PhilKing

It's a throw-away remark and I don't see that it signifies anything in particular. Put it this way - you don't ask to see the cards in order to to see if anyone has drawn a beard on the picture cards. You do so in order to see the pips. There is nothing sinister about it.

Depends who you consider an expert. B-) FWIW, I don't know anyone who plays Drury AND constructive reasons. Anyway, East has a 4♥ bid even if he has accidentally shown a constructive raise.

Just to clarify the facts: had the other players turned over their cards without giving West a chance to see trick one properly? (I know he can infer dummy's quitted card was the two, but it's the principle). I don't think asking to see the quitted cards when you are the only one with a card face up can be deemed an offence of any kind virtually ever. Oh, and the rationale for knowingly giving a wrong ruling is incredibly weak.

Anyone who thinks it does is thinking about the game in the wrong way. Anyway, I double, but 2♠ is also OK. I would not double on this shape if I lacked aces, but with decent defence it is unlikely to work out too badly. Partner's average number of clubs is about 5.5, and who knows? - perhaps they are good ones. Anyway -180 is not the end of the world.

I might be being a bit thick, but we have twelve tricks on normal breaks, and can even cater for 4-1 trumps if they hold diamond length as well.

See above.

The other reason (other than that described by MickyB) is that your responding strategy varies even without competition. Over of a minor showing a minimum balanced hand or natural, our best strategy is to go quietly with balanced rubbish, but opposite the natural or strong balanced range, we can profitably look for a better spot. Playing split range spoils this. I am slighty deranged about this one, since my partner has responded on sub-minimum balanced trash three times and we have gone for 500, 800 and 800. passing would have escaped a penalty each time.

Silly may be a tad strong - it is only because some of us play split ranges that we are able to put many awkward hands through a transfer completion. Anyway, this is only number three on my list of why split ranges balanced hands within a 1♣ opening is a bad idea.

See above ...

Or prehaps DD simulations give a false impression of a hands of a hand's practical worth.

I think it is correct to open 1♦. The main point is that slam is more likely to be cold in diamonds than spades (imagine partner holding xx in spades and Jx or even 9x in diamonds), and this gives me maximum room to explore the possibilities. 1♠ is more likely to get passed out and 2♣ will lead to complications if I rebid 3♦. If I open 2♣ and rebid 2♠ I will be emphasing the wrong suit, since I do not want preference at the six level.

This thread reminds of some of infamous threads on the Two+Two forums - and not in a good way. I'm out!

At the point we bid 3♠, hearts had not been agreed, so redouble should be an offer to play a 4-3 fit (this is my meta agreement for these situations and costs exactly nothing). That being said, almost no partnerships are on entirely firm ground here, so I would expect partner bid 4♥ either because he wanted to clarify the situation (although 4♣ would do that as well) or because he assumed 3NT was the end of any slam ambitions and was just offering choice, in which case cueing would be fatuous. As bid, I am just driving to slam - the constructions where partner has no club control do not stack up. He made a slam try opposite a passed hand, so unless he has made a mistake, slam should be excellent with the spade king onside.

I draw trumps. This avoids some complications involving ruffing the third club high and finding trumps breaking badly, but my primary reason is that it will tell me the best way to tackle clubs. For instance, if West shows up with four trumps I take the ruffing finesse on the third round, and if East has four trumps, the club finesse may be my best bet (it is close, I think, but I will cross that bridge when I come to it). I don't know what my chances of succes are, but they are well above 50%.

How many paying members do you have?

Is that a bad thing?

You can switch things round and play a direct 2NT response as natural.

Kerching.

When we are vulnerable, or any time versus against a non-strong NT, I like to play 2♦ as a mild game try or better opposite our Landy 2♣. This loses some accuracy on partscores, but I think is an overall gain, and makes this hand a "no brainer". If partner has a fit and two cover cards or more (which is probably enough for us to drive game), he bids 2♦ - and we still get to stop in (the wrong :huh: ) 2M when either of us has dreck.

I would only switch if partner made a slow lead. :unsure:

You should add "post more on the BBO forum" to you list imo.

Best is: 3♠ = forcing (consistent with any distributional non-fitting hand - even a 6-6) 4♣/♦ = cues for hearts A few other schemes have been suggested, but they were mostly Heath-Robinson gadgets aimed at dealing (badly) with a one-off situation.

This is not true, unless you count Helgemo/Helness as intermediates.

Misinformation does not mean there was damage.

Presumably that means about half the field. ;)