Edmunte1

:D , North and East are from a different movie B)

I think that the logic should prevail. There should be an order of priorities: - attitude - count (when attitude is obvious) - S/P (when attitude is obvious and count has no importance) Here partner has some good knowledge about declarer's hand: 4+♥ and 4♠. With QJx in dummy it's obvious that we should give count, and ♦9 is the normal choice

Nice 3 suit strip squeeze B)

I like 5♦ as long as 4♠ it's in over 75% of cases a maker. Put opponents to take the last guess.

It's important in your partnership to define ownership. Ownership = That level above that opponents cannot play undoubled. Above that level a competitive force exists. For me: - A simple support never estabilishes ownership - A mixed raise (FJS included) - estabilishes a FP up to the level implied by the jump (in your example up to 4♥, but no above) and 4M is the weakest bid - An invitational raise (3-4 card fit) sets up a FP at 5 level - Any inv+ bid, not necesary fit bids sets up a FP at 5 level I think, the most important thing, when you define ownership is to avoid any possible double swing. So if you define too many FP positions, like in the example, you'll have to double too often making games. In IMP's i'll pass, and hope to chalk up a plus score.

- 2♥ (upgrading); - Over 1♦-1M-2♦ we lost a lot of bidding space, so the development over this sequence is pretty difficult; - I consider necessary to have an invitational hand with both majors on this sequence. I play 3♥ bid for that, and i think it should be standard; - I've played with some success 2NT forcing over 1m-1M-2m. Thus for example: -1♦-1M-2♦ -3♦ shows a good invitation -1♦-1M-2♦-2NT-3♣-3♦ shows a weaker invitation -1♦-1♠-2♦ -3♥ shows an invitational hand with 55+ majors -1♦-1♠-2♦-2NT-3♣-3♥ shows a GF hand with 55+ majors .........

1♦, but 4♦ may work better

1♦ and pass and hope. I don't believe in fairy-tales :)

I think you have started asking yourself too many questions after you've got a bad result opening 4♥. Stop doing that, 4♥ is the percentage bid, stick to the plan :D. Bridge is a percentage game.

Agree, i wouldn't have doubled in IMP's, but in MP's double is normal.

Pass, the most sensible choice, and hope for reopening.

Strong hand, short spades for me. I consider strategically wrong to play this kind of double as a penality double. For me a double is for penality when it cannot be used as a take-out, not the case here. Doubling for writing +100 instead of +50 or so it's not a good policy. So i consider Hamman 100% guilty for this board.

1. I would have doubled as long it's a good chance that partner has singleton in spades. 2. I play double over Bergen Raises as take-out. 3. Double 4. Yes, i kibbitzed the board :)

I would have bid 7, but i would consider pass a logical alternative if i would be in a jury.

I would pass, but i think it's a 60-40% call

Agree with Han :)

At table i would have tried jdonn's table, and played it fastly.

4♦, forcing. I can't imagine playing this sequence as NF having benefits

100% agree

It's seems a tough choice. Some personal tghoughts: Facts: -West didn't overcalled, decreasing the probability for West to have ♦A -East made a passive return after winning the ♥A -As Phil pointed out maybe East made some preference signal on spades Tghoughts: - Considering spades 5-4 and trumps 2-2, it's more probable that West has 4♦ and 2♣ (32.7% ♦4-4 and 33.9 ♣2-3) than 3♦ and 3♣ (23.5 ♦3-5 and 33.9 ♣3-2) -Echognome line may work, but it's against probabilities and especially against West play, who probably would have returned ♦'s with xxx in clubs -More, maybe West would have returned ♦ with Kxx in clubs, afraid of ♣ discard or even let us win first trick in trumps in dummy. So i think normal play is playing diamond finesse, than club to Queen

1) Pass 2) 4♠

My strong advice is to try learning some good stuff from the beginning (meaning a good 2/1 book), and SAYC is really bad stuff. It's really a shame that ACBL wasn't able to make a decent system for everyday beginner, like for example polish players have Polish Club.

Here is an excerpt from hunagarian writer Robert Darvas' book "Right through the pack", a classic published in 1947. Every card in the pack has its own story, and this is the strory of ♣3, called 'A TREY WINS BY WEIGHT' [hv=d=s&n=skj9hj982dk92cq54&w=sa75hk65dqj5cj1063&e=s863ha743d7643ck8&s=sq1042hq10da108ca972]399|300|[/hv] "South was playing every-day contract of Three - No-Trumps, and I was dealt to the West hand, thus: My man, West, led the Knave of Clubs, the Queen, King, and Ace going on the first trick. The declarer led the Queen of Hearts, and East's Ace made. East returned the Eight of Clubs; South covered with the Nine; and my man's Ten took the trick. He led the Six of Clubs, dummy's Five dropping and South's Seven made. Later my man regained the lead, and cashed me for the setting trick, my brother, the Deuce, falling beneath my superior weight. No x's could have represented the Club suit in that deal. Transpose me and my younger brother, and no defence can defeat the contract. I broke that contract in my own right as a master card of my tribe — not as a mere thirteenth. So closely balanced were the opposing strength, that the difference between victory and defeat was measured by the difference between me and the Deuce."

I agree with most of the things gnasher said. Your methods are basically wrong: when a hand is very strong and another is weak, the weak hand should describe. Why? Because most of the time we don't have enough bidding space to perfectly describe 'a monster'. Also the big hand is the promoting hand, and must be filled with some little pieces for making the slam. So the weak hand should never take the capitancy. It seems much normal to show 4 card fit ,Queen of trumps and if necesary third round control in clubs for partner to take the winning decision.

1. Pass/pass 2. a) no i would have bid earlier 3. 2♠