NickRW

If the English in reality were an occupying force, similar to the Germans in the 40s, I would see things that way. But I thought union between Scotland and England came about ~300 years ago basically because Scotland had bankrupted itself and needed to be bailed out. Modern Scots don't see it that way of course and I don't blame them, but the two things are hardly similar. I'm not against Scottish independence. If I still lived there I would have voted in favour of it. But I don't see membership of the EU and abiding by it's rules as anything similar to being a member of a club. Indeed I see it as an abusive relationship and, as with all such things, the sooner you're shot of it the better even if it costs in the short term. So I can understand Scotland wanting out of the UK and I can see the UK wanting out of the EU. I don't really see the sense of the Scots jumping out of the pan and straight back into the fire.

Who knows what the SNP will do. Though on the face of it they look like the one British party with a stable leadership and political position (well perhaps two - the Lib Dems haven't disintegrated yet - though they seem to have become an irrelevance), they seem to me as the most illogical. As far as I can see they want independence from the rest of the UK for what amounts to similar reasons that the UK as a whole wants independence from the EU. Yet they want to stick with the EU! That I can't understand.

Supposedly so. However: 1) There is already far too much political union for my taste and certainly far more than was envisaged back in the early/mid 70s. Saying that there won't be more of what I've already got too much of is hardly reassuring. This wouldn't be so much of a problem is the EU was governed by a democracy, but it only pays lips service to that. 2) Regardless of the above, "every closer union" is not something that the Europeans just trot out to wind up the Brits - they need it because of their inherently unstable currency that will not become stable until the Euro zone as good as becomes one country. Whatever concession Cameron achieved on this subject is not worth the paper it is written on because EU countries that are not in the Euro will become satellite states to the centre and be ungovernable as independent democracies. At that point we need to either 1) be in the Euro and enthusiastically joining in with the European project (not on the table and didn't look like it will ever be), or 2) get out of it, preferably sooner rather than later. Nick

It is rather difficult to predict what will happen tomorrow in politics at the moment, never mind what will happen in what will probably be 2020!

Because, quite independent of any similarity with Trump, he has a reputation for buffoonery. IMO, I'm prepared to ignore that, and, in any case, we need a PM who has their heart in the Brexit agenda - which makes all the Bremainers who are going to stand non starters (not that I have a vote in it!)

That was indeed the case. Indeed it is one of the reasons why I have been itching to correct that wrong my entire adult life.

The fact that the more educated a person is the more likely they are to have voted remain, does not prove or really even suggest that those who voted to leave were unable to understand matters. Indeed such a view is arguably as badly prejudiced as, for example, the idiots who have recently been responsible for a rise in racial or ethnic prejudice. You're merely basing your prejudice on possession of a piece of paper instead of skin colour or accent of voice.

Er. No. Certainly not to the extent that they start giving away the powers we elected them to wield to other bodies that we never agreed to and didn't elect.

There is less tendency to do that over an opening NT (weak or strong). You know that they probably have about 23hcp tops, therefore you can calculate the minimum high card holding for partner. Deciding whether to come in when in the protective seat has more to do with your shape (and the suitability thereof for whatever defence to 1NT your playing) and the vulnerability (both nv you should strain to find a bid if you can as you won't get rich at 50 a time for their undertricks if you can make something yourself, and if you can't make something they're probably not doubling you while they probably had 90 or 120 their way). P.S. But your partner must not go bonkers and hang you out to dry in the bidding just because they've got a decent looking 11 count or whatever. Advancer must realise that the protective overcaller has already bid all the assets anyway. The thing which might get advancer excited has more to do with exceptional fit than high cards.

2NT. (It is possible to hold a natural 2NT bid, especially if the opening is a weak NT, but you'd normally X with that, so 2NT must be some sort of 2 suiter)

As you note there are ways and means of handling this sort of hand without opening 2C, but they are not really beginner topics for this forum (indeed not all expert pairs have adopted specific solutions for what is sometimes called the "death hand". The usual solution if you're playing 3 weak twos is to open 1D and "invent" a fourth club and rebid 3C. Reverse the clubs and the hearts - now you've got a lot of people head scratching as they don't like inventing a fourth card in a major suit! Nick

Yes, and most people (and that includes me!) have had similar thoughts (even if the only answer they can come up with is Benji). I was just saying that the traditional Acol twos, though much scoffed at, are not as bad as some people think they are. It is quite reasonable for the jump rebid to be forcing after a 2/1 response, even a traditional Acol 9+ 2/1 and especially a "modern" Acol (essentially standard) 10+ 2/1. But, though highly encouraging, it is quite passable after a one level response.

