a player, has a difficult decision, some would find it nice to see, how other players of the same strength have dealt with the problem.

Which is really lazy. If you want to ask for keycards with spades, it is highly unlikely we will get hurt by starting with a 4♥ bid. The hands that simply needs to check aces, and is vulnerable to a 5♥ call by next hand, has a much lower frequency than hands that fit a quantitative bid.

@2: I actually have 4NT = Quantitative available in my system, but I would still settle for 3NT.

What I play: 1♠ - 2♥ 3♦ - ? 3♥ = 6+ 3♠ = Fourth suit forcing. 3NT = Natural. 4♣ = 3 spades, better than a 4♠ bid. Not one of my own idées, so it could have some merit.

I play: 4♦ = Slammy with Spades. 4♥ = Slammy with Clubs.

I raise partner every chance I get, s 5♥ it is. Not that I intend to pass 5♠, but It cannot hurt to give partner the chance to bid 5NT or jump to 6♠. (The last instead of merely taking preference in 6♠.) Partner will be slightly less indulged to take us to a grand, when we dont belong there.

Obviously all roads are frought with danger, but I believe a 1♠ opener could easily get into more trouble. The best could be a 4♦-Namyats, but I wouldn't dream of playing that convention.

Here are some alternative conclusions that partner might draw: 1. You are too weak for LM (forcing to 4S on your own requires more than competing to 4S over their 4H). 2. Your suits are too weak for LM. 3. You really have 7 clubs with a side 4-card spade suit, bidding it just in case on the way to 5♣. Ok your partner will know your clubs are longer than your spades, but I don't think he is likely to play you for a 3-loser hand with great clubs and good spades. (I would guess explantion no. 1 if I were your partner.) I would guess 3. 1 is not valid for me. If I want to compete over 4♥, I might as well do it immidiately. (I do recognise this might be non-standard.)

Some number of spades the first time. Two seems right. It IMP's white vs red, I would have no problem with 3♠, but it is an overbid.