OleBerg

2♠. Dangerous, but so is passing. I'd rather pass though, than make a negative double; Partner will so often go over the hill in hearts. If everybody passes 2♣, the number of spades we would get to contract, would typically be to high on a club lead.

Assuming that 3♦ was gameforcing, and 4♠ showed minimum: There isn't much blame to go around, but what little there is goes to North. South has showed minimum on every turn, but could still have a hand much less suited for slam, so the raise seems clearcut to me. North overvalued his hand. While the ninth and the tenth thrumph are very usefull, the eleventh should not be regarded highly. The spade-suit is practically not better than K22222 or KJ1032. The club-values only works towards covering loosers, not towards creating many tricks or stopping suits. North' hand is excellent for game (even if partner had passed originally), but moving towards slam, it should be reassesed. A direct 5♠ on 5♦ would have sufficed.

For me double doesn't show exstras either. 2♥ tends to be a 5-card suit.

Be sure to discuss openers second bid in competitive auctions; 1♦- (1♠) - X - (Pass) ??? 1♣ - (1♠) - 2♥ - (pass) ??? Can a NT bid be with an unbalanced hand, with good stoppers in their suit? And if it can, how much does it show? And is it the same for a 1NT and a 2NT rebid? (In the second sequence, using 2♠ as a kind of Lebensohl is worth discussing.) DEMARKATION LINE. (The below is merely suggestions.) Do you plan to open 1NT with balanced hands and 5-card major? If not, then notice, that your NT range need not influence how you play after 1M - 2X: 1♥ - 2♦ 2NT need not be 15-17. If you like your old structure, you can keep it. Also; 1♦ - 2♣ 2NT??? 3NT??? Here it would be natural to have 2NT show 15-17. It is however, also an option to let it be a semi-artificial GF (Of course denying 4-card majors in an unbalanced hands, heavy support or a very unbalanced hand). This will remove the need for "emergency-reverses", making openers 2♥/2♠ bids guaranteing a four-card-suit. In this context 3NT could show a hand that just qualifies for game, but nothing more, and is in no way entuthiastic about partners suit. (Of course it could also be retained as the 18-19 NT.) These principles could also be applied after opening 1♥/1♠ and recieving a 2 over 1 reply. (All in this post should apply whether you play 2/1 or not.) Combining all this, in the second sequence from the start, I play this (where 2♥ is only 10+): 1♣ - (1♠) - 2♥ - (Pass) 2♠ = Only non-gameforcing bid. 2NT = No other good bid. 3♣ = Gameforce, long clubs. 3♦ = Gameforce, natural. 3♥ = Gameforce, support. 3♠ = Splinter 3NT = Just enough for 3NT, stopper(s) in spades, normally at most doubleton hearts (and a hand with doubleton hearts can still bid 2NT, if it doesn't "scream 3NT"). Does not promise a balanced hand.

LOL

1) Ruling is obvious. (Being from another country, I am clueless as to whether an AWMW should have been given.) 2) NS should by now have learned not to be courtous. In the future they will know just to reply "No agreements". 3) Experienced by West to ask for the meaning of 3♠. It could never hurt, and NS could get into trouble. 4) There would have been no case if the tournament had been played with screens.

Again, nothing personal, but: No.

Who? :P But thruthfully I haven't given it any real thougth. Guess I'm indoctrinated with the cuebid guaranteing support, and seeing little use for a NF 1♠ bid.

Sorry, nothing personal, but: If you: - Have the bidding to yourself. - Establish a nine-card major fit on responders first bid. - Gets to slams with an unstopped suit. Then you do not have decent follow up's. Merry and Happy to all.

I would have opened 3♦, but that would not have been so smart here, when opponents are keeping quiet. In my pet system I can bid 4♥, which doesn't show any strength at all, but simply some distribution and a desire to chance it. With standard agreements I have to be content with 2♥, or else partner migth so easily take me overboard.

Find 2♠ obvious at MP's. I'd still do it at IMP's, but feel less secure.

You can get used to that. ;)

No, I haven't recieved a dime. :lol:

No, you're not. It would be downrigth silly to work for free, to let someone else make a profit.

With a good enough partner; Pass. Best game before slam-investigation.

Disclaimer: Back in my usual acehole mode: I am amazed anybody would play 1♠ as non-forcing??? Anyway, on all continuations I bid 6♠. No way I explore for 7 here, with such ambigious agreements. (Yes, I love the word ambigious. Have loved it ever since somebody told me how to spell it.)

He's obviously fine. And humourus too.

As other posters have already hinted: Anything that doesn't take you past 3NT with a minimum hand is vastly superior. Generally bids that takes you past 3NT should be very well defined, showing a void and limited strength is my favourite, and 4♠ should either be very well-defined, or practically forbidden. (Which is technically almost the same.) Furthermore, I strongly believe that hands with no shortness should be divided into three strength-cathegories, not two. If not, one of the ranges will be very ambigious. These are some general priciples I believe to be sound. The net must be flooded with variants of 2NT support-structures.

I would expect my partner to bid 3NT on such hands. On balanced-type hands, suggesting 3NT, I would expect him to bid 2NT followed by 3NT (If possible). I'm not so certain, that he would expect me to expect it. :rolleyes:

Unless it makes 10 tricks. Then we explain to partner why he should have raised. :P

Not really.

I play: 1♠ - 2NT 3♣ = Minimum, no voids. 3♦ = Midimum and a shortness. 3♥ = Maximum and a shortness. 3♠ = Midimum, no shortness. 3NT = Maximum, No shortness. 4♣ = Void, minimum. 4♦ = Void, minimum. 4♥ = Void, minimum. 4♠ = Minimum, but with distribution. (Usually used facing a passed hand.) After 3♣: 3♦ Re-invite 3♥ Asks for singleton 3♠ Sign-off 3NT = Suggestion to play. (Should be changed, have never been bid.) 4♣/♦/♥ = Singleton. After 3♦/3♥, the relay asks for shortness. When we open 1♥, 2♠ is Jacoby, and all steps go -1. I'm not a fanatic about this scheme, but it has served me well.

I'm a multiclass Jerk/Artiste.

I'm rather pressed for time. Free on-line lesson after the 15. dec.

Not really.