Statto

What gnasher said. Whilst rarely intended maliciously, 'hotlinking' can throttle bandwidth of the source website and is an issue: http://essentialkeys...tlinked-images/

4NT after 3♥? Or 4♦. Whichever shows this shape (i.e. maybe only 4 ♦) better than the other. 5♣ looks like a huge underbid, and 4♥ I think should imply much better ♠ support.

The double wasn't too clever either. I would assume it to be Lightner, now virtually guaranteeing you won't get the ♣ lead you want. Throwing away 24 IMPs and quite probably the match, for a potential gain of ... er 0 IMPs (1530 == 1740). Ok the King drops and the ♣ run but doubler can't know this.

Transfer I presume? B-)

TOTY - http://www.bridgebas...ar-game-at-mps/ It is all about bridge, and its many facets. Thanks, but I was already nominated last year. Plus I haven't followed up in any kind of timely manner on vague promises of further analysis which I intend to do at some point...

Do opps have a reading list attached to their CC? B-)

Easy 2♠. WTP? B-)

2♦ still looks light for the OP system, though I did consider it at some length. Red was amongst the deciding factors for me.

Opponents' hands can easily be playable in 2 spots (♠ and ♣)?

X if we are playing Leb.

I'm told that a take-out X is better with a singleton than a void, but I think I'd choose it with both hands at these colours, at both forms of scoring.

About 8/9 HCP I would have thought. For me 5♠ asks for slam with 2nd round ♥ control. I'm not sure it's enough though, so I prefer 4♥ to show a better hand than I would have bid 4♠ with.

What would you do if partner showed two aces? What if you open 4NT and partner shows ♠A with 5♠, or ♣A with 6♣ - assuming those are the responses? 4NT seems to only gain over 6♦ when partner has no aces. Though it's nice and pre-emptive against vul opps so that may be enough of a gain. They might also bid or double to give us extra bids...

♦4. We have potential entries to run the suit and only need one of them if declarer happens to have Axx opposite Jx.

If 11 balanced with 3-card support then you either opened 1NT, or didn't open.

That's actually why I don't want to open it 4♠, but then, if it makes a difference, I don't normally play NAMYATS. Good question. I didn't ask because with this hand I think I'd do the same in all of the 1st 3 seats, and assumed the OP wasn't asking about 4th seat, but for other hands it will be a factor.

It's too good for a immediate ♠ overcall for me, so I start with X intending to bid ♠ next to show a hand of this quality. Agree with passing the X I think, though at these colours 2NT is tempting.

3♠ unless red v white then 2♠. It looks like a pre-empt, doesn't look like a 4♠, but doesn't have enough playing strength due to lack of intermediates in ♠ for 3♠ r/w, whilst also having a little defence.

Interesting conundrum. I think it's best to start with the King. If lefty wins with the Ace, play small and cover whatever lefty plays if possible. If righty wins with the Ace, or it doesn't appear, duck a round next. I think this works in all cases where we have a chance.

Can't see why we wouldn't end up in 5♦ had North began as indicated. If 5♦ was not making and it was ruled to 3♦+1, I wouldn't complain, but it appears there has been insufficient redress for the damaged side here - assuming 5♦ was making with a reasonable line.

This logic is wrong. We have been here before. See http://www.bridgebas...-results-in-800 and linked topic from that thread. The reason it probably produces good results is that opps don't expect you to have quite the hand you have and overcompete, while you wait to pass partner's competitive X.

After we X, West pulls to 2♥ and I guess we bid 3♦ now for the same end result.

Partner didn't act, and the ♠ suit is a bit rubbish. I voted pass as 1st instinct, but now I want to X which is take-out. Oh well, too late now. The intermediates and prime cards in this hand are pretty good; I would have opened 1♠ and not have this problem.

But beware of occupying spaces in opponents' hands when you shouldn't. For example, you have AQxx in a suit opposite Kxx. When you have played 2 rounds in the suit, free spaces suggest it is now more likely to split 3-3 than 4-2. But that is not the case. You have eliminated 6-0 and 5-1 splits, and that's it. It's still more likely to be breaking 4-2, absent other information. You can read nothing more into the fact that opps have followed to 2 rounds. On every 4-2 split they would have done that anyway, and you have eliminated none of them.

Partner's range is still quite wide, and you have plenty of bidding space. Why would you ever want to bid 4NT here, whatever it means?