pooltuna

In real life or online but not at an idiot's bridge tournament :)

Well if you are a light opener you need to consider treating bids over 2♣ much the same way as you treat 2♥ in the auction 1♥ 2♦ or treat 2♠ in the auction 1♠ 2♥. Generally with a minimal opener the 2 level suit rebid promises NO extra cards in the suit. I suggest you use that in this auction as well. Consequently a 2♦ rebid promisies NO extra cards and could still only be 3(three) cards.

Young people are generally not exposed to bridge. After all we play in clubs where passerbys can never see any action even from a distance. Imagine the difference if you were playing a duplicate game in the open area of your local enclosed mall! The second problem is we are not trying hard enough to get into the school system. We probably need to do this in conjuction with the other game groups such as Hearts, Go, Chess, Scrabble, et al. If we are a united front we can be more like the high school football league (American and other) where the schools can complete for local & state level championships. You probably would have to settle for an overall games champion rather than a specific game but where each game would contribute to the overall standing.

Another hand with no good answer. Your choices look to be X, 2♠, 2NT, 3♣(really depends on having a firm agreement), 3♥, 3♠, &3NT X well you certainly have the points for this what you need to decide is what you are going to do if partner chooses 3♣ which if opps play a shortish 1♣ will be natural and partner might choose this action with 3xy5 2♠ you are undervaluing your hand with this bid but that may be good as you may end up stuck in your hand a lot it will certainly be hard for partner to raise with QTxx xxx xxx xxx or xxxxx xxx xx xxx 2NT gets across most of your strength but misses your probable 8 card ♠ fit 3♣ might be natural or a qbid which means you have to have a firm agreement in place to even use this and even if it is a qbid I don't think you have the right hand to use it 3♥ definitely a qbid but see 3♣ 3♠ trading a lot on your probable ♠ fit but it is still just probable. 3NT you definitely think LHO is psyching :D Of all these bad choices it is probably best to take the conservative action that is likely to drive the opps higher or get a + result in ....2♠

you must be the word keeping partisan :)

Is he ready for market I am in need of some bacon (hopefully not too tough) :)

This is only important if they are on the same planet :lol:

Well you either love it or hate it, wouldn't that explain it? Although I'm probably one of the rare few who are rather neutral about it... Neutral!!! Try your grilled corned-beef on rye sandwich without it :angry:

mostly N for preempting S with an inappropriate hand. From South's perspective this looks like a 50% max slam and as a consequence he took the conservative view.

yep it was near 6AM (positive side) and the coffee hadn't finished brewing.

Well what are your choices for calls? 3♠(I would reject this with no additional thought), 4♣(yeah I know it is an A but this might be the hand to break the rule), 4♦, 4♠ (skipping 4♥ which should be to play), & 4NT 4♣ - with either the ♦A or ♥K partner may qbid making 4NT a reasonable call 4♦ - with crappy club cards partner may see no reason to qbid 5♦ yet this works if partner calls 4♥ 4♠ the only advantage this has is that it gets to our minimal spot for the hand but puts all the pressure on partner to act. 4NT This call will force us to the 5 level which may be too dangerous. My choice would be 4♣

Are you saying that some poeple might consider AQxxxx xx xx Qxx too weak for a weak two? I realise that one might not do it because of the lack of stuffing in the trump suit, but it sounds as though you think people would reject it because of a lack of overall strength. Or have I misunderstood? at unfavorable colors and IMPS this is not a hand that should venture 2♠ and IMO if I changed the hand to AQJT98 xx xx Qxx, this would only be tolerable because the opps will have such bad ♠ spots they are unlikely to whack you.

That can't possibly be right. The 4-7 shape has one less loser, so it should be worth a trick more than the first hand. I suspect the problem is not the total loser count but the chance for exactly 2 losers is higher

unless you are feeling real adventuresome and then 3♥ :angry: and since your partner is playing it you better remember you don't have to outrun the bear :)

Well you are pretty much systemically screwed and when that happens I usually take the conservative action since I can't produce any numbers that suggest slam is necessarily 50% or better. Here the potential for 2♠ losers still exists altho I recognize the reduced probabililty engendered by our 11+ card fit. Even passing that test we still have the chances a ♣ & ♠ loser as well as a reduced probability for a ♠ & ♦ loser. So the combination of all of those looks like an odds against slam and just 5♥ for me.

Me too. I've always thought it a shame that there aren't more deals, though. I think there would be a huge market if there was a set for defense instead of just declarer play. there is the woolsey book on partnership defense sold by bbo it is quite good But wait!!! Doesn't that require cooperating with the CHO? :angry: splain that joke, what is cho well we know LHO and RHO stand for left and right so CHO is center :)

Addiction alert!!! This player is addicted to attacking the majors when the opps make no attempt to play there instead of NT contracts. How do I know this? It takes one to know one :) What T of ♠? My hand is Q93 J5 87532 53....Oh wait I already led :)

Well if X is a suggestion to partner to play 3♥ I do that

Me too. I've always thought it a shame that there aren't more deals, though. I think there would be a huge market if there was a set for defense instead of just declarer play. there is the woolsey book on partnership defense sold by bbo it is quite good But wait!!! Doesn't that require cooperating with the CHO? :lol:

Last time I checked you needed 11 tricks to score up a minor suit game :lol: This of course assumes you have to bypass 3NT because you probably won't take 9 tricks in time. So by your logic you need 11 tricks to open 1♣? :) gee I hope not! Else I really convoluted my logic worse than normal :)

Last time I checked you needed 11 tricks to score up a minor suit game :) This of course assumes you have to bypass 3NT because you probably won't take 9 tricks in time.

a constructive 2♠ call using modified SAYC EDIT: modified for GWNN :)

and that is just peachy :P

Definitely helps to know how the opps are playing 1♦ and since it wasn't provided I didn't answer although my gut reaction was to lead the K♦.

good last point and one I overlooked so I would clearly pass here.