Jinksy

[edited] On second thought I guess the diamond switch is tough.

[hv=pc=n&n=sj86hj64daqcaj984&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=pp1d2cdr2dppdp]133|200[/hv] IMP pairs. Partner would have opened 11.5+ balanced or 10+ with 5431 or better distribution.

[hv=pc=n&n=sj93ha963datcqt75&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=1spp]133|200[/hv] IMP pairs.

Hoping for 5♦ to go unchallenged when both opps have made vulnerable free bids seems deeply optimistic.

5♣

AQTxx AKT9xx x x Rubber bridge, first hand of the rubber. You're playing a pretty plain version of Acol - if you open 1♥ and reverse into 2♠, you'll be showing something like a good 16 count, and most continuations will be natural (2N and 3m would be NF assuming P didn't start with a 2/1 bid). What's your plan for a constructive auction after a) a 1N response to whatever you open, or b) a 2m response? More broadly, what's your plan for if the opps start competing in minors?

Rubber bridge. They have game and 60 below the line. Kxxx Txxxx xxx x You're second in and the bidding goes: 4♣ P P 4♠ / P P 5♣ P / P ? What do you do now?

Yup, I'm persuaded. Also, why is PhilG007 unbanned? It's not like he's got any less trolly

There's a great anecdote in Alan Mould's book on preempts where third in (and I assume favourable), Brian Senior opens 2♦ on xxxx xxx Jxx xxx. After the hand in response to Mould's quizzical look, he explains that 'I wanted to show where my values were'. Mould remarks that the plural was rather generous.

2♠ is natural for me, but I would prefer better spades and fewer outside values for it. If P has something like xx Kxxx Kxxx xxx, the bidding will continue (1N/2♣) P (P), and I'll get a chance to come back in at the same level. If I bid and P has nothing we might easily go for 500 against a part score. I want to pass, then double 1N/2♣, and (assuming it's not left in) bid 2♠ to show a strong hand with game interest and good but not impregnable spades - can I do that?

So you play straight penalty doubles after these openings? We've been dithering about whether to play pens or takeout, since opener will often have a 4-card side suit.

It would probably help you to get more feedback if you created a new thread for the new hand. Anyway, I'd open 1♥ for just the reason you give, and perhaps miss game/slam in clubs. But I've been told I'm hyperconservative in my 2♣ openings.

I'm passing. The most likely distribution around the table starting with me clockwise is something like 3253 3352 4414 3424. If so I hope to take most of the tricks outside diamonds, which (adding the diamond) already scores about as well as game. If opener has longer diamonds, 3N is in more danger - since a) we're less likely to benefit from suit blockage, and b) opener is commensurately more likely to be able to double if he's got an outside ace (or two).

Mm, good point. I tend to agree, but I have a faint memory of a similar hand (IIRC a 5422 with a Q in one of the doubletons) getting scorned as a potential first seat weak 2 a couple of years ago. We've been trying a style where we're very vul-sensitive in first, so vul we'd have a six card suit and something vaguely resembling the values for a classical weak 2. Favourable at IMPs we bid hyperaggressively (we might open 3D on this hand!), though at MPs we reign it in slightly. What are your paremeters?

Y'know, I voted for 2♥ on this hand. Various people have subsequently claimed this was idiocy. And yet, I'm still here - and slightly better placed to know what to open on such hands in future. It's great how getting criticised by stronger players improves my game. It's almost like that's why I come here.

Third seat opening? Or would you do that in first?

And I'm sure Jeff Meckstroth still rides around with the training wheels attached to his bike. And finds it really funny that Lance Armstrong doesn't know to use them.

*bro-fists Diana*

Abusive? Sure. Though not as much as accusing someone of cheating. Misogynistic? :lol: Suck it. I'm not the one trying to play Sir Walter Raleigh to the purported damsel in distress.

The 'offended lady' in a related and concurrent thread implied that aggressive bidders have 'unacceptable secret agreements made before the start of the event', so to put it bluntly, she can suck it. Accusing people of cheating because you don't like their bidding style is a lot worse than anything she suffered in the 4♥ thread.

Anyone remember this hand? [hv=pc=n&w=s9ht98765432dq3c9&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=p]133|200[/hv] It's got 7 losers - so we should open it 1♥. Although on K&R, it scores 7.8, so I guess it's a toss-up between 1♥ or 2.

Doh, I'd missed partner's opening bid.

Edit: deleted drivel

I did picture him with it, and unlike others I think it's a perfectly good weak 2. But partner so rarely has a perfectly good weak 2, and this is MPs. I think it's more likely that 2♠ is going down than making, and if it does make we're probably not getting much better than 30% anyway, so has more to gain than lose.

1) Yes 2) X. We might only beat this by a single trick, and I was expecting to make 2♥, so we need the extra 100.