TMorris

I play weak NT all the time and would love it if I found an an opponent who did NOT play a penalty double. Life would be sooo much easier it's untrue. No worries about opening 3rd vul with a so-so 12 or bad 13, opening with 11s all over the place it would be great. You have to have a penalty double over a weak NT. You can show the 2-suited hands easily enough if you want to - possibly not if they are vulnerable and you are not at MP and you have a decent 5-card minor but most of the time showing a 2-suited hand is to play in a part score. It's only if someone doubles that game is likely.

I was playing in the EBU Men's Pairs about 4 years ago in a 1NT contract. The opponents took the first 6 tricks and (not remembering how many diamonds were left as I couldn't do anything about the opponents cashing them) I was waiting for the next card to be played. When it was played I claimed. I was then told off by the pro for not claiming earlier immediately after trick 6 (his partner had played out the diamonds and though for 30 seconds or so before playing the next card). We finished the board and the round ahead of the room. As you may gather it's something I have not forgotten (or forgiven). I've also. not long after starting to play, had situations in a local green pointed event where a much better player claims, briefly shows their cards and then puts them away and we didn't know enough to call the director. Each of us couldn't see a trick separately but together we had one. Claiming can involve an element of bullying/cheating by more experienced players. The requirement to claim is fine. The attitude of some people about claims is not.

In the UK around North London the places I play at always have pre-duplicated hands from a duplimate machine and have the records up on the internet at the same time as the scores are posted. I'd be disappointed with anything less. Fees vary a lot - with a non-playing director at a club that is privately owned aroun £9 a session inlcuding tea and coffee. With a playing director at a members owned club £3 a session including tea coffee and biscuits (and complaints if the biscuits aren't up to scratch)

I think sometimes if you do something especially daft it can be worth saying sorry to acknowledge that it was your fault. I agree you should leave any discussion until later, although usually you both know what has happened and there is rarely any need to discuss in cases of clear error. It can help to defuse partner's inevitable irritation with a daft error and help them to concentrate better on the next board.

I always find it interesting that people say playing transfers over a weak NT is not a good idea. A lot of them seem to play a strong NT mind you. In the UK at club level "everyone" (say 90%) play a weak NT. The only ones who do not play transfers are beginners. If not playing transfers was clearly better you might think that more people would do it. At the higher levels most people play a strong NT so the situation is rather different but when I talk to such people no-one says "you really should stop playing transfers if you want to continue playing a weak NT" and people at that level are, generally, helpful and keen to encourage people like me who are aiming to improve. Indeed I remember a vugraph some time ago where Liz McGowen clearly disagreed with a comment by another commentator that you shouldn't play transfers with a weak NT. Do any of the people who say that you shouldn't play transfers over a weak NT actually play the weak NT?

In the US does anyone actually get fined for slow play? I understand that there are theoretical fines but do they ever occur in practice. It may just be an impression but watching on vugraph the US events do seem to be played at a slower pace than many other serious competitions. If the fines are only theoretical then clearly people will take as long as they can - to improve the marketability of bridge stopping boring people rigid would be helpful.

Thanks all. I did lead A♣ but wanted to check my thinking was right

What do you lead against the auction 2♥ 6♥ with ♠109xx ♥10xx ♦xxx ♣Axx and why 2♥ is 6-10. Playing matchpoints, none vulnerable. Is it a guess?

I'm in the UK & have subscribed for a year or so. They have always turned up but when they turn up is relatively random. Occasionally they are on time but not that often. I don't worry about it since they always come in the end

2 ♥ showing an invitational hand with 3 card support in ♣

I'm with Dake50, X to show spades then bid diamonds - simple is easiest

Playing Acol you can open 1♦ and rebid 2♦. That way you don't get to play in a 4-2 ♥ fit at the game level. If partner passes 2♦ you probably have no fit so at least have stopped at a low level. If partner has a 4-card major and responds 2♣ to 1♦ then they will have sufficient values to go on over 2♦.

I am intrigued by the perceived disadvantages of using transfers with a weak NT structure - I play club/tournement bridge in the UK, the majority use a weak NT and everyone bar the occasional beginner uses transfers. I accept that this in itself might be an arguement that transfers are wrong but putting that to one side for the moment. Why are the disadvantages of using transfers with a weak NT any different to using transfers with a strong NT? The advantages are just the same as far as I can see. I think benlessard is saying that if you don't transfer it is harder to make a protective bid as you have fewer options. I accept this is true but in my experience the decision to protect depends to a large extent on whether you are playing a good pair or not (at MP anyhow) and is significantly outweighed by the advantages that using transfers gives you. Is it perhaps that if you are using a weak NT when the majority of the field are playing a strong NT there are disadvantages in using transfers so I am not seeing these disadvantages when playing against a mainly weak NT field?

No real idea what is going on. I wonder however if someone thinks 2♥ is a transfer to ♠ in which case 3♦ might be trial bid. I can see no reason for anyone to think this however.......

Agree with Paul, 9 losers = 2 hearts. Maximums are allowed

Playing Acol with 4 card majors. I think it's close between 1NT & 2S, generally with a completely flat hand I'd bid 1NT. The downside is if partner has a flat 15 to an ok 16 and passes but even then game is not that brilliant and I will have plenty of company & might beat the 2S bidders by playing in NT. Mind you I play mostly pairs. At teams I would be more tempted by 2D so as to not miss the flat 15-16 hand opposite.

I play a weak NT in the UK, will open a good 11 eg with QJ10xx in a suit but pass a bad 12 eg Axxx xxx Axx Axx and especially so vulnerable in 3rd. I will also downgrade a bad 15 eg with QJ stiff in a suit. I still say 12-14 as any such up/downgrades occur infrequently. Stating 11+ to 15- is inaccurate as people might expect more 11 & 15 counts than actually occur, although I do say "may not open a poor 12" on my CC. I consider this all fairly standard although am happy to be educated otherwise.

Low club as I want to be active against a slam and there is just room for partner to bid hearts if they have something there but this is much less likely to be the case in clubs.