mfa1010

Where in the paper do I find that proposal?

Agree that 1♦ > 2N. 2N is an anti-percentage overbid, even if partner is in on the style and could be counted on underbidding in response. It's a bad compromise to force to the 3-level because one finds the heart suit too bad for a simple 1-level overcall.

I would expect partner's 2♠ to be a doubleton usually, since the vast majority of hands with 3 would support double 2♥.

1♥ for me. 2NT is too much and I'm bidding with the hope of getting the contract, so I'll show my major.

With a sign-off hand I would have bid a direct 3♦ so this should be forcing. But obviously this situation could depend on agreements. I have played responder's balancing in a new suit as NF (and strong hands need to double/cuebid/jump) in all my expert partnerships.

I'm not discussing with someone in particular. I'm posting in a thread with an interesting topic.

I would be surprised if Versace even remotely considered 3♦.

I have had good results with 2N both minors, weak. Mostly when partner can bid 5m or when they misjudge to enter a misfit deal. Two weaks ago I had KQJxx, AKJxx, x, Kx and an opponent made a crazy balancing double against 3♣ vul vs not, going for -1400 in 3♥X against a touch and go 3♣ (defeated on a trump lead). I don't expect such a result against world class opponents, but noone plays against world class opponents all the time. 3♣ both minors is fine in theory, but alas 3♣ is already occupied as a club preempt. Preempting in both minors is more annoying to the opponents than preempting with 5-5 majors, since both major suits are still in play for them, and they will have more to sort out. Opening with the boss suits will buy the contract often right there, so we better be right.

1. A decent alternative is to cross to dummy on the ♣A and play a trump toward the hand. The plan is to duck if east plays 6 or 9, and to win, cash ♠AQ and play ♥, if east plays an honour. It backfires badly if east has specifically ♥KQJ9 and remembers to play an honour, but we give us the chance for 11 tricks on favourable layouts with trumps 4-1 and ♣Q onside.

2♦ is ok, I'd bid it. Could be bad, but if we have a big fit and they have spades, I will be very happy to have overcalled. 3♦ vul/vul is begging for a bad board, so little upside.

Thanks gnasher.

Try thinking the possible auctions through yourself. For instance. A 2♦-rebid showing a sound overcall with 6+♦ (too strong for an immediate 2♦) is a much nicer bid than a nondescript strength-showing 2♣ cuebid. Same goes for 1N and 2♠. On the other hand the bad overcall will usually be 5 cards (since no 2♦ bid), so partner should be in a good position to choose a sign-off spot at the 2-level. But the advantages lie with the constructive bids. It's lebensohl-ish and pretty clever imo. It could be applied anytime the cuebid is cheaper than rebidding the suit. The treatment is devised for forcing advances, since with nonforcing advances one could just pass many of those hands that should otherwise bid 2♣.

I will never be happy about rebidding a 5 card suit. With a 6 card suit and less than 9 the first bid would have been 2♦, not 1♦.

5♠. Shape but bidding slam would be hanging partner.

Her problem is that there are not that many strains for her that are not wrongsided. In fact there is only 1, in this case spades. Alternatively she could cuebid hearts, but that might be overbidding her hand if she has a normal minimum.

I disagree. Defending with a random 22-23 count and trumps 3-3 with the honours onside is much too risky. Say declarer has AQxxxx and some QJTx on the side. That is 9 points. Dummy will have values. One entry and he finesses, splits trumps and have 8 tricks already. He could easily be making overtricks on a completely normal deal.

2♣. Easy if it is a cuebid. And I think it should be. But it worries me that it is undisscussed in my partnership. But we play 1♠ as NF but still it is wide-ranging. I have heard the interesting suggestion that (1♣)-1♦-(p)-1♠,(p)-2♣ should show a crappy overcall with other bids (1N, 2♦...) being full strength. Or rather, two-way, either crappy or strong without a direction. I think that idea has a lot going for it. A crappy overcall tends strongly to be only 5, and advancer should be in a decent position to bid over such a 2♣ bid. With such a system advancer has a gameforce over 1N or very close to.

No thanks. When I have a notrump holding I want to bid notrumps. I don't want to endplay partner in the bidding with a double that forces him to choose between a horribly wrongsided contract or playing for penalties where trumps split in the best possible way for declarer.

I wouldn't want to sacrifice my natural 2N for playing it as takeout for minors.

Pass. As I play it, partner is not expected to pass a double with a random 3-card holding in hearts. So if I double 2♥ we would often get to play some silly contract opposite a 12-14NT where we would much prefer to defend.

I would pass. If spades are 4432 around the table I have decent defense, and if we go -530 it's not like it's a zillion imps compared to all the small and medium gains I expect, when 3♥X goes down.

For me it is not an option to lead the ♥Q without the 9.

Clubs ruffing up is not enough to bring it home. The communication is too bad. Try with the natural ♦ lead. We pretty much need diamonds 3-3 also.

Yes sure, but running from an unexpected redouble is hardly comparable to those.

Heart queen is so tempting.