arvie

Depends on what you're are looking for but I would recommend the clubs based in 'The White House' (Het Witte Huis, IJsbaanpad 45, Amsterdam). Every evening from Monday to Thursday you can play bridge at (a different) club. Most of the clubs are used to foreigners and have no problems with visitors. Common systems are 2/1GF or plain 5card major. The location is good reachable by car (own parking space) or by public transportation. Monday Het Hok, 19:45-23:45, imps, 28 boards, no fee By far the strongest club in Amsterdam. Most of the time they play 2x14 boards imps (in a team setting). But till the end of May they have the annual championships (Pairs and Patton). So the chances that you can play if you just drop in are small. Even on normal evenings you need to arrange self for a partner. http://www.het-hok.nl/, http://www.nbbclubsites.nl/club/1005 Tuesday US Uil, 20:00-23:30, imps, 24 boards, EUR 2,50 fee Original the club for students but you will see a mix of ages from 20-60. Everybody is welcome as long as you feel young. :P No problem (most of the time) in finding a partner even on the evening self. http://www.usuil.nl/, http://www.nbbclubsites.nl/club/1011 Thursday Ruit, 20:00-23:30, pairs/imps, 24 boards, EUR 2,50 fee Older, but also a very informal club with very wide-range playing strength. No problem (most of the time) in finding a partner even on the evening self. Pairs in the coming months. http://www.nbbclubsites.nl/club/1064 Feel free to ask further or drop a PM.

Seems I can't quote you're whole post. Have to disagree. :) Even the NT doesn't fit my request I did like the suggestion. Looking at the suggestions I realized that the I like the limitation of the 1M-opening. Even at the expense of a higher NT-range. Maybe my original requirements are not completely accurate or complete.

Thanks for the replies so far. Seems that there are some very interesting systems available. At a first glance Swan seems to fit my 'requirements' the best. (Even the 1NT-opening is still strong.) I like the very limited 1M-openings and the protection of the 1C opening with the 11-13NT. And the overall natural feel of the system. UAC seems a little more complex and the 1M has a higher upper bound. And the MC has no weak variation in the 1C opening, and I don't like the 12-15 NT range.

For the first time in more than 10 years I will be playing with someone who is interested in something else then standard 2/1 GF. But my knowledge of more 'exotic' systems seems a bit outdated. So I like some recommendations based on our wish list. We like to open light, prefer a weak notrump (12-14 but if possible 10-12 in some positions), and prefer a multi-club above a strong club, and as much 2-openings available for some preemptive meaning. We have both experience with non-natural systems but not with relay systems. So probably that is too heavy to start with. HUM is not allowed but no further restrictions. That gives is something along the lines: 1♣ - several meanings 1♦ - ?? 1♥ - NAT, 10-?? 1♠ - NAT, 10-?? 1NT - BAL 12-14 but 10-12 NV 1/2 seat 2♣ - ?? 2♦ - some preempt 2♥ - some preempt 2♠ - some preempt 2NT - some preempt On a side note. Has anybody experience (good or bad) with The Unbalanced Diamond from Marshall Miles or The Martens System from Martens as described in their books?

This is the write-up in the bulletin of the appeal. (Bates) S (Wold) conducted the following auction with E/W silent: S N 1♦ 1♠ 2♦ 3NT* 4♠** 6♦ * 2 minute huddle and no alert to E. ** 45 seconds to 1.5 minute huddle after which he alerted W that 3NT showed 5Ss and an option to play 3NT even if S had 3Ss and then bid 4S. After 6D was made E/W called the TD contending that the out of tempo bids conveyed unauthorized information (UI) which assisted N/S to bid the slam rather than playing 3NT. Bates told the TD and the Appeals Committee (AC) that his huddle was his trying to remember their agree-ments about his rebid and related that 2S was forcing, but that he wasn't sure that Wold would remember, and that 2NT was forcing, but he didn't remember that it was forcing, and they used to play 3NT as showing 5Ss giving partner the option of playing 3NT even if he had 3Ss, but that he thought that Wold had asked to drop that agreement even though it was still in their notes. Wold told the TD (he was not present at the hearing) that his out of tempo action was trying to remember their methods and finally concluded that 3NT showed 5Ss and an option to play 3NT even with 3Ss and he then bid 4S. He did not recall the discussion about dropping that agreement. The TD allowed the table result of N/S+920 to stand and E/W appealed. The AC believed that N's 2 minute huddle in what would be expected to be a routine auction may have awakened Wold that Bates may have uncertainty about 3NT. The AC concluded that had 3NT been bid in tempo, it was reasonably likely that Wold would have passed 3NT and the result would have been down one and therefore changed the score to E/W +50. Jeffrey Polisner, Chairman John Sutherlin, Member Henry Bethe, Member

It seems to me that you can use 3♠ if it's GF against the weak hand and very descriptive. Something like a SI hand with 5/6(good)♠3♥.

