mich-b

I think far too much effort and thought is put into this issues like this. It is often difficult to figure out while playing a board , how the bidding might go in the other table, because of system or style differences , the opps may be faced with different decisions. I feel that playing ones normal best bridge is likely to be the best strategy. Minor adjustments that one can considered when leading by 35 IMPs, 10 boards to go are: 1. Don't risk large penalties, by borderline balancing against a partscore. 2. Bid VUL games , when it looks reasonable, because you can afford losing 5-6 IMPs for going down , but not 11 IMPs for not bidding it. 3. When playing against the swinger , look for opportunities to double him. But again, most important is : don't think too much about the score, or about what your opps are likely to do, just play normally , and the IMPs will go to your side.

I think passing (as responder) with this hand is wrong. I would prefer 3NT (slight overbid) , or Double (slight missbid) to Passing.

Even if this "works" and LHO does bid 4♠, I think pd is likely to bid 5♥ ;)

is held not to apply. But it is not clear why, since 1♣ shows length in clubs, or diamonds, or hearts, or spades. But whatever the basis for that, the same applies to the system in the OP, so if the standard approach is not HUM, the approach in the OP is not HUM. I assume "length in one specified suit or length in another" is meant to be interpreted as "length in one specified suit or length in another specified suit". Since the other suit in your example is not specified, it doesn't match that case. Yes, however in the OP system , 1♣ shows either length in ♣ (3+) or length in ♦ (5+).

This is also from the WBF regulations: ************************************************ Length three cards or more Shortage two cards or less ************************************************ The link to the regulations is: http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/systems/policy.asp And, I could not find in those regulations, anything that allows a 1-minor opening (in non strong ♣/♦ system) to show 2+ cards without the system being considered HUM. Though I would not think they actually meant a natural 5542 system to be classified as HUM.

We play that 4NT in competition over RHO 4M bid, is takeout with 2 places to play, the specific suits depend on the preceding sequence. In your example I would expect opener to have either 6-4 in the rounded suits, or long ♥ with ♦ tolerance (6-3, maybe even 6-4 or 7-3).

A pair around here plays a system which is essentially natural 2/1 , but by agreement , with a balanced hand outside the 1NT range, with exactly 7 cards in the minors (4-3 or 5-2) they open in the short minor. So with 4243 they open 1♣, with 3325 they open 1♦, with 3442 they open 1♦ etc... In the WBF regulations I found: ********************************************** 2.2 HUM Systems For the purpose of this Policy, a Highly Unusual Method (HUM) means any System that ex­hib­its one or more of the following features, as a matter of partnership agreement: 1. A Pass in the opening position shows at least the values generally accepted for an opening bid of one, even if there are alternative weak possibilities 2. By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be weaker than pass. 3. By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be made with values a king or more below average strength. 4. By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows either length or shortage in a specified suit 5. By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows either length in one specified suit or length in another. ************************************************ It seems to me that this pair's system falls under (4) and (5) in the above regulations, and should be classified as HUM (which means it will be disallowed it most events here and in most EBL and WBF events). Yet , this pair tells me that a European International TD approved their system as non-HUM. Was he wrong? And , if the pair open the short minor only with 4-3 , but the longer with 5-2, I think this will make their system non-HUM. Am I right?

Maybe off topic, but... Does anyone feel uncomfortable about not knowing which is partner's minor after 1M-2M? Do you think it may be better to agree that 1M-2M shows OM+♣ , and just overcall with OM+♦?

I think North should have bid more than 4♠, and even a jump to 6♠ would be reasonable.

Around here , the federation had avoided teams trials for many years , one of the main arguments being that teams trials will allow sponsors to "buy their way" into the national team. But in reality , when teams trials were finally held , none of the entered teams had a sponsor. I think the main reason for this is that the best players want to play with each other to have a realistic chance to do well in internatonal competition. This may be different in the USA , where teams believe (and were proven right many times during the years) that they can win abroad with their sponsor. But in smaller countries, where the sponsors do not often play very well, I think authorities can "risk" having teams trials without fearing that an "unworthy" sponsor sneaks in. At least this is what the (limited) experience here shows.

