Statto

I'd like to know the vul and scoring, but probably 1NT > 2♠ > Pass.

Ruff some ♣s, set up some ♠s. I hope we don't go more than 1 off and that 5♣ is making, as 6♣ looks adventurous...

Agree. Partner has strongly suggested 3NT as the final contract. We have very little extra, and no reason to disagree with partner's assertion.

As it's MPs I would be tempted to try 2♥. If partner can then bid 2NT I would be happy to venture 3NT. If not, then 2♥ on a Moysian will probably score better then 3♣, which could also be a Moysian. If IMPs/Teams I would bid 3♣, which I think is a better statement of the hand, and may lead to a thin game. That it took a while for anyone to answer this thread I think shows what a poser it is B-)

I think you are all being a bit harsh. The point behind the post was valid - you don't open at the 2/3 level in 4th seat with the same hands as in other seats B-) However, I tend to agree with the silly upvoting point. Lurpoa, do you realize that the number of dots appearing against the poster reflects the number of posts they've made, not their reputation.

I would have bid 2♣ first time, which I think is better for finding 5-3 fits than X which tends to better at finding 4-4 fits.

I don't know which school of thought I belong to, but 4♠ seems to be the practical bid, as 3♠ may risk partner passing and missing a vuln game...

With only one major, why not just bid it? Unless you want it to promise 5 now... (not saying that isn't workable B-)).

Then we bid 4♠ and we have shown a few useful things.

2NT reply to 1M as balanced and GF (as it is in reply to 1m in SAYC), 2 or possibly only 1 card in support of said major (or perhaps 3 in a 4333) seems a reasonable approach to me, particularly at MPs. No, I haven't misread. (PS. I wouldn't play it due to better uses for 2NT such as good raise or better, but that's beside the point.)

Interesting. I see I am the only one besides the OP opting for the 4♥ bid to show a minimum hand with little slam interest, though I do see it as borderline. But perhaps that's because for me 2♥ is not necessarily a fit jump; it could be a strong single-suiter with no ♣ fit, or even possibly a very strong balanced hand. And short of the trump support and two bullets, with a balanced hand I have little more than the opening bid promised (assuming none of the spots are 8s or 9s). Criticism invited... (After 5♣, I will cue the ♠.)

Didn't our 2♥ (UCB?) followed by 5♠ show that? I pass now, which I think is forcing. I'd probably like to defend 6♦X, but I think partner will be better placed to make the final decision, as I suspect ♠A is useless in defence. You might have better agreements for this situation...

Clear 2♠. After a 2NT enquiry (of whatever kind) we bid 3NT to show a solid suit. I am surprised some want to open this 1♠...

Bridgehands appears to be wrong. This line loses with KJx(x) offside (the other way), as well as when RHO has a stiff King.

Cash ♥A. This is a book position as they say in chess. Small to ♥A is psychologically better, but you might not be bothered to do that if you don't have an entry without risking a ruff. Fails when KJx(x) is offside, but you need a suspicion of that to play for it.

Too true. And applies to reviewing any hand where you did not do so well. I recommend also a healthy degree of reviewing hands where you did do well, not just to give yourself a pat on the back, but also to remind yourself why you play the methods you do...

We did, and I am still proud that we did. Some may disagree and have little pride in that fact, but they would be misguided IMAO. The more common term that Brits use for the 'rest of Europe' is 'the continent', with standard adjective etc derivatives such as 'continental Europe'. At least those derivatives have survived since 2008. But yeah, there seems to be a feeling that we are part of Europe, but only partially, perhaps in a part-score like 2♠. :rolleyes:

I wanted to quickly pull up the thread about the EBU NGS. But apparently I can't because search terms must contain at least 4 letters, ruling out both EBU and NGS. Can you fix this, or suggest what I should do otherwise to solve this problem?

Partly - our hand is not well suited to defence. And even if we defeat 2♦X by 1 trick, it will score poorly if 2♠ was making. Also because X feels more like a 5314 shape than 6214. And X may lead to 3♣ which might not score as well as 2♠. If I'm going to pull 2♥ to 2♠, and doing so doesn't imply a better hand, then all the double does is give us the opportunity to defend 2♦X or play in 3♣, which on balance I think probably won't score as well as 2♠. I have a 6th ♠ and it's a reasonable suit, so I'll show it. Opps may have a ♥ fit. Doubling allows them to find it at the 2 level, though I know either opp can X to imply ♥. Of course opps may compete over 2♠. If they compete to 3♦, partner can double for penalty if a good ♦ holding was the reason for the initial pass. I'd rather defend 3♦X than 2♦X B-)

LTC should not come into effect until you have found a fit. The opening hand has about 8 playing tricks, and doesn't know where any additional tricks may lie. The fact that it has only 3 losers is immaterial. Do you really count your 4th card in a suit as a winner?

Yup, the mini-Jacoby-2NT I mentioned earlier. Seems to be increasingly popular in the UK...

South could be better for the original pass. North could be a lot worse for the X. But it's close. Pre-empts work.

Are we not suggesting better ♥ if we X on the 2nd round of the 2nd hand?

Sell them some magic beans, in exchange for a cow.

Voted pass on hand 1, but I think I prefer a weak 2♦ if available.