mfa1010

2. Hearts (unblocking ♦J), ♣K, ♦K, ♠K. Many squeeze chances.

If the ♥J holds I would assume that the finesse works. Ducking is a very tough defense to find, because RHO knows he can't necessarily rely on partner's count in the suit. Also he has to quickly visualize the problem that ducking poses on declarer. It looks very silly if declarer continues with hearts from the top. I play ♦ to the J now and finesse in hearts again later. I don't mind paying off to a great play. Responding 2♥ sometimes with heart fit is excellent tactics. Some do it routinely but I concede that many don't.

With the "right" bidding to 7♦ we might even get a trump lead from ♦xx but a spade lead from ♦Qxx.

It is normal that "normal" bids are defended as being normal. This 1NT is an experiment.

I was mostly thinking about NT structure. Normally one shows a singlesuited slamtry with a shortage by transfer and then splinter: 1NT-2♦-2♥-4♣ With the actual hand I would not insist on hearts but instead show spades also: 1NT-2♦-2♥-2♠ or whatever NT structure I use.

I would not have problem with bidding a nonforcing 2♠ with that. Opposite mostly hearts, there are still many losers. Nonforcing doesn't mean that partner must pass. He can raise with fit and we have shown a 6-card suit. He should raise pretty much always with three and bid again some of the time with two, when he has decent values outside hearts. Opposite a singleton spade, 2♠ seems like the place to be. 3♦ could be marginally better, but it is not so relevant if 2♠ then 3♦ would be forcing anyway.

I'm not familiar with this bidding. If north "surely showed 0454" then south should drive to slam. It is good opposite any 12 cover points.

Agree fully with gnasher.

2♣. The right description is clubs then spades and that is what I would try to do. There was a deal a few years ago from some US national with the same 5116 shape but an even stronger hand. The player who had that hand chose 2♣, and when it went p-p righty balanced 2♥ and he followed up with 5♠! The hand was later used in master solvers club in The Bridge World, and there a solid majority was in favour of starting with 2♣.

Can you elaborate on what the bidding means? I assume 2♦ was forcing (to what?), but the rest is a mystery to me. At first glance I would suggest that north should splinter 4♠, and I have no clue why south X'es 3♠ and then bids 4♠.

Agree with Cascade etc. Reminds me of an episode in my club many years ago. Our club is a strong one and a young and quite inexperienced newcomer were defending 3NT against a pair of really old rats. He cashes an ace and partner contributes the deuce. Hmm. He pauses to think with the cards from trick 1 still face up, but then, after a while, the old champ interrupts and cunningly asks: "Is that encouraging?" pointing at the 2 (everybody here plays UDCA). The young guy shrugs and answers "yes, sure it is" and quickly continues the suit. Needless to say did his partner have a singleton... :D

We need to know the system context. Usually transfer then 4m is splinter. I would assume 4♣ was a cuebid still trying for slam in a hand w/o shortages.

Overcalling is dubious, but bidders just have more fun. Can't X with so little.

Ole forgot to say that both minors (54+) are not possible for 1♦ (unless it is a 5440 type). I had this problem at the table sitting opposite Ole, and unfortunately I wasn't able to solve the puzzle. ;)

1. Pass now and forever. It would be very undisciplined to bid unilaterally 5 over 5. 2. Tough. I pass. Mainly because I don't want to discourage partner from bidding again, if this a freak deal. Also I don't have any tricks and only singleton spade. I'm tempted to double, not to bid 6m.

4th best heart.

I would play it like MrAce: ♦K, ♥A, ♥ ruff with ♠9. If this lives, we are practically home. (Sorry didnt read the long analysis by MrAce & Ceeb.) There is a decent inference that hearts are not 1-5, since west could have led his singleton. Cashing ♠A is not worth it since we need to change horses if hearts are 5-1.

Me too. :) I read the first part of Mansfield's definition as if COG cuebids are on if a forcing pass is available (provided that we are on the right level for it). I disagree with that. If a forcing pass is available that should be our choice of strain engine, not the cuebid. In general I think cuebids showing a good raise are more valuable than COG cuebids. I think in my partnership we only use COG cuebids when partner has not bid a suit yet. But we don't have fancy definitions. Lowlevel cuebids are a different story of course.

What a shame. Fortunately my regular partners all have better memories than that... :D I much prefer a NF treatment, which I have been playing for many years. As it is so often the case, when playing something as NF, it enables us to get our suits in more often. Partner is in principle pretty well defined, so there is plenty of time to make delicate choice of games decisions later without having a forcing 2♠ available.

2♠. Nonforcing but raisable with fit. Perfect.

2♦ would be a cuebid for me. I try 3♣. I clearly have too much to pass.

Certainly not doubling. They may be about to bid 5♣, which I would not double either. Partner should pass 3♥ regardless of which suit he has, since telling the table is almost exclusively going to help the opponents who seem to have the waffles and the decisions to make. ♦K seems tempting at first sight, but declarer's failure to bid 3NT is surpricing. Probably he has nothing in spades and therefore likely ♦A, perhaps even with a side suit in diamonds. I lead ♠6. Can't resist it. <_<

I would try 5♣ also.

Penalty. The hand is already limited by 2♥. What does "WJ05" mean?

A newcomer to either game might be helped by having aquired some "card sense". Apart from that I don't think there is much benefit. Being a strong competitor in one game will help in any other game, though. In my bridge community there are two former basketball national team players and both have an outstanding drive to be winners in bridge. This they have developed in their basketball careers and transferred to bridge, I'm sure. I guess the same could be done for a successful NLHE player, but just being a small stakes part time poker grinder on the internet is unlikely to help ones bridge game.