Statto

2 ♠. Need to keep the ♣ and don't want to give the ♦ position away. What I signal is another matter...

Last round we did not know partner had a good hand. This round we do.

Start by cashing the ♣ hoping to throw 2 ♥ from dummy. If successful we can cross-ruff the red suits. If LHO ruffs the 3rd round of ♣, overruff, draw trumps, then hope to find LHO with at least one ♥ honor, running ♥Q from hand. One ♥ from hand can always go on ♦K.

It isn't necessary that anyone has: HCP round the table could be 11, 11, 5, with one floating somewhere. If anyone has deviated, I think it's most likely to be South, as a 1♠ 'baby-psyche' here is not unheard of. Still, I will proceed with caution with 1NT, as it may not be possible to set up the ♦, and partner may have difficulty making many ♣. It isn't out of the question that we are better off in ♥, but I don't like to bid a 3-card suit when partner might only have 3 of them.

3NT probably has a stopper or something in reserve. X is for penalty and may not have a stopper, or may not have quite the values for 3NT. And yes, vulnerability is a factor. If you agree X for take-out at the 3 level you will want partner to reopen with X for take-out on any suitable hand, otherwise you give opps a free ride, but that has its own inherent risks, particularly when our side is vul.

Not to be confused with GSOH B-)

3♦ is a direction asking forcing bid, not natural. And East does have extras, quite a lot more than 1♠ promised.

1♥ 1♠ 3♣ 3♦ (4SF, extras) 3♠ 4♣ 4♥ 4NT (RKCB) 5♦ (4 key cards) 5♠ (trump queen?) 5NT (yes but no kings) 7NT (punt) or 2NT 6NT should score better than average B-)

Y, that's better than 4♠, particularly as its MPs.

Somebody told me they work better in an Acol context, so we are playing them, though yet to have a hand come up, I guess because the 1♣/1♦ openings are much rarer. But when it does... B-)

1♠ assuming forcing, the hand is too good for anything else without gadgets. 2nd choice 4♥ at both MPs and IMPs.

The ♣KQJ tight are def a negative, but ♠8 with KJ, ♥97 with K, ♦8 with Qxx are reasons to think twice. Interesting thread and thanks Han for the research; there isn't that much between the 2 hands in the OP (½ HCP it seems).

16/17+ HCP means you'll have game on approx half the time.

66 deals satisfy the criteria, South can make 3N in 24 of those cases :( :( :( That sort of suggest to me that this hand is in the invite zone, and pretty close to the punting zone vul at teams if you don't have an invite. B-)

If you assume the audience knows how to play whist, then run through what the bidding means in terms of how many tricks you are hoping to make with a better than average hand? And counting MW points to determine if you have a better than average hand. Then the experts cut in on the commentary saying why some 9 hcp distributional hand is worth an opening bid, or not. Simples. Anyway, they don't do that much on poker on TV now, they assume you already know.

A 5-1 fit at the 1 level usually plays better than a 4-2 fit at the 2 level.

Pass looks obvious now. I know it's supposed to be forcing... but really, with this hand?

Yeah if you want to miss slam. I don't have good tools from here so I'd be more tempted to punt 6♦, but could make a try with 4♠...

You are asking the wrong question. At MPs you choose the actions that will give you the best chance of a better than 50% success rate. It barely matters what the field is doing; that is a fallacy perpetuated by some bridge players who haven't seen the light. I will try X here if predominantly take-out. 2nd choice 4♠. It's close.

Re: bridge on TV. It has been done before. There was a series on BBC2 (UK) in the 1980s featuring Zia Mahmood and 3 other good players of the time playing on a cruise ship, I guess rubber bridge because there were only the 4 of them. With expert commentary it seemed to work well, but doesn't appear to have been experimented with since, though I can't speak for all countries in the world...

Did you specify 2 nines and 2 eights (but no tens) in the simulation? It may make a difference. Thanks for the link :)

If deciding not to pass for penalty, 1NT is too little; 2NT is the bid, if not 3NT.

I'm inclined to agree in the modern age. But I really would like live audio commentaries rather than text. My main point was about getting a wider audience for the game, and encouraging new players. This is what I think should happen in bridge.

Thanks for clarification, I was hoping someone would say that :) However, for some teams knock-out events of some consequence, such as the EBU Gold Cup, the director may only be available at the end of a telephone line, and in these cases I doubt they would consult with others before making a ruling, whilst advising of the right to appeal...