dkharty

Not at all, as long as you give credit to Table Talk, not me--they aren't my problems! :) Very interesting results, too--the scores on #1 are quite similar to the Table Talk results, but the results on #3 are radically different. The Table Talk scores for #3: 4NT: 100 dbl: 90 4D: 90 3NT: 80 pass: 80 Seems like a lot of high scores for very different evaluations. I'm glad I didn't have to score it (or any of the hands) myself.

Sorry for the long wait but the results are now in, I just got my new issue of Table Talk. The results of the bidding contest were very interesting... The "Forum Consensus" picks would have scored 475 out of a possible 500 (since we didn't achieve consensus on problem #1, I simply averaged the results for the two answers with equal votes). That would have been good enough for 3rd place on the expert panel, and would have comfortably bested all reader submissions (the top reader submission was 440). Congratulations to the following posters, whose individual scores would have been excellent: MFA (perfect 500, well done! No experts on the panel matched this) hanp (490) RobF (490) jjbr (460) Dirk Kuijt (460) P_Marlowe (460) wyman (450) MarkDean (450) Mbodell (450) For reference, the "perfect" answers to the problems were: 1. dbl 2. 3NT (agree with 1st pass) 3. 4NT 4. 2C 5. pass Also, an amusing note about problem #4. Many people commented on how awful the psyche was; apparently a lot of the expert panel did, as well. The hand as given was incorrectly printed! It was supposed to be: 6 T985 K97 AQJ63, which makes it a lot less awful I guess. The "correct" hand was emailed to the expert panel after the mistake came to light, but none of them changed their answers. ;)

I would love to see this auction... :(

Several tables bid the slam, one bid the grand.

[hv=d=e&v=b&n=sxxhatxxdaqxcakxx&s=sakqxhxdkt9xxxcxx]133|200|Scoring: MP p-1D-2H-p p-X-all pass[/hv] +800 was obviously not the best score available to NS. 1. Agree/disagree with North's decision to penalty pass? 2. Agree/disagree with South's reopening double? If disagree, what would you choose?

Never mind, misread the auction

Agreed and this is standard, but someone please tell me good reasons why it isn't the other way around? ie Pass=dbl negative and X=positive? Thx .. neilkaz .. I always thought the reason, or one of them, was to preserve the option of punishing the opponents. Playing pass=positive, and knowing partner has something, opener can double back with the balanced 22-24 point hand, surely one of the most common hand types for the 2C opener. With more, or a different hand type (strong one- or two-suiter or whatever) opener can do something else. And responder, with a couple of cards and some trump length, can convert; or do something else descriptive. Playing dbl=positive, you will never nail the opps unless opener has the overcall beat in his own hand, since he doesn't know the nature of the positive response.

Han is never afraid to swim against the current.

Taller than you?!? Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman!

So...no disrespect intended, but why exactly did you start this thread?

Truth.

Both opps will throw clubs on the trump, and on the play of the diamonds LHO plays 4-5-10, RHO plays 3-7-8.

Oops :) I'll fix it...

[hv=d=e&v=n&n=sa95hk974dak96caj&s=sk74haqj865dq2cq8]133|200|Scoring: MP[/hv] You are playing 7♥ after an uninterrupted auction. The lead is a low heart; trumps are 2-1, LHO having 2. What is your plan? I am particularly interested in your decision process regarding club finesse vs. double squeeze, and what discovery process you use to help make the decision.

I was much younger and playing in possibly my first regional, with my similarly inexperienced partner. We were playing against two older guys who seemed pretty torqued even before the round began; this hand didn't help. LHO dealt and opened 2NT, which they were playing as something like 5-9 HCP with 5-5 minors. Partner passed, and RHO went into the tank for about two minutes before he raised to 3NT. My hand was AQJxxxx/xx/xx/xx. I passed, and resigned myself to pitching a whole bunch of spades. Partner made his lead without much thought, and dummy came down with a 23-point moose. Then, I realized that partner had led the spade 10...right through dummy's Kx. Twelve tricks were cold for them if played from the other side. I was later told they scrapped the 2NT convention because of this hand.

Perry is ranked as a World International Master by the WBF, currently #258 in the world. Tough standards!

This. East thought they were in a forcing auction, having shown (he thought) extras twice, as Cherdanno said. West thought 4C was a retreat.

[hv=d=w&v=n&w=saxhaqxxxdxxxctxx&e=skq9xhxxdxcakqjxx]266|100|Scoring: MP p-1C-(2D) 2H-2S 3C-3D 3H-4C p[/hv]

That's interesting. Do you know of anyone who plays something like this? My knee-jerk reaction is, uh-oh, now the opponents have TWO two-way openers to preempt.

Unfortunately not. :)

Easley Blackwood's "Complete Book of Opening Leads" is a good one. It's old but hardly outdated.

Partner had: Qxxx xxx x Jxxxx Obv. 5C is the money spot. Partner will pass 2NT (do you agree with this pass?), but I'm not sure 5C would be reached after opening 2C either.

From the local club game: Matchpoints, both vul. W N E S 1C p 1S p 1N* p p 2D p* p 2N* p 3N p p p *BIT Making 4, EW +630. All BITs were agreed, although the lengths were not. The director was called to the table after the 3NT bid was made, and again at the end of the play of the hand. He took the matter under consideration, and later ruled a split score: E/W would keep their score, N/S would get "N" (board score equal to their overall game score). Please rate this ruling on a scale from 1 (worst ruling ever) to 10 (absolutely 100% correct). Also if it's important, West had a 15-count with a stiff spade (I think 1=4=3=5), East had a balanced 9-count with two aces.

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=sakhajda98xckqt9x]133|100|Scoring: MP Three passes to you. Playing 2/1, 2NT=20-21.[/hv]

I have enjoyed playing a strong club system with a couple of partners--enough that I think a strong club base is my "ideal" match stylistically. But I have never been particularly happy with the 1D, 2C, and 2D components of the big club systems I have seen. I would like to play something along the lines of: 1C 11-13 balanced, OR unbalanced 11-15 with clubs, OR any 16+ unbalanced/17+ balanced (1D response is 0-7, OR GF opposite the minimum variety, etc.) 1D unbalanced 11-15 with 4+ diamonds 1H unbalanced 11-15 with 5+ hearts 1S unbalanced 11-15 with 5+ spades 1NT balanced 14-16 (including hands with 5 card major) I'm not a system wonk by any means. So the following questions have come to mind: 1. Is this sort of 1C bid feasible? Or is it just too hard to unravel all the responses given the inevitable interference? (I have seen systems like Unassuming Club which has several hand types wrapped into the 1C opener, although it's quite different; are there any systems out there close to what I have in mind?) 2. What would a reasonable response structure to 1C look like? (I have played transfer positives with one partner, 1H=any 8-11 with another, I have no strong opinion about stuff like this) 3. What would be the best use for 2-level openers (given my first priority below)? I've thought about just playing weak twos in all four suits, which I've never seen; is this playable? My priorities are: the system must be GCC-compliant (virtually all my live bridge is played in GCC events); I don't mind some complications in the 1C structure, if it buys simplicity elsewhere. Thanks for any ideas.