TMorris

The ones I don't like watching are the very very slow players. I like Helgemo, Helness as the bidding is almost always understandable & the cardplay is so good. Lauria/Versace mainly for the cardplay. They seem to be able to work out opponents hand patterns both accurately and quickly.

Just mark them as "enemies" and you don't have to see their comments - that's what I do.

(In the flight below) we also had a weak NT and they passed out 2 ♠

I'd agree 1) is quite normal - if you get a 2 ♦ response you obviously just bid your 5-card major as a sign off 2) is very rare - I have never seen it

2 ♣ for me. I guess the only alternative is 2 ♠ but you might get cut off from the clubs playing in spades.

Happy to. The opening was quite normal with ♠ QJ86 ♥ K2 ♦ 4 ♣ AJ9762 responder had ♠ 73 ♥ 863 ♦ J875 ♣ KQ83 My partner had ♠ 10942 ♥ QJ4 ♦ 10962 ♣ 54

Thanks for all the comments. I accept I should have bid 2 hearts on the 2nd round. I was nowhere near bidding 1 heart on the first round - it's way too strong for me (which is why I doubled 2nd time around as I felt I was (just) too strong even then). As has been suggested, a range of 8-20 points for a simple overcall is much too wide for me. For those who are interested in what was possible on the board. They can make 3 clubs with their 10 card fit. We can make 3 hearts or 3 spades with our 8 or 7 card fits respectively. Partner had a 3 count (QJx of hearts).

Ah sorry - Matchpoints, non-vul v vul.

You have ♠AKx ♥A108xx ♦AKQx ♣10 The auction goes (1♣) x (1♦) P (2♣) x (3♣) P (P) ?

one might think that any sport that has rules that are so difficult to interpret has rules that are not fit for purpose.

I bid 4 ♦ to give information rather than take control.

It's strange. I often watch US events in particular on vugraph and think how slow they are to the extent that I switch off & do something more interesting. These trials were I thought actually played at a reasonable pace. In comparison to many US events on vugraph they were IMO speedy. There are people who I will not watch on vugraph due to how slow they are (Muller & Feldman spring to mind - I'd rather watch paint dry) but not in these trials. There were a few long pauses but not too many and plenty of quick claims which are seen far too rarely. The Bathhurst team in particular seemed refreshingly fast.

The Orange book changes in August 2007 allow various wordings - "weak to intermediate" is given as an example for a wide ranging bid so I think you can say anything sensible and descriptive.

The main reason I ask is that all vulnerable at matchpoints a top class player opened in 3rd position ♠J54 ♥J6 ♦J10932 ♣A65 1 ♦ against me. Which made me think I was being a bit conservative in my thinking (this doesn't resemble any sort of a bid for me). Hence I wonder if the hand I posted (played last night) was an opening of some sort or not.

3rd in hand all non-vulnerable at matchpoints Do you bid - if so what? System is weak NT 4-card suits. I am curious about third in hand openings & how aggresive it pays to be. Hand is ♠ A65 ♥ Q42 ♦ 86 ♣ Q7432 All thoughts welcome.

I'd pass - for me partner could have a 16 count with a singleton heart. I wouldn't consider any other bid.

Well I did say "pretty much". I appreciate that there are a few cases that are neither take out or penalty but from where I am sitting the vast majority are either take-out (almost never alerted especially post August) or penalty (alerted if of a suit contract) [ignoring doubles over 3NT except again for a few special cases]. If the EBU splits things up differently from this then I would be grateful for a review of how. I think if you asked 90%+ of EBU members they would say penalty of suit (alertable) or take-out (not alertable) & not be aware of any exceptions.

As the EBU pretty much split up doubles into takeout and penalty as part of their alerting rules is it really that surprising if people split up doubles in this way ie into alertable and non-alertable doubles which (barring a few exceptions) are penalty and non-penalty.

10 clubs for me following my rule of leading from rubbish into a (very) strong NT hand

I had the identical auction yesterday and bid 4H with KJ KQxxxxx x xxx should I have passed? If not how do I differentiate between this hand and the one posted originally?

All vulnerable at IMPs (multiple teams match if it makes a diference) you have x Jxxx A98xxxx x You are first in hand.

1NT (12-14) 2NT (transfer to diamonds) 3C (I have less than Hxx in diamonds) 3S 3NT I don't see a clear way to slam.

From very limited experience, I find when playing against players with international experience that they take more time to think about things rather than less time.

1NT for me showing shape and points - no stop but in the protective position that's not so big an issue.

Playing a 12-14 NT I open a good 11 about once every 18 months and a bad 15 about once in three years (maybe less). I have no agreement with partner about this who always takes me for 12-14. I pass bad 12 counts about twice a year at pairs and a little more often at teams. I consider it more misleading to say 12-14 but occasional good 11s and bad 15s than just 12-14 but I state on my card that I might pass bad 12s. To me it's frequency that's the issue.