Dirk Kuijt

With jdonn I have flat at +50, with south balancing after 1♠ p 2♠.

I'm with Codo A 1♠ 1NT 2♣ 2♦ all pass - 90 B dito C: 1♠ 2♥ ap -2 -200 AB 0 AC +3 BC +3

I'm more conservative, but with the same net result: flat, but at -140 in 3♠

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=skt53hkqt7652d5ck]133|100|Scoring: MP The bidding goes: P-P-P-? The follow up: If you open 1♥ it goes P-1♠-P-? Now what are you worth?[/hv]

I think that it is unrealistic to assume that you will have the auction to yourself if you open 2♣, or a strong 1♣. There are a lot of red cards out there.

I think it is something like this [hv=n=sakqjhakqjdakqjca&w=s5432hdckqjt98765&e=st987ht987dt987c2&s=s6h65432d65432c43]399|300|[/hv] North, unaccountably misses the stone code 7NT, and ends in 7♠, Fortunately, spades break and 7♠ is cold. Switching the Spade Ace and deuce and North is in big trouble.

Once again flat at -420 a. 1♠-p-1n-p 2♠-p-3♠-p 4♠ b. 1♠-X-XX-2♦ 2♠-p-3♠-p 4♠ c. 1♠-2♥-2n?-p 3♠-p-4♠

a 1♠-p-2♠-3♥ p-4♥ +620 b 1♠-X-3♠-4♥ 4♠-p-p-5♥ -100 c 1♠-2♥-2♠-4♥ +620 Not playing Bergan raises, East doesn't know about the extra shape in West's hand, except when South doubles. Not a good hand for these methods, east-west a-b 12IMP a-c 0 IMP b-c -12 IMP

I have this flat, either in 3♠ or 4♠, so a-b 0 a-c 0 b-c 0

I'm with awm, so -b: 2 IMPs (60) a-c: 0 IMPs (0) b-c: -2 IMPs (-60)

a. (I'm always balancing on the South hand, so it gets ugly) 1♠-p-2♠-p p-3♥-X-p- p-p -500 b. 1♠-X-2♠-2N P-P-P -100 c 1♠-2♥-P-3♥ p-p-X-p p-p -500 so a-b -9IMP a-c 0 b-c +9IMP

a 1♠-p-p-p -80 b 1♠-X-p-1N p -p-p +120 c 1♠-2♥-p-p p -200 a-b -5IMP a-c +3IMP b-c +8IMP

Well, if I'm defending with the South hand, East makes ten tricks (since South leads a small diamond), so I have a 1♠-p-3♠-p 4♠-p-p-p -420 b 1♠-X-3♠-4♣- X-p-p-p -800 c 1♠-2♥-3♠-4♥ 4♠-p-p-p -420 hence a-b +9 IMP a-c 0 IMP b-c -9 IMP (Feel free to change the play result if you think this is really irrational.)

I'm flat at -420 also.

a 1♠-P-1N-P 2♥-p-3♣-p p-p -130 b 1♠-X-2♣-p 2♥-p-3♣-p p-p -130 c 1♠-2♥-2♠-p 4♠-p-p-p -420 a-b 0 IMP a-c -7 IMP b-c -7 IMP

a 2♠ -110 b 3♣ +50 c 2♥ -100 so a-b 4IMP a-c 0 IMP b-c -4 IMP

Reading between the lines, I'm assuming that you are intending to open all 15+HCP hands with 1♣, and 1♥ and 1♠ are 5+ card suits. It is unclear to me what you do with 2-2-(54) over either 1♥ or 1♠.

4♦ I'm giving up on 3NT, but I'm still hoping for partner to bid 4♠ on a doubleton. If partner has ♥xxx, we're probably going down, but lots of hands make 4♠ or 5♦, even with two heart losers.

5♥ Since ♠x ♥KQxxx ♦xxx ♣Axxx (and other combinations; partner might even hold the ♠A) is a pretty good slam, I have to make a try. I expect the five level to be reasonably safe. Of course, if partner bids 6 on the basis of ♠Kx, we're going down.

Yes, double (showing a one-suiter) playing DONT. 7-4-1-1 hands need to be played in the long suit. Unfortunately, responder's 3NT is likely based on a long minor suit, so I'm hardly confident of beating this. However, red vs. white, I can easily go for 500 in 4H, and they aren't a lock for 3NT, so I'm not going to sacrifice. I'm leading the ♥Q and hoping that partner has a little stuff in the minors that prevents them from taking 8 minor suit tricks.

I saw a similar hand in a magazine recently. Pass, 2♥, 2♠, and 3♣ all got votes. I'm going with 3♣, despite being short a trump (which was the plurality vote on the magazine panel).

The answer to this is as much a question of you and your partner's ability, interest, and temperament as the quality of the systems involved. SAYC is, generally speaking, simpler than 2/1, though 2/1 is a broad enough term that the reverse could be true, depending on your exact agreements. The following is going to be based on SAYC being simpler than 2/1 I'm going to couch the discussion in terms of "you", which means both you and your partner. You need to be on the same wavelength here, or the partnership is going into rough seas. 1. How much experience do you have with each system? You will do better with almost any system you know compared to any system you don't know. 2. How much general bridge experience do you have? If it is comparatively little, SAYC will be easier. 3. How good is your memory, or, to put it another way, how much study are you willing to do? If it is comparatively little, SAYC will be easier. 4. How rigid do you like your system? If it is comparatively little, SAYC will be easier. 5. How comprehensive do you like your system? 2/1 specifies more actions than SAYC, so if you want to be free of constraints, you will like SAYC better. 6. What are you looking for? If you are looking for something with a new partner for one session, SAYC will be easier. If you are looking for something to build a long term partnership for the next five years, the extra work needed for 2/1 may be justified. Among top players, I think I'm safe in saying that none would say that they play SAYC with a regular partner (not that I'm a top player myself, or even in the next league down). However, a significant number of top pairs would describe their system as 2/1.

Since I don't play the dummy very well, no doubt someone will fix my mistakes, but: On a heart lead, win A, cash 1 high Club and AQ of Spades. Cross to the diamond ace and play king of spades. If the spades have come in (3-3 or short J), you have nine tricks. If the spades aren't good, then play for clubs to be 2-2, or, if West dropped an honor, finesse East for the other honor. A diamond lead hurts your transportation, so, you will have to win the Ace (perhaps after a holdup), again cash one high club, and play the AQ of spades. However, this time you have to overtake the Q with the K. So, if the jack of spades is short, you make the hand, otherwise you have to play clubs as before.

Also, you can make 3NT with ♦QJ doubleton or ♦honor singleton with West. 10 tricks, what's the problem? (Well, maybe I still don't want to be there.)

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sa9843hq106da94ck9&s=sj7hak82dk10863cq4]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] I ended in 4♠, on a auction that was not a thing of beauty. FWIW, Deep Finesse said, on the full deal that 4♥ could be made, as could 4♠, but only from the short side.