SteveMoe

The GCC does not prohibit 2-level preempts aka Weak 2's. The Alert Chart specifically allows them. See: http://web2.acbl.org/documentLibrary/play/AlertChart.pdf for explicit permission to use without alert. The regulations are split among several documents. Not that the GCC does not mention opening 3-level preempts either and they are not prohibited.

PASS^2

Responder's 4♦ denies ♠ support. We lack ♦ support. 4N might have play but the best way to get there is if partner has a ♣ stop (and perhaps a secondary ♥ stop). 4♥, risking that partner knows 4NT is in the picture and preferable to 5♦. One ask, two show.

4♣ is an easy bid, showing 9+ HCP and 5+ ♣ cards. However it makes finding a 4-4 major suit fit a bit of a trial. An off-shape double showing 8+ and no biddable 5-card suit (bear with me) allows opener to mention a 4-card major in response. Imagine: 1♣ - (3♦) - X - (P) 3♥ - (P) - 3♠ - (P) 4♠ - (P) - 5♣ - (P) 5♦ - (P) - 5♠ - (P) 5N - (P) - 6♣ - (P) 6N At lower levels of interference, any biddable 5-card suit is worth mentioning. However holding 4M & 5m and slam values and having to bid m at the 4-level, it can often be better to require the minor freebid be a 6-bagger. The difference between double and cue bid at this level is the cue bid promises 3 places to play, the double only two.

Pass

4♣ GF natural, then 5N (Pick a Slam) over 5♣ by opener. (Does opener rebid 5♦ over 5♣ here as Choice of Major?) If opener rebids 6♥, we can offer 6♠ en route to 6N. The absence of a 5♦ call by opener (whether control or majors) suggests 6N is best.

A good argument for 1M - 3m to be invitational (and non-fitting). Think 10 to 12 minus and 0-2 M cards. Better use than preempt (wrong sides hands). Unencumbers forcing NT. Absent that tool, 2♦ looks better than 1N for reasons stated upthread.

IIRC, some (experts) use 4NT to differentiate a sacrifice attempt from a forward going bid at the 5 level. It is entirely possible that 4N here is a weak raise to 5♥ while any other bid would be strong and forward going. FWIW, this is a hand worthy of 4♥ much sooner in the auction.

Pass, adding if LHO bids ♠ and RHO rebids 1NT (or even 2♥) for example (partner passing), a double by you is now takeout of ♠ and shows an opening hand or better with ♥ cards. If the auction goes LHO 2♥ - P - (P), you can consider a 2N balance. Not only good to know passing is ok with this hand, it helps to know what your options are later in the auction.

1) Revised: Balance of Power. We own the hand. aka DSIP: Do something intelligent partner, knowing I cannot raise ♥. 2) Takeout. Expecting 6331 or 6430 shape and great power. 3) Penalty. Operating on the assumption that partner's cue bid creates a force, double here needs no other meaning.

Caitlynne, try http://web.mit.edu/mitdlbc/www/articles/4-4-4-1_article.pdf there a few small adds to consider. References abound. See p. 7 of 14 for the defense discussion.

Ugly for sure. But not making the first move, now THAT's REALLY UGLY.

Double then bid 4♠ if partner passes. If partner bids, consider slam.

Preempt.

Milton Work points are useful for NT and opening bids. Even there, adjustments for length and strength-within-length apply. After the first bid in a suit contract, the thinking goes to shape (working strength) and tricks pretty quickly. Rubens "In and Out" valuation applies. Generally use A=4.5 K=3, Q= 1.5, J=0.75, 10=0.5 when hand is skewed to AKs or QJs.

Thanks for the additional detail. Can you recall the opening lead? It is possible on this hand that RHO is 3=3=4=3. You might be able to get a partial count of the hand by playing off side suits and ruffing ♠s. Likewise if LHO has ♠AK and ♣K, they wont have the ♦Q.

2♣ NMF then 3♠ INV

Two reactions then an answer: 1) the context of the entire hand is always important - so is the bidding. 2) the "x's" matter - holding 9's or 8's have an impact on the odds. Try http://www.rpbridge.net/cgi-bin/xcc1.pl Richard's site is highly manual but helps anyone visualize the reasons why a given line of play is best. Taking three strategies: Play AK:------------------53.13% - catches 2-2(40.7%) and q-xxx (12.44%) Play A then finesse: 51.43% (loses to qxxx-void (4.78) but gains xxx-Q (6.22%)). Finesse:------------------45.22% (50%? - only if West does not cover from Q987). Since we assume they hold 9 and 8, the Q987 - void case loses one trick that you were never going to win). The fourth strategy (Play A then lead small toward KJxxx) allows for the case where LHO plays xx. Now going up with the K is better (original probability Qxx-x 18.65% and xx-xQ as 20.35%). Notice that 20.35%/(18.65+20.35) = 52.17% - exactly what vacant spaces would predict (after LHO plays the second x, the odds are 12/23 that the Q is with RHO. You know 2 of LHO's cards leaving 11 spaces - and 1 of RHO's cards leaving 12 spaces. 12/23 = 0.5217).

6♠ for ODR reasons. Agree that 4♠ earlier was a better description but things are as they are. For me, a pass here shows 1st round ♦ control (void).

With a weak doubleton ♠ playing 2♣ as GF means we can rebid 2N when strength is evenly distributed in a balanced hand, and 2M when weak in the other. Yes, suggesting an unbalanced hand is one way, so is a NT stopper search and ♥ fit. NOTE: By analogy, this discussion is similar to whether the default rebid for opener after 1M-2m is 2N or 2M. Some prefer 2N for all balanced hands while others want 2N to mean values in the unbids.

Happy to go slow owning the two top ranking suits. Pass.

Playing 2/1 I'd expect an auction similar to this: 1♦ - 2♣GF 2♥ - 3♣ 3♠(punt) - 3N (I've got ♠ stopped] 4♣Minorwood - 4N(2 Keys with Q) 6♣/NT

Lead a ♠. Partner's double simply says that s/he expects to beat this contract given their hand and our bidding. Do we really think they can make 9 tricks without touching ♦ on this bidding?

My pass over 6♠ shows first round control :)

I'll try the ♠8 at trick 1. Could be the 4th trick in that suit. If not, win and push a low ♣ toward dummy. Expect to win this. Now ♥Q should allow me to push one control out of West's hand. If right, then work on ♣ then ♦ (once) then ♥ once then ♦ again. Or something roughly similar.