To be fair to Acol, it is an issue in Standard and 2/1 as well, unless you invent special handling for it.

Players who have given this much thought (and that isn't many!) tend to be more strict before opening 2C with a strong 2 suiter. The reason being that you're already opening a level higher and have 2 suits to mention - so you had better be worth all that space. Also, with a 2 suiter you have the option of opening at the one level and rebidding with a reverse. (Whereas, with a one suiter, the jump rebid in the same suit is considered strong but not forcing) Another aspect which may colour your thoughts, in Acol land anyway, is are you playing traditional strong twos (which most of us have long since stopped doing, but they're a whole lot better than some people think). Nick

I think you need some strong coffee. There are two problems with that sentence.

You might as well ask why play 5 card majors. People can and do play 4 card majors, but most do not, thinking it better to define the major opening more closely.

I suspect that it has relatively little to do with BBO. Strong NT and 5cM has been the dominant force on the world scene for quite some time as far as I can gather. I think it has more to do with a few of the better British players (by which I don't just mean internationals) giving it a go and liking it.

Well, anyone who has learnt that lesson is well on the way to being a good bidder

IMO, absent agreements to the contrary and system specific details: 1♠-2♥ guarantees 5 (with the possible exception of some canapé style systems) 1♥-2♦ and 1♦-2♣ are nearly always 5, but there are exceptions as Helene notes 1♠-2♣ mostly 4, but can be 3 in a four card major system (what do want to do with 11hcp and 3=4=3=3 shape, especially if 2NT is a forcing major suit raise of some sort?) Others sequences are quite often 5 but can be 4. Obviously system specific agreements have a large effect on the above. (One system I currently play only guarantees Kx for a 2m over 1, but we won't go into details). Nick

Replying to nobody in particular, but... Acol, with its 4 card majors and weak NT, IMO, plays respectably in the matchpoint arena (which is where it is actually played for 95+% of the time). The reason is that you open 1M and 1N quite a lot and that has a mild pre-emptive effect on the auction. Most auctions have a competitive element and, at matchpoints, competitive partscore boards are as important as the slams, so the pre-emptive effect works for you more than it does against partner. Conversely, at imps, the auctions where opps are silent and you have an unopposed auction to game or above take on more importance. Now you don't want to be pre-empting yourself. Systems that use the 1m openings more frequently, therefore, have more to recommend them. Nick

Well, I am sort of amused, but overall appalled by this. I don't think it has much to do with 4 or 5 cards majors, nor with strong or weak NT, nor with the tendency (teaching) to open 1M with 4M4m32 out of NT range prevalent in many parts of the country. It has more to do with the lack of teaching very much at all beyond simple Blackwood with respect to slam bidding. Even there most cannot distinguish hands which are suitable for the bid and which are not. Many players are illiterate when it comes to things like splinters, Jacoby, cue bidding and as for 3NT being any degree of seriousness you'd get a "what?" if you asked. "Last train" means how the hoi polloi get home, doesn't it?! Worse, many are infected with Gerber syndrome. The fact that most exclusively play matchpoints where you get disproportionate rewards for playing 3NT over 5/6m a lot of the time merely compounds the situation.

I'm not an SAYC expert, so I'll steer clear of making recommendations about specific sequences. I will say that I can see many good pairs failing to diagnose this one though.

FromageGB opens 1C with a weak NT, so the question doesn't arise.

So you ran a better sample in the sense of larger, but fixed things so that partner always had 4 hearts and found that game was still only about a 50/50 bet in a 9+ card fit. What percentage of deals got rejected because partner did not have 4 hearts? And what percentage of those had opps making 2♠ or similar part scores. While I agree that the hand is quite borderline, I think you make an inflated case for opening. Nick

3♠ for me. I'd open 4 without a thought if the void were the other major