Statto

You mean without. I'd have hoped you'd have corrected it correctly the 2nd time :P B-)

Win, cross to ♠A, cash ♦AK ditching 2 ♥, then run ♣9. Aiming to set up ♣ and can afford one to be ruffed...

The play in 6♠ is awkward, we have to discover the ♣ loser (if there is one) before drawing trumps (because of the potential ♦ loser), which opens us up to a ♣ ruff. Couple that with the possibility of a 4-1 ♠ split, I think I'd rather be in the solid 6♣ with these hands, even at MPs.

F2F conversation does that too, just it's not recorded, unless NewsCorp are following you...

I don't understand North's 4NT bid. Surely they bid 3♥ to agree trumps (forcing) with slam interest after these shenanigans?

Assuming you open 1NT with all 5M-332 in range, it looks too strong with the good spots in ♥, prime cards in other suits, and generally the high cards where you want them to be.

Excellent post. But we never got to the bottom of what one should rebid after a 1♠ response having opened 1♥ on that hand... B-)

No, nothing clear to bid, particularly at red. I'll keep quiet and hope to surprise them with my defence (i.e. cards, not ability to play them).

If this is meant to be a balanced invite rather than GF, then 3NT at any vul or scoring. If it's GF, then 3♠ to show something more about my hand.

The double suggests a sacrifice in ♣ (or a lead, but it's not common the ♣ loser can disappear). Perhaps West should bid 5♣. The hand looks ok for defence (and offence too) with ♦ over South's presumable 2nd round control (K), but I'd rather defend 5♠ than 4♠.

Bridge is a dangerous game :o I've not been here long but had no trouble understanding JL's 1st post. RHM is another poster who I gather is a very good card player B-)

I sympathize, and also empathize. I have also made some bad posts when I've been in an odd mood. Compared with other public forums (e.g. YouTube which is plagued by racist trolls), this one is by far the best. Posters generally seek to educate or be educated, or most probably both. This is the best place to take your bridge to the next level when the local club doesn't have too many experts, or you end up being a so-called expert. I've generally found your posts to be helpful, mostly reinforcing what I already "knew", just as much as reading a book aimed at a large audience would, though I won't always agree with you, and neither will I always agree with published authors (but the point is to make you think). The hands posted here tend to be the marginal decisions where several actions could be "best". Discussion as to why is usually interesting and informative ... much more useful than any book with just one or two points of view (particularly if they avoid discussing the marginal hands) :)

I've skipped through most of this thread which seems to be completely off-topic. I wouldn't overcall 1♠ in the 1st instance as the suit is poor and it has little pre-emptive value. After the double I'd start with a quiet free bid of 2♠ because partner could be balancing light, but if partner makes any further noises I'm going to 4♠, as it looks likely we have a double fit. That 2♣ rebid by RHO has improved my hand. I've no argument against 3♠ now, or even a 1♠ overcall - the ♦ and shape are quite nice.

Not sure how you can criticise this without seeing North's hand. 100:170 is 3:5, so a 63% chance of defeating would be enough, but you overlook the chance of it going 2 off which is gaining 7 IMPs compared to undoubled.

Pass (rod, back, etc). Partner really ought to have a decent suit for this bid 1st seat red v white. A 6-0 fit with the trumps marked may play better than a possible 5-1 fit or a 4-3 fit a level higher, where none of the suits are likely to be splitting kindly. Though I agree it's borderline B-)

All we really know from the play of ♠2 is that partner didn't start with stiff ♠9. We may be able to infer something from restricted choice, also taking note of declarer's play of ♠J, but I'm not sure, and in any case a ♠ continuation looks safe if not killing.

What's described in the OP seems to be Astpro rather than Asptro, in which case advancer would bid the anchor suit (♠) with 4 card support or 3 card support and a singleton, otherwise ask for the 5-card suit. Overcaller isn't likely to be 5-5 in the majors as they would normally have bid 2♣ with this. This doesn't mean that you can't use judgement if you think a 4-3 fit at the 2 level is likely to be better than a probable 5-2 fit at the 3 level. (Swap the ♣ and ♥ and it's an easy 2♥ bid of course.)

