mich-b

I would double , realizing that if pd rebids 3NT , I have likely done the wrong thing.

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sajxhjxdxxxxcaqxx&w=sqtxhakxdkjtxcxxx&e=sxxxxhtxxxxdqxctx&s=skxxhqxxdaxxckjxx]399|300|Scoring: IMP 1NT(12-14) - 3NT[/hv] You as West decided to lead the ♥A. How would you and your favourite partner handle the defense ? Should east encourage/discourage/show count? How should west decide if East has ♥Qxxxx or his actual holding? And how should East signal to make sure partner continues only if he has AKxx? Do you think you and your partner would defeat 3NT here?

I suggest that in order to avoid misunderstandings involving G/B 2NT agree to play it only in some very specific situations. For example : only by opener , in his 1st rebid. Don't leave it to "flexible" understanding , this you will very likely get it wrong.

I think we should have bid 3♦ on the previous round. Then we would have known by the time we get to 3NT , about partner's diamond support (or lack of it). This is obviously forcing , since 2♠ was GF.

Wow, I disagree with this post on many levels. After a standard negative double (promising hearts, saying nothing about diamonds), 2♦ is indeed a reverse. Well, if you take the above sentence as given truth , than of course you are right. But the problem is that for many (The_Hog and others) this is not true. For them (and I think many others outside the USA) the double shows either support for BOTH unbid suits , or a "plan". And they think their treatment is standard.

I didn't suggest that 2N should be forcing on this particular sequence, whether IMPs or otherwise - indeed I am quite open to hearing opinions - I was trying to explain the reasoning - or what I think it is anyway. Nick I would suggest having the following general rule : 2NT (if natural...) is always invitational but NF unless ,of course, we were in GF before the 2NT bid. Trying to find specific exceptions seems too difficult , and impractical.

2D is not a reverse over a sputnik double, just as 1C (1S) X (P) 2H is not a reverse. I think we have been through this many times before. To me it seems an American approach to consider 2♦ a reverse. I would be happy to hear from more Europeans how they play it. Bingo, sometimes it's too easy. Even if you don't play this style you have to realize that many people consider 2♦ to show a minimum hand. And indeed they would be better placed than you if you replace the ♣AK with 2 small ♣s in the OP's hand. Obviously the OP plays this style, otherwise he would not have been posting this. So maybe it would be more productive to answer the question within the limits of his system , rather than announcing your preferred style?

Pass, And I like to support partner's suit any time it looks reasonable.

What about leading from KQxx ? is your "default" still the "x"?

1. Pass Since pd has passed as dealer, we are not likely to be close to maing anything on the 3 level , and down 2 is quite likely. 2. Dbl. This time I am a level lower, so will try to push them higher. Not sure between Dbl and 2♦ , but DBL allows pd to bid 1NT.

If it was agreed there was a BIT , then there was a BIT. The guidelines about how many seconds of thinking constitute a BIT should, imo, be applied only when there is no agreement about whether a BIT occured or not.

I think that would show both majors , but with longer (or maybe better) ♥s , maybe 6-5. With equal majors, I would expect him to Rdbl.

1. Agree with 2♣. 2. Now 2♦. This may very well be our best fit. If partner wanted me to choose only between the majors, he will redouble again.

When I played BAM teams in the US , it was played with sections , and mirror sections, so from a pair's perspective the movement was like in pairs. Is there any reason why BAM teams can not be played as Swiss , with matches? For example 8 matches of 6 boards. I can see 2 advantages: 1. The best teams play more among themselves, and less against the weaker teams. 2. It is easier for a team of 6 to participate so that the boards played are split evenly. What are the disadvantages? Does this format exist?

Just thought it was curious that even the most "international" topic , like the BB and VC venue , eventually got reduced to a discussion of ACBL matters...

exactly.

I think this is an excellent sequence and perfectly realistic. The keys to this are South's 3♠ showing exactly 3154 and extras, and North's 4♦ which is natural , and not a cue for ♠. North (after checking for keycards) has a perfect picture of South's hand, and can bid the grand.

PASS. Pd (at least MY pd :lol: ) is unlikely to respond 2♠ to stayman , and any other scenario increases my chances to turn a plus into a minus.

Auto 1♥ response, and auto 3♦ now. Actually I have some good things : a fit for partner's main suit, and an honour in his 2nd suit. I think we are quite likely making 3NT or 5♦ , or maybe 4♥. And I don't understand conventional 2NT showing weakness, or preparing a signoff. This is applicable opposite a reverse which is not GF. But 2♠ here was 100% GF , so not possible to stop in partscore. 2NT is very likely to wrongside the eventual 3NT.

Some people play that 1♦ - 2♦ (inverted) 3NT shows 18-19 balanced. This would enable you to show your hand on the previous round.

I would suggest playing 3♣ as 100% GF , normally natural , but sometimes just used as a way to create a forcing situation, though normally with something in ♣ (at least a stopper).

I assume this means that the Netherlands are assured of a spot in the BB (and VC) in 2011. Does that mean that only 5 other spots are left for European teams (Qualifying from the Europeans in 2010) , or the hosts have a reserved place and 6 OTHER teams (including the 7th placed , assuming Netherlands team is in top 6) will qualify?

I understand Fluffy's point and his frustration, but I think his "solution" is very poor. The better "solution" is simply for bridge tournaments to consist of more hands. I think that in order to be considered "at least somewhat serious" a tournament needs to include around 70-80 hands for MP and more for IMPs. Anything less than that , including the very popular around here lately "one session of 30 boards" tournaments , may be fun, and give some estimate of performance, but IMO the results should not be taken too seriously.

We play both 2♦ and 2♥ rebids by opener as natural , reverse , denying 3♠s. We don't think that RHO's double should mean that we can't play in ♥s or ♦s. He may have a "big double" with only one of those suits OR he may have decided to double with 4-3 in the red suits OR we may have a 4-4 (or 5-4..) fir even if RHO does have 4 cards OR the natural 2♦/2♥ reverse may be the best descriptive bid to decide between 3NT/5♣ or even 6♣. I think the question would be more interesting if RHO bid something like an unusual 1NT showing 5-5 in the red suits. What would 2♦/2♥ by opener mean then?

We play that 3♠ is stronger than 2♠ , about 9-10 hcp with a 5 card suit. NF , but highly encouraging. Partner is expected to raise any time he has 4 card support. Often that 5th ♠ is very important to a doubler who has some moderate extras , but only 3 card ♠ support, and is worried about going on after a 2♠ response.