PhilKing

With statistics, one should always handle with care. In a different section, one can see the results from real play versus double dummy. When 6NT was reached it made 327 times out of 445, but on a double dummy basis, 6NT made 358 times. That represents a colossal advantage (over 9%) for DD over the actual results. And that possibly understates it, since it will include a lot of 12 on top 34 counts as well as touch and go 32s where playing DD will be at a premium.

Je suis Charlie.

I would raise 2♥ to three on the North hand. It's true that I don't have any real extras, but I have great controls, a good fit, and no wasted cards in diamonds. I don't particularly blame South for not doing more, since the hands may not be fitting well at all.

You will be OK as long as you don't run in to many forum regs. Also,the lower down in any field you get, the greater the chance they will call the director for no reason whatsoever.

Heart ruff at trick 2 is standard.

8NT

I misread this one badly by crediting partner with the spade jack in my initial answer. :(

Most BBO "experts" would not find the safe line. It's not OP's fault the majority on the forum are real experts! B-)

I might be being a bit thick, but when the opponents stop in part score and we push them into game, I don't set a premium upon stopping overtricks.

I am not upgrading. I would also bid 3♦ with some mininum 5-4 hands as well as some slightly better hands, so we might miss the odd decent game. One could make a case for a jump to 4♦ being invitational, but I think it is more practical to play it as forcing.

I just win the second spade and play the diamond nine. If partner has the diamond ace without the queen, he will know the only chance is a third spade. Maybe partner's hand is AQJTxx x ATxx Kx, giving declarer xxx AKQJT KQx xx. Declarer bid 4♥ as a sacrifice, hoping we would not double. Unblocking is clearly potty, since pard can have seven spades and the ♦AQ.

On the first hand, I can't even comprehend the objections to 3♦. You say the double is "obviously more minor-oriented than in the other thread". As far as I am concerned, partner is showing the minors, or at the least, a hand that can handle a bid of 3m (eg a 3334 11 count). If partner has only one minor and a doubleton spade we are still OK, since at the very worst he should have a 2335 ten count. In the thread where we opened 1♣ and partner doubled spades, he is even implying diamonds, so it's not surprising that most believe we should not just trot out a high bid in diamonds without actually having a good hand. If we rebid 2♠, we are liable to end in some pretty ridiculous part scores when partner is 1255 or 1354. On the second hand, I simply do not agree that once I have passed, I have made a decision not to get involved at the three level. I don't see the logic - doubling rates to be a huge winner compared to pass. I can take or leave a 1♥ opening - I might open depending on how I feel, but that has no real bearing on whether I bid now. In fact, I am rather happy about it, since now partner will not get carried away.

Auction looks completely normal.

At imps it's an easy double as opposed to a WTP double. ;)

On the first hand I bid 3♦. The reason is, that if partner, has a typical minimum negative double, I want to play in, er, 3♦. B-) On the second, since it's matchpoints, it's a WTP double.

I think agua is right.

Yep to all.

The ♣7 is the key card. Just run the spades and diamonds. On the fifth diamond, West has to keep three clubs, otherwise we can establish the suit, so both West and dummy throw a heart. On the sixth diamond, West also has to throw a heart. Now we can pitch a club from dummy and end play East with two rounds of hearts. It looks like a heart or club lead would beat it.

This is just typical confusion under interrogation. An experienced E/W should never have even taken it this far, of course.

I don't think you would get much support for bidding 5♦ on KQxxx KQxxxx - xx, but the construction is entirely implausible. Ask yourself this: when the bidding goes 2♦-pass-4♦ it is WAY more likely I actually a lot of high cards than a weak 6-5 of some ilk. Now imagine partner is looking at the first hand you quote: let's call it Axxxx xxx xxx Kx. Form his point of view, the chances that you hold a weak 65 or 66 that wants to add an extra level to get to the right strain are zero, since the raise 4♦ would otherwise make no sense (since it means they have made a preemptive raise to partscore when they are on the club finesse for slam). Call me old-fashioned, but when I cue my way to the five level when I could try and play in four, I don't have an aceless ten count, so with two useful cards, partner should certainly drive slam, and should explore grand on the way.

I don't think it is normal to remove the double - I was stating why I thought this particular North did so, since I do not believe it was based on the UI.

I must be being a bit thick but I do not understand what you are saying (but that maybe do to the partial quotation missing the point).

There are two ways that the suit can break 3-1. Anyway, by the time you have to decided what to do with this amazing stat, other things will change. For instance, say you are missing the queen and the first player follows small twice, you can eliminate all holdings except Qxx onside and Qx offside.

Unless one plays reverse hesitations, South's bit suggests that he has neither a takeout double nor a two-suiter. Since that makes pass more likely to be a winning option, pass is call suggested by the BIT. As it happens, South held neither a strong balanced hand nor a slightly off-shape double - he had a distributional two-suiter. But it would be absurd to hang North for making a bid that happened to work out well - it's not as if he worked that out from the hesitation, subconsciously or otherwise. He just took out a takeout double because that is what he thinks he is supposed to do.

I'm not sure that's the whole point - when RHO does not pause for sufficient time over the stop, that affects our thinking rhythm, so they can't then call a foul.