mfa1010

I have a grand slam try. 5N RKC for spades would be very nice, but for me it is choice of slams. Seems I'm stuck with 6♣ inviting grand with first round club control.

[hv=pc=n&s=sa3h86da4ckj97632&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=1h(4card%20majors)2cdp2s3c4sppp]133|200[/hv] Imps. East could be 4-4 in the majors for this sequence. East is a team sponsor, west is an aggressive pro. What is your pick?

Double. I have a 3-suited hand so I don't want to guess a suit myself. The void is a flaw but my overall defense is ok.

I'm not a fan of that bidding. On this particular hand we are 100% for 11 tricks. But that is not typical if 6N is not good. Often bad luck in 5N will then put us down to 10 tricks. I doubt that the extra precision in the slam decision will compensate for that. A substandard 6N may easily be a better contract than a typical making but somewhat unsure 5N.

I agree.

Yes talented. If it is a dream team is for them to show.

Going too far, I think. I want to have a natural NT-reopening.

Yes, if it is not missed by free choice. Advancer can still bid 2NT with 3-card support to overcaller's longer major if he likes, but he may not like to. I agree that a right-sided notrump contract often will play well, but that should be up to advancer to evaluate from hand to hand.

Yes, but that might miss a 5-3 fit if responder has a 2NT bid with a 3-card support for one of the majors, where he would bid 3 in that major, if partner bids it after 2♦. I don't think we need a huge system after the 2N inquiry, slam is very unlikely, so not going through 2♦ to get more info is not a problem.

2♦ then 2NT is useful as a natural bid.

Indeed. Opener had 17. A tad to the unlucky side to find partner with all the remaining 8 points, and what 8 points.

I agree that there are problems with a double and we might lose a partscore battle we might otherwise have won. But the problems shouldn't be overstated. Partner is expecting a strong balanced or flexible hand for the double, and this is what we have. So he will generally make good decisions. The plan is not to X and then bid spades. The plan is to X and then TOX their runout. We play (which I think is normal) that a 2♣ runout from partner is scrambling, and our 2♠ after that shouldn't be construed as extras. I would plan to pass a 2♦ runout from partner, which admittedly might be wrong. I was very much in doubt, when I choose 2♣. When dummy was about to come down, I was like please don't be strong, please don't be strong... 2 bullits :o ... crap!

Not valid for me. The attraction of a marginal 2♣-overcall come imo partly from the fact that we are offering two suits and we have a useful 2♦-gadget to land us in the best fit. If they double 2♣ with points, it is also possible to arrive in 2♣ or 2♦. A 2♠-overcall is unilateral and therefore needs more (not less) values to compensate.

Partner had ♠ 9xx ♥ Axx ♦ ATxx ♣ xxx He bid 2♦ on my 2♣ and we rested in 2♠. I took 10 tricks in 10 seconds. I thought it was a difficult call, and I felt I chose the "lazy" route by bidding 2♣.

@ Rik I'm confident that an aggressive style here is winning, so I'm not going to change that. Usually it is a partscore battle. But I think an aggressive style facilitates game bidding as well, because a minimum overcall might hit a big fit, where partner wouldn't come in himself.

That will bounce us to the three level. 2♦ can be bid with 0 points and 2-2 or 3-3 in the majors just to find our best major. If we decide that 2♦ can't be bid with a weak hand, we will have a problem with the weak hands with equal length. Your suggestion is ok. But we must realize the downside to it. Yes, it is a problem with X. Our values are slow in a peculiar way, because the hearts need to knock out the ace to get any tricks, and spades are probably not ready to run. If we X it is probably best if someone bids. Against 1NTx I would lead a heart. The hearts must be established for the defence at some point. We can hope that partner can get in and lead a spade through. Sounds like a good suggestion. We already play that after 1♣-2♣ michaels, but that promises 5-5 so it is more obvious to play it there. Not a problem, we could bid 2♠.

The problem is missing vulnerable games. 2♣ does not announce a strong hand which X does. Getting in there with both majors is an attractive bid, and we are (should be) willing to do so even with risky values. It follows that we can expect partner to make a game try on his own only a very low percentage of the times where we have game. We could bounce to the 3-level ourselves, of course, but there our partscore might easily go down the drain. X could be seen as a compromise. Imo the hand is good enough, it is not that. After X'ing partner will know to get us to game with a good hand. If he doesn't have a good hand, we are still in contention, somebody often bids a 5-card minor, and we could make an ok takeout double of 2m, if it comes to that. If partner removes to 2♣, that is scrambling-like, and we could try 2♠. If partner removes to 2♦, it shows 5+♦ and we could pass. The partscore precision is obviously a bit lower.

Makes good sense. The point is the same, to give responder better grounds for evaluating.

I think splinters as opener after a LR is better than serious or nonserious 3NT, because responder's strength is supposed to be narrowly defined. We play that. In my system we could bid 1♥-3♥-4♦ to show a slam try with short diamonds, if we wanted. It looks aggressive here, and stiff ace is not perfect. With a slam try without a splinter opener bids 3NT (or 3♠ actually, since we have agreed to switch 3♠/3NT).

Yes I think so absent a specific agreement to the contrary.

Why is that clear?

[hv=pc=n&s=sajt84hkqj6d53ca2&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=p1n(15-17)]133|200[/hv] Our system: Double is for penalties/a strong hand. If they run we play takeout doubles. 2♣ is for majors. Partner can bid 2♦ to get our longest suit. Edit: Forgot to specify that it was imps.

I agree that 2♠ over the second double would have been a good bid.

5♠ exclusion.

North should make a noise (to summon a TD).