Walddk

Do as you please, standard or not. This is a standard opener in modern bridge. That is exactly why the system needs to be adjusted. Roland

I can name 2 of them for certain. Hackett, Jason Hackett, Justin There are several others in Manchester who get paid for playing bridge (e.g John Holland, Michelle Brunner) but I'm not sure if this is their main income source or if they have other jobs. I know Michelle runs a bridge school somewhere. By the way, what do people consider high stakes? At Manchester bridge club we play frequently for £5 a hundred Chicago style, and whilst it's a bit rich for me I play the £1 game 2/3 nights a week. The other 2 could be Andrew Robson Tony Forrester But both have other bridge jobs as well. Andrew Robson for instance runs a very successful bridge club in Fulham, London, and is the bridge columnist in The Times. Other English professionals are Paul Hackett (father of J&J) Neil Rosen (manager of the Acol Bridge Club in North London) Rob Sheehan Nick Sandqvist (originally from Sweden) Artur Malinowski (orginally from Poland and Norway) Andrew McIntosh (originally from Scotland) Gunnar Hallberg (originally from Sweden) David Gold (manager of the St. John's Wood Bridge Club) I could name a few more, but let's stop here. Roland

I can contribute with one: The TGR in London. TGR is short for The Great Rose, named after the late English international, Irving Rose, who managed the club until his death in 1996. Roland

Another interesting aspect is that even if declarer draws all trumps, she still has a very good chance of making the slam. 1. Draw all outstanding trumps. 2. Unblock ♠AK. 3. Cash a red ace. It doesn't matter which, if either defender has both kings. That defender will get endplayed next when the spot card in the same suit is led. The worst scenario is when they have one king each. Then you are on a guess as to which red ace to cash. You must cash the one where West has the king. Roland

Absolutely right Wayne! West will serve as a stepping stone. It won't help her to play club 10, 9 and 8 to the first 3 tricks. South has the precious ♣4, and West's lowest club is the FIVE! Switch the 4 and 5 and West can avoid the endplay by unblocking her clubs. The funny thing about this hand is that West will get an unexpected and undesirable trump trick. So to sum it up, declarer made the following mistakes: 1. She should stop drawing trumps after 3 rounds. 2. She should then unblock ♠AK. 3. Finally exit with a trump to West. The defenders didn't make any mistakes. The contract was wash&go as soon as West had at least 3 clubs and 1 spade. Roland

2♣ doesn't show extras in my book. Well, more clubs and a good suit of course, but not as far as high cards are concerned. This is a 2♣ rebid for me with or without intervention: Axx x xxx KQJxxx If I pass this hand now, my clubs could just as well be xxx, or even xx if 1♣ doesn't promise more than two cards. I have a clear message to give my partner with this hand. As I pointed out earlier, the only thing I don't like about the hand pclayton posts is ♦AJ9x after LHO overcalled diamonds. Nevertheless, I am inclined to bid 3♣. Roland

Don't get me wrong please. I think the problem is fine, also in this forum. It would be wasted on experts and better anyway. They wouldn't have a clue :lol: Roland

Your spelling is terrible Ben, did you look four some help? :-) Roland

Allow me, without revealing anything, to say that is a very difficult one and virtually impossible for beginners and intermediates to spot. Even many advanced players will not get it right. Roland

Yes, what would we do without that key? :rolleyes: Roland

3♣. The ten of clubs makes the difference between 2 and 3. 2♣ would not be a serious underbid though, considering that I likely have ♦KQ over me. Roland

I think all systems need some adjustments now that light openings with shapely hands even in 1st and 2nd are very frequent. There is no reason to think that this will change. So if no one can stop the trend, we must approach the systems and make less rebids by opener forcing in Standard American, French Standard and Acol among other natural systems. We can start with rebid own suit after a 2-o-1 response and support for responder's suit as cheaply as possible. Both are played as forcing in some systems. 2/1 is not the answer to everything though. The 2-o-1 reponse may also have to be adjusted, so that 1NT shows 6-12, maybe even 13! (rather than 11). Most 12 counts can't really force to game opposite an opening that could easily be down to 10 or 11 hcp, sometimes even (8)9. Roland

