mfa1010

I read the problem as if it is partner's 4♣ we are supposed to consider raising, and no, I wouldn't do so. Even consider it, that is. If partner has a huge monster, this is not the way to show that.

Why should I bid 3♦? The opponents have passed over 1♣ and over 1♣-1♦. Surely they might still get back in, but I'm not going to do anything drastic to prevent it. This looks more like it is tending to be a misfitting hand where partner has some length in the major suits. If 3♦ should be intended as a value bid with extras then I don't have any.

Being competitive is far from synonymous with trying to win through lawyering, intimidation or some other angleshooting.

1♣ then 5♠.

I agree with gnasher. ♦A, ♥ to J and then normal play from there.

There is nothing to the play really, even if south plays three rounds of hearts. It's unclear who to blame, because north obviously didn't think X of 3♦ was for takeout, and without such perception in this particular partnership, perhaps south should not have doubled.

It may be discussed if north has a raise to 4♥ or not, but south definitely has to eat 100% of the blame here. It is not reasonable not to force to game when partner responds 1♥, and 3♥ in this sequence is not forcing.

4NT then 5♥. Nice to have this treatment available. I like to encourage a raise from partner - I think this hand is strong enough with the spade void and solid suit.

I still don't see how that works?!

I don't see any elimination play either. We have too few trumps. So I agree with Fluffy. Best spade play is starting with a deep finesse for JT.

769884 Fun. The second one on overall bidding aggressiveness is particularly hard, because I think it varies a lot in different situations. I'm in the spectre from 3-8 so I'll award myself a 6.

5♣. Partner should have at least 7 clubs for his 4♣ bid, but probably not the K. ♣ seems to play better than ♥ if at the same level. Selling out to 4♠, doubled or not, is very speculative. 4♠ will probably go down 1 very often, but sometimes it makes and sometimes 5♣ makes. I have a bad feeling for my ♦K on defense, even if it is behind the ace. And partner should be much less willing to run from 3NT if he has some help for us with secondary stuff in the pointed suits.

2♦ then 2NT is natural, but invitational. So you'll have to live with getting raised to 3NT sometimes. Or if he has extra length, his rebidding one of the majors. Of course, other times partner will pattern out in 3m, and that would be sweet.

If N had been told that 2♥ was natural, he would have interpreted 3♥ as a cuebid. Perhaps he would then have bid 3NT over the X? That would probably have let NS get the contract, either in 3NT or 4♠, and the -510 would have been avoided.

Hmm, I think it is very different: 1. After 1NT partner knows that 3♠ is usually 4. After 1♣ it could be any hand. 2. If partner wants to try 3NT without a stopper it is a much, much better shot to do so opposite a 1NT opener that gets to declare and that is balanced than opposite a random strong hand where the contract is wrongsided. We are clearly better off trying 3♠ if we have opened 1NT than if we have opened 1♣ strong.

I would have bid 3NT too. We have to be practical. Playing 3NT with a 4-4 major can work out ok, but getting to some inferior 'fit' instead of just playing 3NT with a stopper and two balanced hands tends to be a disaster. Partner's double is usually a balanced hand. He can bid a fivecard major instead of doubling, if he is short in diamonds. 4♦ over 3♠ should be a strong raise to 4♠ imo, not choice of games.

For us it would be: 1. Slam try in ♠, no heart control 2. Slam try in ♠, with heart control 3. 2-suiter, ♠+minor

I'm surprised you see it like that. I think 2♦ 'your choice p' is a very strong part of using 2♣ for the majors and not 2♦ or 2♥. Responder being 2-2, 3-3 or 2-3 comes up all the time imo. Also there are the constructive sequences like 2♣-2♦-2M-2NT, or 2♣-2♦-2♥-2♠ etc. although that is just really a minor detail.

6♠. Partner is in principle showing 10+ and I doubt that he has much wastage in clubs the way the opponents are bidding vul vs not. We are favourites to have a slam on here. 6♣ on the way may lead to a grand, but I don't think we have the values for it and I don't want to scream for a heart lead.

I think it's very clear to pass (or bid as Phil suggests, of course, if partner is on the same wavelength).

The new forums killed my MFA nick, because I have never used it for the BBO software and there it has already been taken by somebody else. :( Maybe there are other forum posters who also can't log in now after the new forum software has been introduced?