mfa1010

I wonder why they were all against Meckwell. I assume that there are alternating seating rights. I wonder why both teams seemed to prefer the same matching.

Congratulations, great win. Fully deserved from what I saw. Good luck today - I'm rooting for you. ;)

5♠. 4NT and 5NT are both choice of strains. The cuebid shows a good raise, and since it is above 5 of our suit and therefore invites a grand it also shows 1st round control in spades. At least this is what I'm used to, fwiw.

Reopen X because of the honour structure. With same shape and all diamonds and bad defense, I would bid 2♦.

The ACBL restrictions about defensive signals are obscure paranoid rubbish.

Well, I'm not so sure about that...

1♦ X 1N

I agree with the majority. 3♦ then spades. Burying the diamonds would be severe matchpointitis.

In Denmark we get everything paid. At least in principle, in practice we often have to contribute a little ourselves. Also it is possible to apply for significant financial support for other important team tournaments, provided that the pair/team that applies is part of the official pool of pairs that are competing for the spots on the national team for the next major tournament (European teams, Olympics/Mindsport, Bermuda Bowl if we are qualified) and therefore have agreed to live up to the practise requirements etc. that the federation puts up for us.

Double. Can't bring myself to bid just 3NT with this much. If partner takes it out to 4♣/4♦, I would interpret 4NT as RKC, 4♠ as cuebid (last train) and 4♥ as natural trying for a 4-3. So if partner bids 4♣ after the double, we are in trouble. I would try 4♦ after that, atleast if partner does have ♦Kx we should play excellent in diamonds.

Not every vugraph commentator excel at objectivity. :)

I would say no, and consequently I think it would often be ethical problematic to go ahead and ask questions like that. It is not poker. Playing mind games to induce an opponent to reveal his hand is not allowed.

5-5 inv for us.

Conservative.

Note that the opponents just had a nonsense-auction. It makes no sense to make a 5♥ cuebid and then jump to grand opposite a sign-off. So 5♥ then 7♠ smells really bad. Combined with the fit jump, dummy has pretty much advertised a spade-diamond twosuiter. It's not a toss-up between the reds. If he is gambling without a first round control in hearts or clubs it is probably lacking in hearts. Perhaps lho is even encouraged by the non-double of 5♥. But again, lho might have outleveled me.

Insta-♥. No way he is missing first round control in clubs for his leap. Or did he level me? Poker is a subset of bridge, Rosenberg says.

It has nothing to do with you but it's just that discussions like these become so annoying. I mean, everybody sits with their own assumptions and argue for their life with others who sit with their own assumptions, and so it goes on and on and on, yawn. OP wrote that they "tend to play stopper asking instead of stopper showing" and some seem to interpret this as if it is a command to 3NT with a stopper. What the heck, I don't care what people think. This discussion has become one of semantics, not one of bridge. At least I hope so, or it is a really silly one if it is just about bridge.

For us XX would be nothing in clubs but extra values. So I posted what north should do rather than precisely what he should bid, since that depends on style. I supposed that most would have an agreement when cuebids are doubled. I thought that there would be consensus that ANY bid below 3 of our suit in bid-and-raise sequences doesn't promise more than invitational strength. Regardless of trial bid style. For me this is not fancy forum bidding.

Double. F*** it.

I'm not going to disturb you, except that I especially don't understand why a delayed major bid (3♣ then 3♠) also should be 6-4. It would be easier to bid 2M in my opinion.

3♣ is below 3♦ so it doesn't promise more than invitational strength. North can't bid 3NT on a minimum. With the hog's hand, south can just bid again and north will try 3NT the second round. (With that hand I would have bid 3♣ over 1♣ btw, but for some it is natural).

Skip the "maybe", gnasher. You are too polite. ;)

A general principle could be: If a ruff is perhabs possible, then high-low in trumps is asking for the ruff. If not, then lavinthal is used instead.

I can't spot the problem. Partner has ♥Tx - declarer is 6-4 in the majors. So we win and play ♦K and hope for 6-4-3-0 and a ruff. What else? That partner has ♠Kx and declarer is about to get 3 spade losers. Not realistic. Partner will discourage on ♦K if he had the unlikely singleton heart.

Do you play forcing passes also in the pass-out seat, Phil? :P