Do you seriously think that I will be in a better position if I double first and then get 4♥ from LHO? Surely not. Do you now want me to jump into the pool without knowing if there is water in it and bid 4♠? Now I am fixed with chains around both feet. Roland

I am lost. Forcing?? What do you want me to rebid on A10974 7 KQ105 Q72 after 1♠ - 2♦ ?? Am I not allowed to support diamonds? Why would I want to force if partner responded 2♦ on 83 K974 AJ943 K84 3♦ is where we belong, so do you really mean that the system forces us to get overboard because I can't make a single raise to show a minimum? Change that system immediately is my advice! Roland

I will not begin to worry about what I have on defence. I have a hand suited for declaring. I will feel much more comfortable about passing 3♦ if I bid 2♠ first, than pulling 3♦ to 3♠ later. Roland

The comparison with opening on an 8 count when partner expects 11/12+ is not valid in my view. I agree that I am perhaps 2 hcp shy of a normal 2♠ forcing bid, but a 6-5 shape clearly compensates. If my shape had been 5-3-3-2 it's a different story. Now I can live with double if I have no more than 8 hcp. Roland

6-card majors are not suited for a negative double. If you have any excuse whatsoever, bid it instead. Those of you who prefer double followed by 3♠ are worse off than those who bid a direct 2♠ (F1). Opener's likely rebid in either case is 3♦ with the hand I hold, so it must be a lot better to introduce spades at the 2-level rather than at the 3-level. If we double, partner expects nothing more than a 4-card suit, but if we bid, at least he knows that we have 5+. That's a clear advantage and the reason why, in my opinion, 2♠ is better than double - also if 2♠ is forcing. Roland

I must agree with Dr. Todd, but I am quite comfortable about it if it is clearly stated on the table note: Weak NT and psyches are not allowed Fair enough. Then I can decide if I want to take part or not. What I am opposed to, however, is that almost all TDs "forget" to state: I am not qualified to make rulings according to the laws of bridge Should one not assume that TDs will follow the laws if it's not distinctly explained that they will not? I can live with poor rulings if I know where the TD comes from before I sign up, but I think it's unfair that I also must accept horrible decisions if I, rightly in my opinion, expect the TD to know what he/she is doing. Roland

I am sorry to hear that the TD in question seemed to be incompetent. When a claim - with or without explanation - has been made, the hand is over and play can not continue. Your TD allowed play to continue I notice, and that is a serious mistake. Having said that, I must add that certified directors at major championships are usually highly qualified to do what they are supposed to do: Establish facts and make a ruling according to the laws of bridge. If they were not capable TDs, they would not be there! Roland

I will open 1♦, unless I can open a Multi 2♦ followed by 3♣ to show diamonds and clubs. 2♣ followed by 3♦ is hopeless, mainly because no one knows what 3♥/3♠ from responder is next. Suit or a feature? I don't want to guess if he bids 3♠ on perhaps Qxx. I guess you 2♣ opener will raise to 4♠ in case he really has a spade suit. I wish you good luck with your 3-3 fit. Roland

In an ideal world yes, but the world is not ideal. You've got to bid the hand you are dealt, and 2♠, although forcing as I play it, is significantly better than double. Roland

Billiant Alain! A squeeze in 3 suits, including the trump suit. That doesn't happen often. Clubs 2-6 is the assumption, and that looks like a good chance given the overcall. In fact, finding West with a 3-4-4-2 shape isn't that far away at all, is it? West's hand in real life was: xxx J10xx Qxxx xx Roland

Very impressive analysis Ben, but as you point out: there may be a better line. There is, even a much simpler one. Let me know when you want me to reveal it. Roland

But it does in SAYC no matter what OKBridge writes. Another quote: ....... Bid a lower-ranking 4-card suit at the two level (also 13-18 points), NF over 1 level response, forcing after 2 level response. Roland

People seem to have problems with solving this one. Let me help a little then. Diamonds were 4-2 (4 with West), and it's quite likely that they are, especially when East is known to have club length, probably 6 cards. Is this enough for you to see the light? Not easy, I admit, but declarer actually made it at the table (the heart finesse must of course be on). Roland