Yes, you are of course right. I meant ♣ slam.

Kibitzing two friends in a teams game you see the following hand: [hv=pc=n&s=sqj7542h63daj8cj3&n=sathakq72dtcat874&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1hp1sp2c(Gazzilli%20%5Bnat%20or%2016+%5D)p2d(8+)p2n(55%2C%20GF)p3c(ask)p3h(5%21H5%21C)p3sp4dp4sp5nppp]266|200[/hv] This went three down, due to some bad splits 4♠ is the only game that makes. After 3♥ they had no further agreements. How to proceed and make the decision between 3NT and 4♠ (or maybe even 4♥)? In practice North took 3♠ as cuebid and forward going for a ♣ slam. And from there the bidding went astray. But even if you think 3♠ is natural should North bid 3NT in case he has something like x AKQxx Jx AQxxx? It seems difficult to bid the South hand in a Gazzilli structure. Anyone a solution? Edit: ♦ slam was edited in ♣ slam.

19.1 Two Teams If two teams are tied with the same number of Victory Points at the end of the round-robin, the tie shall be broken as follows (in the sequence shown): a) IMP quotient (total IMPs won divided by total IMPs lost) in all matches played by the tied teams in that particular event. If the tie remains, then: b) IMPs earned by the tied teams in the match they played against each other. If the tie remains, then: c) Total points earned by the tied teams in the match they played against each other. If the tie remains then: d) Total point quotient in all matches played by the tied team in that particular event. If the tie remains then: e) One board (“sudden death”) matches will determine the winner

I asked at the table why South did not bid 3♥ and he confirmed that it was a possibility within their system (playing stoppers). He bid 3NT because he didn't want to tell East which major to start. He had no (clear) explanation why he didn't gamble 3NT one round earlier. Based on this information and the fact that an overwhelming majority would bid 3♥ gave me enough evidence to adjust to 5♦X-2. A little lazy. As demonstrated by Lamford and others a weighted score was more appropriate. NS are a long standing partnership and certainly dealt earlier with Landy (and other interferences over 1NT).

Interesting point. But I think that we must include the chance that North would bid 3♠, looking for a half stopper. Hoping for 2/3♣ + 5♦ + 0/1♥ + 1♠ making 3NT.

I thought so. Just to be sure I did a little poll (the match was played on a club evening). After this start 6 out of 7 players would bid 3♥, following with 4♣ after partners 3♠ (looking for a half stopper). After that it seems not illogical to end in 5♣/5♦X-2. (Some of the polled players mentioned that they would bid directly 3NT instead of first bidding clubs.) So I adjusted accordingly. But south was not too happy with that and found that he had still the right to 'gamble' 3NT. Although in the end he didn't appeal the decision. So I am just curious if I missed something.

South took it as a positive bid with something (values) in diamonds. Like they do in analogous situations (e.g. inverted minor).

Without stoppers in both majors North felt that 3♦ was high enough against only an invitational hand. (And maybe he suspected something?)

Teams, district competition (no screens), NS competent players (but nothing special) in an established partnership. EW a little weaker. [hv=pc=n&s=s63hakqd53cqt9743&w=sq742h985d9864c62&n=sj85hjtdkjt72cakj&e=sakt9h76432daqc85&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=p1n(12-14)2c(Landy)3c(Lebensohl%20%5BSouth%5D%20/%20Rubensohl%20%5BNorth%5D)p3dp3nppp]399|300|3C alerted and explained as inv+ with diamonds (Rubensohl).[/hv] Start heart, result 3NT C. Other facts: Agreement is Rubensohl (on the convention card). Pair is known to me and I am not aware of any other mix up in this situation. South: I bid 3NT because I didn't want to tell east which major to start. East: Because I have the ♦A it is not necessary to start with a spade. How whould you rule? There is no MI but used South UI and is there a reason to adjust?