Ideally they'll table dummy before doing so. I bid 5♥ next whether pass or X. If NAMYATS were available I'd bid it on this hand, but I'm working on the premise it isn't. Edit: I wouldn't have NAMYATS available, I find the 4m preempts very useful... Edit2: You could make the same argument against Strong ♣ systems, it doesn't mean they are bad methods. On grounds of frequency this won't happen often. But on grounds of frequency if I have to wait until I have 10 solid tricks in hand before opening 2♣, I may as well play 4 weak twos...

I'd go further. The jump bid showing a void is a good way to end up in an unmakeable slam. If there were some way it could be helpful for grand, I don't get it - it doesn't even show which suit the void is in. I don't know where the idea originated from but it rates on a par with spam email. B-)

I'd rebid 2♥ after 1NT. I'd rather play 2♠ in a 5-2 fit than 1NT.

2♦. If in doubt bid the cheapest suit. We obviously can't sit the double with this hand, well I don't think so.

Your basket will usually be empty. "Not buying anything today, sir?" B-) Acol with 3 weak 2s is becoming increasingly popular in the UK. With these type of 9-9.5 playing trick hands with a big suit where you want to discover if partner has the relevant key cards for slam, you start with 2♣. A positive (non-2♦) response doesn't show HCP, as Quacks are likely to be useless, rather it shows a hand with some good control cards, a good suit (2/3 top honours) etc. After 2♣-2♦ with the quoted 9 trick hand, opener will probably sign off in 4♥ as it's unlikely partner will have the cards for slam. With the 9.5 trick hand in the other thread the rebid might be 3♥ setting trumps and inviting cue bidding. Sometimes you'll end up in a phantom game, other times you'll find the slam, but it means you don't have to corrupt and convolute your natural sequences so much. PS. I'd bid 4♣ as 1st round control agreeing ♦ here.

It sometimes happens that opener is the only one with a balanced hand. Responder might bid 4M to make and we may want to sac, or occasionally bid 4M as a preempt when we have a distributional game. I don't really know which is better: swings, or roundabouts? B-)

None of the artificial bids or double really allow responder to pass without some risk when they might otherwise act, as advancer can always pass if weak with 6 cards in the artificial suit, or to convert the double into a penalty. Multi-Landy is better than Cappelletti because it allows for bidding with 5-4 in the majors and never playing in the worse major fit. Although Cappelletti does allow for playing in 2♦ when that is overcaller's suit, you might ask: how often in a competitive auction would we be allowed to play in 2♦? 5-4 is a lot more common than 5-5, and against a weak NT or non-vulnerable you'll probably want to overcall with 5-4 hands more often. Perhaps vulnerable or against a strong NT, you may want the protection of better distributional strength with a 5-5. Asptro works well with the 4(+) card suit being an anchor suit and a relay to the 5(+) card suit when there's no fit there (and since advancer with a singleton or void normally shows 3 card support for the anchor, you won't play in a 5-0 or 5-1 fit when a 4-3 fit was available). I've not played Crunched Cappelletti etc, but I'm wondering whether the effectiveness of these systems is based on the assumption that opps interference will be negligible. For the opposite end of the spectrum, I like (modified) Pinpoint Astro against Strong NT with double showing a single suited hand and 2♠ showing 5+ ♠ and a 4+ (or sometimes good 3) card minor - partner is then often well placed to judge what to do when responder bids, and we get the preemptiveness of ♠ being almost natural. PPA might on the surface of it seem superior to DONT. With both minors it makes sense to bid 2NT, you want to preempt a bit, but 2m showing that minor and an unspecified major doesn't make it easy for the other side to bid against. It loses out on being able to show 5-4 hands effectively, as does PPA somewhat, though you could agree that the major is 5+ and the minor 4+, perhaps depending on vulnerability (but still can't distinguish 5-4 in the majors from 4-5).

There are a couple more Astro variants: Asptro and Astpro (but maybe Modified Astro is one of these). http://www.blakjak.d...k/def_1nt01.htm provides info on about 96 possible defences. The defences which give up a penalty double, such as DONT, I think are only suitable against a strong NT; I wouldn't like to give up a penalty double against a weak NT. If you want people to rate them, perhaps better to ask for a score of 0-10 for those they've played, when the 1NT range is suitable.