OleBerg

WTP 4♠. If you are thinking about pass its because you play too much IMPs and not enough MP.

And if North inserts the jack, to jam our communications, we unblock th ♠10 on the diamonds.

My plan: Step 1: Bid some number of hearts. (6 is my choice.) Step 2: Blame partner if it turns out wrong.

Also agree with the overcall. All my leads are no brainers (Claims my partners), but Ill go with the diamond.

A simple solution in strong Club systems is: 1nt = 12-15 If it is to wide, include 15 bal. in the 1♣ opener. Then 1♣ - 1nt isn't gameforce, but thats easy to live with. Edit: And let 4-4-1-4 hands open 1♥, then 1♦ will show an unbalanced hand with 4+ diamonds.

Perhaps partner took his time before leading the J♥.

Pass (Or double if I am bloodthirsty or partner is prone to sacrificing in such spots.) At the table I would definately use the A♠. By posting the problem, you have persuaded me to duck. Why didnt partner lead a spade? Perhaps because he thought they had no future. So I duck, playing partner for the K and five more in spades, two hearts, four diamonds and a single club.

For what its worth; Defence: 3♣ = 5+ hearts, 4 spades. 3♦ = 5+ spades, 4 hearts. 3♥ = Natural. 3♠ = Natural. X = Either strenght and none of the above, or excessive strenght. On 3♣/3♦ a bid of 4♣ is forcing with hearts, and 4♦ is forcing with spades. On X, defence has one takeout-double betweem them, penalty after that. Edit: Having read the thread, I will hurry to include Namyats. Thx.

I have (partially) solved it this way: 1nt = 12-14 1♣ = Natural or 15-19 Bal. Over 1♣ I play transfer responses (Walsh principles), so: 1♣-1♦/1♥ 1♠ = 15-19 bal. Now responder checks back: 1nt = To play, assuming 15-17. 2♣ = Gameforce. Opener bids 2♦ with 18-19, anything else is 15-17. 2♦ = Invitational, assuming 15-17. When responder bids 1nt, opener can bid a four card suit at the two-level with 18-19. Thus you will always get to two clubs, and often higher, when opener has 18-19, but you have the chance to play at the 2-level. If you dont like the weak nt, I know others have exchanged ranges, so that: 1nt = 15-17 1♣= Natural or 12-14 bal or 18-19 bal. This scheme also frees the 1nt-rebid, making it possible to construct a system, where yoy always respond with 4 hcp and a four-card major. (I use transfer by openers first rebid, but there are many options.)

I have played systems that used 1♣ and 1♦ artificial. One of my experinces was, that these openings worked much better than expected: 2♣ = 5+ clubs, 4+ diamonds 2♦ = 5+diamonds, 4+ clubs These bid take a lot of strain from the one-level minor-openers. The more exact their point range is, the better they work, but of course then they take less strain of the openings. At a glance it seems that we start the bidding uncomfterbly high, but responder will often know the right strain immidiately, and will only have to check for strenght. It is, of course, not a perfect solution, but if you want to free 1♣ and 1♦, I found these to be very usefull. I recommend playing penalty doubles over opponents interference. (When you have showed nine specific cards, the need for takeout is infrequent.)

2♠ and holding my breath. Not in eager expectation.

I voted to preempt, but I think it is close. If the hand contained the 9♥, I would find preempting clearcut.

As I see it, suit-quality is almost perfect. Good for taking tricks, highly unlikely to be worth a trick on defence.

An explanation could be, that playing a 15-17 nt we have decided that even the lousiest 15-count hand, is worth 1nt. So we never have to downgrade. But for consistiency, we quite often has to upgrade a 14-count, and occasionally a 13-count. The real thruth is, of course, that we are all overbidders.

Typical BBO no-discussion partnership. Maybe the decision after 1C-1D is the most interesting * pass? * 1S? * Dbl? Yes it is. I double in that context. A spade lead is standout.

1nt. In my book "real light" means something like: ♠KJ10xx ♥Axx ♦xxx ♣xx So we could be in trouble already, but at least 1nt gets us to the right denomination.

If my partner had somehow convinced me to play penalty-doubles here, and he then pulled my double, I'd probably pull the plug on the partnership.

I agree also. X and then diamonds should show long, strong diamonds and 3 (or more rare 4) clubs, while diamonds and then double, would be more like 5-4.

lol, serious question, is english your native language? I think you don't understand what the word "unethical" means, or what Rosenberg was talking about, or what anyone else has said (since no one has argued that it's unethical, just bad bridge). My post in this thread: http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=25531 contains a subtle clue to my native language. I do of course owe you an apology for not being born in an english-speaking country. I would also like to apology in advance for being born in 1966, thus be definition being old, slow-witted and incapable of understanding relatively simple concepts. Another drawback to my old age is, that I actually have to read a book, before I can comment on it. I guess english doesn't have to be ones native language for someoen to be great at being a douchebag in it! I am going to guess that you are also ignorant, idiotic, and rude in your native language too. I am, and it's much easier.

lol, serious question, is english your native language? I think you don't understand what the word "unethical" means, or what Rosenberg was talking about, or what anyone else has said (since no one has argued that it's unethical, just bad bridge). My post in this thread: http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=25531 contains a subtle clue to my native language. I do of course owe you an apology for not being born in an english-speaking country. I would also like to apology in advance for being born in 1966, thus be definition being old, slow-witted and incapable of understanding relatively simple concepts. Another drawback to my old age is, that I actually have to read a book, before I can comment on it.

Agree with 1♥, if I have an understanding partner. (I do.) Some number of nt, whichever shows the worst hand, or at least a hand that sees no alternatives to 3nt as the final contract. In my agreements it would be 3nt, as partner has gameforced. If partner is 6-5 he should bid again. Incidently, this hand is almost like the one from Michael Rosenbergs book. "Bridge, Zia and me", where he argues that passing a forcing bid is unethical. I, and a few other guys, agree.

In which country did this happen??

I'd prefer 3♣ to be a FNJ. If I am not satisfied with my doubleton as support (depends on overcall-style), I can double. After a double, I convert any any spade-bid by partner to clubs, and have shown my shape. Of course they get me, everytime they bid and support on 7 hearts. Edit: I will convert 3♠ to 3nt. That shows my shape as well.

I think the point was this: Edmunte1 said "I consider strategically wrong to play this kind of double as a penality double... So i consider Hamman 100% guilty for this board." PClayton said " Compton doubled 4♠ on the auction with ♠KT9x, A, A, K while I was commentating. Hamman pulled with a 1=4=4=4 which was not successful." There seems to be some disagreement about which hand Hamman held. On the BBO VuGraph, it was Compton who doubled as South, and Hamman, as North, that pulled with 1-4-4-4.

Hi all, I followed the link in Hrothgars original post. I must say I am a bit shocked. Could a kind soul please give me a short explanation of, where these restrictions, and other, are in effect?