Walddk

I agree with Mauro if you have FJS on your cc. If you don't, I would bid 2♠, limit raise in hearts. Some play that as limit or better. I don't, I still use 2NT as the game forcing raise. What to do with 11-12 and spade stopper(s)? Double first, then NT. I think it's important that partner can distinguish between limit and GF right away. Roland

Only if I hate my partner. Roland

On this auction you don't have hearts, so 4NT can only be for the minors. If you have spades, bid them. The situation is obviously completely different if the overcall had been 4♠. Roland

rofl, juniors are conservative ;) That's what makes it so exciting to comment on junior bridge. They do the exact opposite of what is considered "standard" by many of us :) What about this example from the Danish Cup Final yesterday: Dealer, non vul vs. vul ♠ 72 ♥ 102 ♦ J97643 ♣ Q104 Why is it that the "obvious" 3♦ opening didn't cross my mind? Roland

Count me as well for Blackwood ;) you can use 5NT for 2 places to play :D (the opposite is true, I know) You can indeed, but that makes it somewhat difficult to arrive in 5 of a minor :) Roland

Well done indeed Alain! You did considerably better than most of us. Having said that, however, I would like to stress that the main purpose of participating, whether you are a panelist or not, is not necessarily to get the highest scores (I am sure Luis will agree ;)) but to exchange views and learn if you are so inclined. That's the whole idea of the BPO poll I hope. At least it is for me. Roland

Let's see if this works: http://www.2over1.com/modules/wfsection/ar...hp?articleid=12 If not, you will have to go through http://www.2over1.com/ and register. Click on "Lessons" and find the one on "2-way Checkback Stayman". Don't worry, no fee involved. I am not claiming that I found the philosophers' stone, but it's one way of doing it. When I think about it, I am not sure how I managed to investigate before "XY-NT" was introduced. Can't remember, perhaps I guessed and punted more than necessary. Roland P.S.: I now realise that you must register as a user first. Sorry for any inconvenience caused.

Since 4NT is not listed, I take it that Luis plays this as Blackwood. It surprises me. Partner opens 1 something. When do you have a hand where your only problem is how many aces partner has? I think 4NT is better used for "two places to play". Can only be minors on this auction. Roland

Right, 4-6 would be normal, but we must bid the cards we are dealt, and since we don't have 4½NT available, we shall have to compromise somehow. Roland

3♣. The raise to 2♠ is not strong, but we may still have a game on if partner, just for once, has the values we need. Strong raises to at least 2♠ go through 2♦, or 2♥ if you play transfer advances. And this time I even remembered to vote!

Maybe because we didn't vote but just voiced our opinions. I'll vote now if that makes you feel better :P Roland

In competitive auctions when no fit has been established 4NT is never Blackwood to me. There must be room for a jump if 4N is to be BW. I think it's a good agreement. Roland

I would have doubled first, but fortunately I got a second chance to show my powerhouse. Hope 2NT gets that message across. Roland

Well, at least the Google executives should be able to afford it. I just read the Forbes article on the 400 richest Americans. Larry Page and Sergey Brin are second from .... guess who. $51 billion (Gates), it makes me dizzy. I guess it would be waste of his precious time if he were to bend over after having spotted two $100 bills in the streets of Seattle. Yes, I know his residence is in Medina, WA, but he may go to Seattle occasionally, and there must surely be a better chance to find those bills there. Roland

I, and hopefully partner too, would like to know if my LHO can bid 5♥ first. That gives us both a better chance to evaluate how to proceed after that. That's the reason why I prefer 4NT to 5NT. Additionally, 5NT could very well be interpreted as a grand slam try. I have a good hand until now, but it's not that good. Roland

I don't understand why we are supposed to make a decision or an educated guess when we can ask him for advice. How about getting both minors suits into play? 5♣ doesn't show a diamond fit; 4NT does, with emphasis on clubs. Roland

F. How can you expect others to give you 5+ minutes when you don't have the patience to give them more than 3? Roland

A priori yes, not on the auction. It is significantly less than half a trick now that you know that LHO has 12+ hcp and a diamond suit. Roland

[hv=d=w&v=b&n=skqj95h65dj973ck5&w=sa108632haq7d8652c&e=s4h1043dq4caj108763&s=s7hkj982dak10cq942]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Why did it go so horribly wrong for this EW pair? Feel free to assign more than 100% of the blame, but try to be as gentle as you can. They didn't do this in order to hurt themselves (no, I was not involved). West opened 1♠, North passed, and after 1NT from East, South overcalled 2♥. Now, 2♠ by West and the trouble began. North: double, East: 3♣, South: double, West 3♦, North: double, and all pass. Result: Down 5 and 1400 to NS. Roland

I was the first one to raise to 6♣, but to be fair, partner could also have x x KQJxxx AQJxx A perfectly normal jump to 5♣, so passing could of course also be right. I have a feeling that a few VG commentators would say "Oh no, how could he", when responder bids one more. Another example of how easy it is double dummy. Roland

Here is what BBO Advances says about the issue of checkback on 1m-1M-1NT..... On the SUMMARY PAGE (go to bbo, click explore bridge, click Bridge Base Online Standard, then click and read notes on Bridgebase online advanced... or read it here where I copied directly from that online document)... "2-way new minor forcing over 1NT bid" Then if you read further into the notes, you will find this sentence.... After 1 of a minor-1 of a major-1NT, 2♣ = Invitational checkback, 2♦ = Forcing checkback, 3 of minor = To play. It does not use the term XYZ, and it does specifically state that 3 of a minor would be signoff (this is somewhat non-traditional approach especially if it was true xyz). Ben It seems as if it's taken directly from the Danish version of "XY-NT". Forget the "z". It applies after 1x - 1y ; 1NT (rebid). And I repeat that "2-way new minor forcing over 1NT rebid" needs to be rephrased, since neither 2♣ nor 2♦ are new minors in all instances. They are same minors in some cases. Roland

Excellent points Mike. Whether you should pass or raise is a matter of partnership style and in my opinion the least interesting problem in this set of many very good ones. Who is my partner on this deal? If I don't know, it's pure guessing. Roland

I didn't say that 4♠ doesn't make if you bid it directly, I described it as a wild gamble because it will go down much more often than not, even opposite a maximum 1NT rebid. Roland

4♠ is a wild gamble with that shape in my opinion. There must be a way to involve partner in the decision. Isn't that what he is there for? Roland

I also think this is a good problem. Judgement is needed so often, not least when pre-empts slap you in your face as is the case here. I did not go with the majority it appears, although I agree that the hand has great potential. The problem is, however, that we do not yet know how many wasted values partner has in hearts, so I think it's too early to insist on slam. What did I bid then? You will be the first to see if you are awake when Ben posts the votes of the panelists. Roland