S2000magic

4♥ seems pretty straightforward. Not even close.

My thoughts exactly.

I just want to be sure we're on the same page: North is declarer (and has the ♣K); South is dummy. You say to exit with the ♠Q; how are you coming to hand to do that? Or are you finessing the ♠Q?

I played this hand a couple of days ago, and the rust is showing: if I stop playing for a while my (bridge) brain goes to mush. You (North) hold: ♠ A Q 4 2 ♥ 5 ♦ A K 9 8 5 3 ♣ K 4 Partner holds: ♠ J 9 7 5 ♥ A 8 7 ♦ 10 ♣ Q J 9 5 3 East dealt, and the bidding was: East - South - West - North Pass - Pass - Pass - 1♦ 1♥ - Dbl. - 2♥ - 3♠ Pass - 4♠ - Dbl. - Pass Pass - Pass Opening lead: ♥4 (Trumps split 4 - 1; if you win the ♥A (West playing the ♥9) and lead a club, West wins the ♣A and returns the ♥3; when you play diamonds, East follows with the ♦J, Q.) How do you play 4♠X?

5♠

"Obviated"? I'm not sure that that's what you meant.

To the original question: yes, people still use strong 1-club systems.

I submit that it depends on where you play. If you play in the Charlotte (NC) Bridge Club, for example, you're better off learning 2/1. In other clubs, you might be better off learning SAYC.

That's a classic (15-17) 1NT opener. Weird.

How can you make a drop dead bid when partner is (essentially) unlimited? A strong suggestion? Sure. Drop dead? That seems a stretch. I like 5♣.

Wouldn't that limit the WJS to the specific auction 1♥ - 2♠? Or are we including minor suit openings (to which Bergen raises don't apply)?

My partner (in this game), while good (and getting better), has an aversion to learning "too many conventions". (He plays with three other partners at various stages of beginner / intermediate and finds it difficult to play vastly different systems with different partners.) So, we don't play Lebensohl (in any form, under any circumstances), and without explicit discussion I wouldn't use 2NT as anything but natural here. And I might not even with explicit discussion (lest he forget and we end up in a silly contract). I agree with your assessment that we should be playing Lebensohl in many cases; alas, it won't happen.

Why is 3♦ forcing?

Looks like a 1♠ opener to me.

By the way, for what it's worth, LHO had the ♦Q.

About 10 minutes too late I thought of that line; it would have worked.

I guessed where to put it; my mistake.

Exactly! (I didn't know what it was called, but I knew that it was cool.) Good analysis. (Would you have finessed the ♥10?) Ps - how do you get that diagram?

It turns out that LHO has the ♦Q; think about what happens when you cash the ♦K. (I was a moron: i didn't finesse the ♥10.)

RHO has ♠K (guarded) and ♥ A J x x

Fixed. (But if I'd gone down with 2 diamond aces, I'd be even angrier with myself.)

My hand: ♠ J ♥ Q 10 x ♦ K J x ♣ A K Q x x x The bidding (I was South): S------W------N------E 1♣ - (P) - 1♠ - (P) 3NT - (P) - 6NT - (Dbl.) P - (P) - P The opening lead is a low ♦, and this dummy appears: ♠ A Q x x x ♥ K x x x ♦ A ♣ J x x So, how do you play 6NT? (Thirty-one IMPs are on the line.)

The problem I see with 3♦ is that 3NT will often be right and partner will have no way to bid it. And it's not as if 3♦ will encourage him to bid 3♠ with some mediocre 4- or 5-card suit and, say, the ♦K or the ♣Q, allowing me to bid 3NT knowing that spades are stopped. I bid 3NT, fully aware that the opponents might complain to the director. My reasoning was that a) my void in spades strongly suggests that partner will have the suit stopped, b) this may be my last chance to show a heart stopper, c) if I show the heart stopper by bidding 2NT, partner likely won't raise to 3NT on most hands where 3NT is cold, d) I didn't think that partner's pause was all that significant over a weak 2♥, and e) whatever partner's pause, it might have been more a lack of judgment than a seriously borderline hand. I made 3NT (with a good guess in clubs, but unable to take the (winning) diamond finesse), and RHO said that he thought that 3NT was clear-cut on my hand. (After the auction I told him that he was welcome to call the director, but he deferred.) In any case, I thought that it was an interesting hand, all the more so because of the pause.

As the lawyers might say: assumes facts not in evidence. I was referring to my partner. My mistake: I thought that you were referring to my partner. Sorry. (Note: my partner also is the thinking sort of person, but probably less sophisticated than yours.)

As the lawyers might say: assumes facts not in evidence.