mikestar13

The pressure comes in the responses, for example weak jump shifts and 1M-3M preemptive. Weak twos in the majors are used and may be played to taste-- if ♠KQxxx ♥xxx ♦xxx ♣xx is a weak two in your partnership, have at it.

4NT should be RKCB. Although partner should show an ace, but he might decline to show one if for example the ace were his only values. Also less memory strain than remembering this asks for kings. I agree that 3♥ isn't necessarily a solid suit--just a suit strong enough that it doesn't need support.

The lower limit for 1♣ could be 16 without adverse effects. 12-14 balanced w/ 5cM is opened 1NT. Flannery is needed because a 4-5 hand lacking reversing values has no rebid over 1NT. I don't agree with you about preemption, but think your opinion is perfectly reasonable. What I like about the majors first approach is the fast finding of major fits and the highly natural way the bidding evolves--the 1♦ opening with strong balanced is the only time you have to bid a less than 4-card suit.

If you want constructive weak twos, play Fantunes. I like to preempt: Kxxxxx x xxx Qxx is fine NV (I would want better trump spots vul.)

Put me down for 4♥--trumps are weak, but it's right on values and doesn't risk a ♠ response like X does. Thoughts of slam are fantasy fiction unless partner can advance over 4♥. The usual rule is "put 8 points in partner hand and bid what you think you can make." I wouldn't criticize a conservative 3♥ because of possible ♠ waste, but X is koo-koo with a side void.

5♣ in the actual sequence, partner can correct to ♥ if he wishes. But in the name of God, if you don't open 2♣ with this hand, when do you?

I knew you guys were aggressive, but this is crazy--the hand may be only worth 5 tricks as you may well have to lead ♣ from your hand. Pass throughout-- this could easily be -800 or worse if you bid.

Bingo. the ♥Q is at least potentially useful, the ♠Q is waste paper.

My sentiments, too. Also add a queen somewhere and I bid the ♠ even with xxxx.

X is aggressive but reasonable, North's failure to bid 3♠ gets about 90% of the blame.

The vulnerability should be white vs. red or there is no question of whether to bid. Put me down for 4NT, but I really prefer Michaels initially at this vul.

3♥ is fine on the actual action. I would have bid 3♦=limit raise initially. We have found one trump suit, why look for another. I'd prefer 4 trumps, but 3 and a stiff will do in competition.

This is just one of those things... North shouldn't bid 4♣, his values are insufficient, however South will bid 4♠ if you pass because he has game values and you end up in 5♣ anyway. In short, North misbid but it makes no difference. High level preempts sometimes work--that's why they do it. Passing initially is ludicrous unless paying Roth-Stone or Fantunes.

If partner has a maximum, he will look for 3NT over 3♣, which is my preference. Over 5♠ I pass--the five level belongs to the opponents.

I think responder should gamble 4♥ instead of doubling. True opener may have only two, but ♠ is probably opener's short suit, as they almost certainly have a nine-card fit (certain if they play LOTT).

I prefer 5-card major Stayman, as I open 1NT with 5-3-3-2 and a major all the time. Sequences are like Puppet Stayman but one level lower.

The opening bids: 1♣=17+, art. and forcing 1♦ 11-16, natural with no 4-card major OR balanced 15-17 (may have 5-card major) 1♥/1[♠=11-16, 4 or more cards, unbalanced. Open longer major, open 1♥ with 4-4, open 1♠ with 5-5 or 6-6. Only open 1♥ with 4-5 majors if reversing values are held, otherwise Flannery (see below) 1NT=12-14 balanced (may have 5-card major) 2♣=11-16, 6 or more clubs 2♦=11-16, exactly 4-5 in majors, denies reversing values or a 3-suiter. 2NT=21-22, balanced (may have 5-card major) Other openings to taste... in 1♣ sequences, we use a major first structure in responses and rebids at the one level. Comments?

As you started, then 4♦ cue bid from North, then 5♠ demanding slam opposite a ♥ control by South. (Yes, we might have three ♥ losers, but this is unlikely.) Similar sequence with reds reversed.

The laws don't provide field protection for this case.

I'm a bit surprised at the consensus for double--the ♥void impairs the defense and we have a good second suit to show. Pass is for cowards.

On hand #1, I would have bid 3♣ and then passed with a clear conscience. Pass is my second choice--the suit is poor for red vs. red. But I wouldn't consider a 2♣ bid with so little defense. Hand #2 i a pure guess. It really depends on partnership standards for 3♦--I would have more shape, in which case bidding 5 is obvious.