mich-b

Now, that we have been informed that Dummy passed as dealer , usually denying 11hcp, I think we can consider their bidding being equivalent to an invitational sequence.

With 12-13 concentrated in my 2 suits, we open 1♦, reverse to 2♥ and proceed with 3♥ which shows a nice , but not great 6-5 and is non forcing. With a stronger 6-5 we bid 1♦->2♥->4♥. With a weaker hand (or with values in my singletons) I usually open 1♥ and rebid 2♦ , unless my ♥s are very weak , when I might just bid 1♦->2♦.

I would pass - I don't think slam is likely. I think that my best chance of winning IMPs on this board is hoping that my "near the bottom" opps at the other table bid a poor slam , and my teammates beat it. And if not , we'll try to win IMPs on the other boards.

Pass here is (or "should be") forcing , because the same opponent who previously bid 3♦, went to 5♦ when we bid game. In such situations it is sensible assumption that they are saving, so our Pass should be forcing.

As pointed in another thread by Justin and others, 2♣ then 2♠, might be efficiently used for hands that want to invite 4♠ opposite some fit but not 3NT , perhaps 5-5 with 7 hcp, or a nice concentrated 5134 etc... Transferring is not effective with that hand type because when opener bids 2♠ if you pass you may miss a good 4♠ and if you bid 2nt you might end up there or pd might raise to 3NT which is bad. You can't combine this approach with resolving the ambiguity of responder having 4♠ when he rebids 2NT.

While I am not saying that Pass is worse than bidding , but -1100 is not much worse than -790 or -990, scores for which they have to do nothing more (in the bidding), while for them to score 1100 they do need to be able to double.

Is this hand really worth a GF? I think a "strong" but non forcing Double+3♠ is enough.

Another small point: 1NT - 2♣ 2♥ - 2NT will be ambiguous about holding 4♠, which is a disadvantage (what should opener do with min and 4♠?) One way to resolve it , is to agree that 2NT here denies 4♠, and you bid 2♠ with 4♠ invitational. The advantage of this is that you can stop as low as 2♠ on 4-4 or 4-3 fit when opener is minimum. However , if you do this , you have to give up on using the sequence 2♣->2♠ as unbalanced invite to 4♠. Your choice.

[hv=pc=n&e=s9432h85d753cq832&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=p4hdp]133|200[/hv] Teams. All players are experts. You have no special agreements about the double (it's not penalty, somewhere between "takeout" and "cards"). Do you bid 4♠ or pass? How close do you think this is?

Usually "RKCB for the last suit" is a rule that works well enough , but serious partnerships may agree that in a "strong and constructive" auction, when the bidding has reached the 3 level, and no fit was found (and perhaps there is a way to "strongly agree" the last bid suit , like 4♦ here) then 4NT is natural and invitational to slam.

I think this may be a 3♠ bid even playing (2) , since my alternative minor is only a 4 card suit , and my ♠ suit (together with my ♥ holding) is good enough to handle the rare occasion when 3♠ is a 4-3 fit.

3♠. Because it shows what I have (strong invite with 5♠).

I would pass. I don't think we have game , and I don't have any comfortable course of action if I double and pd bids 2♥.

I think that it is fair to say that in any "natural" system , all 2NT bids are natural non-forcing and invitational , except if : 1. A Game Force has already been established before the 2NT bid. or 2. A specific agreement exists for 2NT in a particular sequence.

Since RHO is Passed hand , and LHO is (presumably) weak , If my opening is minimal , it is very likely that partner has a trap pass. Opps often take liberties when favorable , and it looks this time they are about to be caught. I would double here , regardless of my ♦ holding.

Takeout, which was unsuitable for a t/o double on the previous round because of imperfect shape (like 4324 or even 5314) or because too weak (4414 9 points..)

I would pass , because my hand is nothing special , and is primarily defensive. And , additionally, double from me here , would imply ♠s or at least ♠ tolerance , perhaps 4513 , or 3523, or 4522 , rather than a random extra queen.

I would seriously consider balancing with 2♠. While not very elegant (because my ♠s are weak) , it does show very well my range and my 6 card ♠ suit. After that pd can invite with 3♠ (looks ok opposite the approx 14-16 I showed) , and I might suggest 3NT, with my weak suit and good ♦ stoppers. This would be a very successful sequence , but imo not unreasonable. (1♦) -P - P - 2♠ P - 3♠ - P - 3NT All Pass )

I would double , and compete with 3♦ over their 2♠

It seems to me that there are 2 separate issues mixed in here: 1. How to calculate a pair's score for each board? a. IMPs "across the field" which means comparing the result on a board to all other results on this board, as if in teams, IMPing the "total point" result , and then averaging the IMPs. b. "Butler" IMPs, which means calculating an average "total point" result (with or without removing some extreme scores) , and IMPing the total point difference between a pair's result and that average. My opinion on this subject is that IMPs across the field are better , reflect better the spirit of the game, resemble more closely teams play (which is good). Actually I believe that "Butler" was only invented in pre-computer era , because it makes calculations somewhat easier. I think it should not be used today , and in fact that is why only "across the field" is used in BBO main club play. 2. A separate (and independent) issue is how to calculate a pair's match score from its per board scores. You can either just add up the IMPs (with or without any maximum and minimum) or convert them to VPs. There are 2 issues to consider here: a. Converting to VPs has the (negative imo) effect of "quantization" , which means that randomly (depending on the VP scale) the 5th IMP may be worthless , but the 6th IMP is worth a VP. This introduces some unnecessary randomness. b. "Saturation" , or limiting the size of win. This imo is a negative effect in an even field, and only introduces another randomness (If a pair won 50 Imps in a match against another good pair , why should 15 of those IMPs be truncated?). In a Mixed field this is more of an issue , since we don't want the size of the win against weaker pairs to determine the winners. The VP scale is designed to take care of this, and gradually reduce the value of "additional" IMPs. I believe this is better than using IMPs and just truncating them randomly at 36 (or any other number).

This looks like a normal hand to invite with. How exactly to invite is less important , I would bid 3♥, but don't think it matters much if the invitation bid is 3♣, or 3♦, or a "general" 3♠.

♠K. I don't consider pd's double to be of the Lightner variety, because their 7♦ sounds more like a save (over 6♥ which was presumably bid to make) rather than a freely bid effort.

I think Martens - Jassem from the Poland Open team in last Bermuda Bowl played Strong Club NV , and Polish Club Vulnerable. Honestly, even if one thinks this is theoretically profitable, I wonder how many pairs would be willing to study and develop 2 systems?

I think this is a very poor idea. I believe team matches should be decided absolutely ignoring the rest of the results in the field in all circumstances. Actually , for me, this is the main reason why I prefer teams over pairs - my results depend only on my team's performance (and direct opps) rather than on some random LOLs playing in the corridor.. In General , I think the best solution if time permits , is to replay the match, while this does not mean waving the penalties to both teams, if the wrong seating was mostly their fault.

I am willing to help and provide data from the boards I played. I am not sure though, how exactly this data should be analyzed. For example , in my last serious event last weekend , I played 56 boards (teams), in which we opened a 2 level opening once - a 2♦ Multi which was Passed out, making 90. (Opener had spades , dummy had 6 diamonds and 13hcp). Our teammates scored 170 in 3♥ so we won 6 IMPs. Well, was does that mean? Did we win IMPs because of the Multi? Probably not , probably the reason we won IMPs was that our player judged to overcall 2♥ , while our opponent didn't.