I would splinter , or support ♣s. Bidding 2♠ now, and ♣s later, would show 3 card ♣ support for us. I understand this may be different for those who regularly respond 2♣ with all balnced hands, but as long as 2♣ shows 4 (except perhaps 3433 exactly) I think I need to support.

I think assigning a specific suit (spades?) to the lead directing double , has merit when the bidding is something like 1NT-6NT , because in this case you dont need length in the suit you want led , so partner can't just lead his shorter suit. Against 1NT-3NT however, a double shows not only strength in some suit, but obviously also length, so it makes sense for the double to just ask the leader to "guess" which is doubler's suit, often choosing the leader's short major.

You can splinter with stronger hands too , but you will probably have to bid again if partner signs off. If you don't want to bid above game level opposite a signoff , you may need a different approach. You can certainly splinter with 5 or 6 card trump support. What matters is that the partner of the Splinter bidder knows exactly how many trumps his side has so he can evaluate Slam prospects. Splinters are ok with an 8 card fit, as long as you know this is an 8 card fit. The 4th trump in dummy is very important and even more so when there is a singleton there.

It went like that : Around 20-30 pairs play 5 weekends (about one a month) of pre-trials, each includes 7 matches of 14 boards. Those are normally played in groups of 8 pairs , A,B, C with promotions and relegations between the groups after every weekend. So every weekend is a full round robin within the group. Pairs that played in groups A (strongest) and B , get some bonus points for playing in a tougher group. After those 5 weekends the 8 pairs with the most total VPs from the 5 weekends qualify to the Pairs Trials themselves. Those consist of 28 matches of 14 or 16 boards , 4 matches against every other pair scored in VP. This normally would take about 2 weeks of bridge played almost every day (full days in the weekend , plus evenings during the week). Top 3 pairs would make up the team , in some editions the 4th pair having some "rights" as well.

In Israel team trials have been held for the coming European Championship in 2010. 5 teams signed up to play , 2 of the teams were seeded , and got a bye to the semi final. Semi final was 96 boards, final 128 boards. In previous years , usually pairs trials were held but it seemed that many good players do not participate when it is pairs, because the process was very long (almost 1000 boards in total), and because not everybody was prepared to play with everybody else in a team. Women and Seniors trials are still held as pairs trials , though with a much shorter format.

2♥

So with xxx Kxxx - QJTxxx you have to bid 2♥ rather than 2♣?

Would you still bid 1NT if this was IMPs?

About the sequence : 1X - (1Y)- P - (1Z or 2Z) Dbl I think it makes sense to play it as takeout of Y , showing some length in Z, obviously with extra values. This leaves us better placed to extract a penalty, when pd has a "weakish" trap pass of Y. If Double here is takeout of either/both Y/Z , pd will never be in a position to pass for penalties.

2♣

sorry but it is not forcing unless by previous discussion Yes it is. Do you say that because partner has made a free bid (implying values)? Or do you say that in standard a double then new suit opposite someone who has made no promises is still forcing? Double then new suit opposite someone who has made no promises is not forcing. Double then new suit opposite someone who has made a free bid is forcing. This is how we play it. And I think the ♠JTxxxx should not bid 2♠ , since that implies some values which may be useful to a partner, who has a "big double" of some sort, rather than a normal takeout double. Especially since the ♥showing 1NT response makes sure I get another chance to bid ♠s, and by the next round I will know if pd has a normal (or strong) takeout double, or some other big hand.

[hv=d=s&v=b&n=sxxhjtdqjxxxcxxxx&w=sqtxxxhakxxdxxctx&e=skjxxh987xdakxxcx&s=saxhqxxdtxcakqjxx]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] South opened 1NT (15-17) As EW you play : Double = points, 2♣ = both majors, etc.. Would you bid as West? Would you bid as East if it goes 1NT-P-P ? ATB if it goes 1NT-All Pass , with them making 1NT while you cold for 4♠.

Preemptive. For inviting it is common to use the otherwise idle bid of 2NT , since you would definetly prefer XX with a good balanced hand and no fit.

I think you have to bid 4♥ now, since a yarborough with 4 small ♥s, gives you a play for game.

A question to David: Would you rule "5♥ just made" if dummy's ♠s were only the J rather than J7? It seems to me that Josh would still rule "down 1".