Edmunte1

I really liked that board, tribute to Geza Ottlik !

I would have bid 2♣ Michaels. I will lead spade now, trying to promote a spade trick before they'll remove my diamond stopper.

What Mike says.

Pass, no ugh :(

- Partner's 2NT shows a weak hand (0-7), you don't have great chances of game if partner doesn't move over 3♦; - 3♦ in standard methods shows a strong hand, and if you're playing ELC it's not recomended to do it on minimum hands;

I'll use the green card

I superaccept also with good minimum hands with lots of controls.

Yes, still take-out, showing extras (17+ with singleton ♥, 20+ with dblt), and yes i'll pass with this balanced hand

You've been shut off from biding, it's normal. West doesn't have enough offensive tricks to enter the bidding at trick 5.

I think that many strong partnerships use this method, and i think it has certain advantages: a)usually second bid defines hand type, balanced, one suiter or two-suiter, third bid if possible adding more clarification about extraforce +/- extrashape b ) on minimum hands that are not affording 3rd bid, usually it's more important showing a-6 carder because: - when partner holds 2 hearts can invite on marginal hands and can place the contract in the right strain(4M instead of 3nt) - playing a 6-1 major fit is better than a 4-3 minor fit c) after defining first suit, a 6-carder (6-3-2-2, 6-3-3-1, 6-4-2-1, 6-4-3-0 shapes) is more frequent than a 5-4+ two-suiter (5-4-2-2, 5-4-3-1, 5-5-2-1, 5-5-3-0, 6-4-2-1, 6-4-3-0 shapes) with second suit specified d) as Han said, some sequences are better defined: 1H-1NT-2H-2NT-3D is NF while 1H-1NT-2D-2NT-3H is forcing.

I think it depends of your agreements. My agreements are 1NT=11-16-, x+NT=17-19, jump NT=20-22. I think that playing a method in which the bid that takes more bidding space shows a stronger hand it's easier to remember.

1♠ is my choice and i believe that's the better way. Why? Usually in process of biding, when you open there are 3 important goals: 1- describing your hand accurately - so you can reach the contract with the best potential for a positive score; 2- describying your hand fastly - so you can reach faster your contract and shut your opponents off from their possible better score; 3- occupying the bidding space - making opponents lose their accuracy in bidding or even cutting them off from bidding. I agree that opening 1♣ makes you describe more acuratelly sometimes, but also lets opponents into action. Over 1♣ you'll see a lot of 1♥/1♦ overcalls, but over 1♠ the number of overcalls will be drastically reduced. Also the number of overcalls after 1♣-(pass)-1red is bigger than for example 1♠-2♠ or 1♠-1nt. I agree that after a positive 2♦ response you'll lose some accuracy, but we can recover that loss by using some decent methods (like rebiding 2♠ to show a minimum hand, and rebid 3♣ over partner's forcing 2nt, or switching 2♥ and [2sp] responses over 1♠-2♦ - trying to regain some space). In bridge you should compare the gains and losses of your methods over a big number of boards. Maybe you'll lose on board like this but definitelly you'll be better placed in all competitive boards when partner has spade fit. Comparing with chess 1♠ opening is like a d2-d4 move, and 1♣ is like a d2-d3 move :)

Double

This is a fine method. You can play the deuce also, partener must have KQJ+ for that lead.

Hamdi, i didn't want to offend you in any way, just posting such atrocious bidding on adv/expert forum seems rather inappropriatte. Better you just should have posted the board and asked which is the right way to find 6♦/6♠, and you'll see it's not very easy, and that's the reason why only 3 out of 16 pairs found it. The main reson is that the cumulated strength of both hands is at the bottom end of slam potential, and the club shortage is essential in reducing the cumulated force (up to 27, just ignore ♣Q) and finding the right strain. I sugest in a advanced+ partnership something like: 1♦ -(1♥)-1♠ 2NT-4♣ -splinter for ♠ 4NT-etc But in a random BBO partnership it will be difficult to find the slam.

Bidding 1NT by West is ridiculous, bidding 3NT by East is very poor too. Please post serious posts, not this garbage.

2♦+3♠. I'll sell out to 4♥ if i succeed to show my suits.

You should plan your bidding ahead, 1♥-3♥ will describe perfectly this hand

I would have lead ♠ too. Dummy has often a source of tricks (♦ or ♥). If that source is ♦'s leading diamond is bad, if it's hearts spade or diamond could work both, assuming that they have a trump loser (diamond has a bigger chance obviously). Going back to real life, what would have been the killing lead considering that declarer didn't have the ♠Q?

Some points of view: - I completely disagree with 2♣, this hand is more like a diamond preempt and an outside Ace; - 1♦ is for the opthimists. We will fight, we will try to find maybe a slam on this hand, maybe we'll have some chances to describe, maybe partner will understand, or will have much extras to drive us to slam, i take all the risks. - 5♦ is for the non-opthimists, trying to score on the right column. Over 5♦ it will be much tougher for them to interfere, or will have to take a guess, and even if we make slam they'll have pretty often a cheap save.

I don't think any problem is a non-problem. If in doubt, it's silly not to ask if you want to be enlightened. I completely agree with that, Roland, dubito ergo cogito :)

I play 4m as non-forcing (around 3-4.5 losers) and use a jump-cue bid for very strong two-suiters. I believe playing it as forcing reduces a lot the frequency of that bid, and bridge bidding is a game of frequency. I play cue either strong one minor or strong minors.

Win second spade discarding diamond and play diamond to the king

Easy pass for me, as long as passing and bidding afterwards is much closer in comunicating an usefull message to partner than opening.

I would pass on first, I would double on second