sasioc

Pass. Second choice is 3NT.

Duplication, sry

I can't speak for the other posters but in my regular partnership a balanced 12 count is not a game-force facing a 1 level opening, especially one made 1st in at white. I would not expect to play the deal you describe in 3NT and feel that 1D gains in a lot of partscore deals. I'm also not really sure what else I'm meant to open this - I'm far too good for a weak 2 under these conditions and not really suitable for 3D. I don't think that it makes theoretical sense to have hands that are considered too good for a weak 2 and not good enough for a 1 level opening so pass is certainly not an option for me.

1♥ over 1♦ is automatic and I'd still respond 1♥ on this if the Q♠ was the deuce and the J♣ was low and not think it a particularly strange thing to do. I'm slightly confused by p's bidding 2♥(which does not really invite me to bid on) and then 2nt (which looks strong). It feels like either he was meant to bid 2♠, 3♥ or 2NT the first time round or this is meant as some sort of scramble (given that x feels like pens, even in a pick-up partnership) so I'll try 3♣ on your hand and pass whatever p bids now (if anything).

1♦ and I don't think it's close either. If I was hypothetically not allowed to open 1D I'd open 3D rather than passing.

It appears to me that this child has been living as female for a significant amount of time and identifying as female for longer. It doesn't sound to me like she is "unsure about her gender" at all. If there was more uncertainty I might feel that drugs were less appropriate but as it is I can't think of any circumstance that would make me feel that prescription of these drugs was more appropriate in this case. I agree with the assessment that I think it is closer to child abuse to deny Tammy this treatment than to give it. I am only glad that she has parents open-minded enough to consider such strong measures as they make the decision with Tammy about what is in her best interests (and yes, an 11 year old certainly should be heavily involved in such a decision.).

Sure, I didn't mean that *every* hand with 5 spades should bid 2 spades, just that the 2 spade bid showed 5.

X here should show 4 spades and a 2S bid shows 5 spades. As the other responders have mentioned, a negative double is the same thing as a takeout double (and this is not one, although it is not exactly a penalty double either).

I didn't feel strongly about the upgrade (I never really know when I'm meant to upgrade and when not..). The fact that your 1NT rebid is 15-16 rather than 15-17 makes upgrading more attractive imo. On the other hand, the fact that you have no clear agreements over a 1NT rebid (although I think 2S must be forcing) would make me more inclined to open 1NT and make the auction easier. If that happened your auction might start 1NT:2D*, 2H:4C* or something similar, but whatever it is you will struggle to get to slam off three aces now. You don't say exactly how South got to a 6H bid (you say he may bid something else first) but I think a straight 6H is incredibly optimistic and any sensible ask should keep you out of slam - the void does not improve your hand (which is now certainly not worth 15 points) and you are off three aces. I would not have considered pulling 6H - you have described your hand and partner has told you where he wants to play. Moving now feels like guesswork to me. You say that you thought trumps broke badly but partner can also realise that this is a possibility and pull if it is right - you don't know what his suit looks like.

Yes hog, I agree that partner's bidding doesn't make a lot of sense. Having responded J2N on the hand (which you've already mentioned as very weird) I probably wouldn't bid exclusion either given that p has shown no extras but has a shortage that I might like to know more about - why bid J2N if I'm not really interested in hearing more about p's hand? I just can't see 5C meaning anything else!

I would respond to exclusion (probably a 5S bid)

Same as wyman

I probably want to play in spades unless partner has four hearts so if I can in your system I will bid stayman and then 4s. If I can't do this I'll transfer to spades at the four level. I am not considering looking for slam.

I'd just bid blackwood. I can't see partner having 2 keycards and a hand that I don't want to play in slam. If he shows 3 I will ask for kings and bid grand if he shows the ♠K (I play "king you have or king you don't so no risk of getting too high over 5NT).

I will open 2♠ showing 8-12 points and a 6 card suit and be happy that I play that method when I pick this hand up :)

I don't think he has denied the ♣Q by failing to double 5♣ - surely he doesn't want to put you off a better lead if you have it and also doesn't want to potentially solve a guess?

I would not consider bidding anything except 1S on this, intending to bid 4H over 1NT (assuming 1H showed 5), 4sf over 2m and 3H NAT gf over 2NT. The only rebid where I think I have anything coming close to a problem is 2H, after which I will have to bid 3C in order to force. This does not, however, feel like the end of the world by any means! I would not consider J2N, which I feel must always be on 4 cards to avoid muddying the waters in the slam zone.

I would like to clarify that the reason I don't mind which you do is that it is not a question I have to consider playing the system I do and I don't know enough about bidding theory to feel I can add anything to the discussion, not that I actively think it's ok to bid D first with 4 4, which I would not do at the table.

If my p bid it I would interpret it as "I have woken up and realised I am suitable for slam". I have no idea if this is sensible or not but would wonder if p had four low diamonds and was trying to play in NT because it was MPs, although they may well have cued 4S on that hand. This said, I'm not sure I can think of a hand that is suddenly suitable for slam facing a 5 5 and could not have bid differently at some previous point.

I would not consider bidding. It's not obvious to me exactly what p needs because I'd be likely to splinter or bid 3H on most hands instead of bid 5S to avoid any ambiguity but whatever it is p is after I don't have it.

If you don't bid 1D on responder's hand (I prefer 1H but do not feel strongly about it and play xfers over 1C anyway, making 1D* my systemic bid with 44 reds on any strength) the auction might look like this: 1C 1H 2H 3NT (suggestion to play opposite 4 card support and a bal hand - playing my own system I do not have an invite with 4H available here but if anyone plays 2nt as NAT..?) With a balanced hand and the values distributed as they are I'd have thought 3NT a reasonable bid but may be saying that because I can see the other hand :)

I don't know how many ways people play leaping michaels but in my partnership it does not promise game in one's own hand, just the expectation of making game facing an average hand from p. In saying gf I just wished to make it clear that I cannot pass it and thus a poster may take the view that if I bid 4H I have an unexpectedly good hand for p. Can anyone who would bid 4H describe what sort of hand they think p would need to take another bid?

I too would consider pass, 7♦ and 7♠. I think I'll pass with probability ~10%, depending on how well I know my partner and bid 7♦ the rest of the time.

I can't use it yet :(

The problem is that this is *not* a story about anonymous players - many people know who these players are or can easily find out - and it is not presented as a made-up story but as the facts of a dispute that was clearly far more complex than suggested in the OP. It also appears from John's post that the incident has not been resolved and that further action may be taken against one or more of the players involved. You talk about academic fraud - try libel. EDIT - I hadn't seen the thread lamford is referring to when I wrote this and didn't realise it was a joke.