PhilKing

If 2♣ is not GF, I double for takeout. If 2♣ is GF I play double as penalties, so I would bid 3♣. If lefty bids 4♠ and partner doubles, I bid 4NT. If partner passes, I bid 4NT.

I think I'll throw some losing clubs away. Thanks, East!

For me: 1♣ - nat or 12-14 1NT - 15-17 1♦ - nat or 18-20

Well, if your way of thinking is correct, clearly he shouldn't, but it is not beyond the realms of possibility that we are playing against a pair who does not share that view. Even if two thirds of the world do it your way, and we don't know which category the opposition fall into, then we are still veering towards placing East with shape more often than West.

Yep. 1NT 18-20 for me.

I think all this is pretty much true, but the trouble is that 6♣ may beget 7♣ from partner when he places us with a hand that wasn't offering 1100 in six.

But his reason was predicated on West having the ♣AQ. And you can always play for the drop :ph34r:. This is another brilliant hand for the underrated Ghestem convention, since the absence of a WJO would cloud the issue nicely.

The hand gets a bit weird if West ruffs the second heart. We are "cold" if we assume he is 3145, but only if we don't misjudge the exact spade position. I'm really not sure about this one - the ♠K line loses big time when East has AJxx, when playing on hearts is almost bound to succeed (East being 4243).

Not so Brilliant - headline writer's dream.

The duality of 4♥ should be the 7222 - ie stiff spade or 7222, else responder is stuck when slam is on opposite a stiff spade but not facing ♦ shortage. Lol ok reread - your way works. Need a coffee.

Can it really be worth it? The only bid that even glances in my direction is the light workload borne by 4♥.

His line involved ruffing THREE diamonds in dummy and two club ruffs in hand. The ♠J onside is for 11 tricks. With the AB modification, it's gone: Trick 1 - win 2 - ♦ruff 3 & 4 - ♥AK 5 - ♣ruff 6 - ♦A 7 - ♦ruff 8 - ♣ruff 9 - ♦ruff

If I knew lefty was about to jump to 4♥, I would bid 2♦. But holding 19 points, I would worry that it could actually be our hand. Does 1NT risk missing game? I don't really think so. My range is 16-19 in this situation, so that seems close enough. Look at it another way - if partner has ♦Q and the ♣AJ, he will invite game and we will most probably make it, as we will opposite a lot of seven counts. However, if pard just has a balanced pile, I would much rather play in 1NT than 2NT, since 1NT will pretty much always have some play, whereas 2NT needs quite a bit more from partner.

If I play the ♣J and it loses to an honour, I still have many ways of making the contract. There are a few variants, but one biggie is pinning ♠Jxx or ♠Txx with East. The ♣A just seems like way too big a position to take.

This leads to one down whenever East has Ax of spades. As the play went, OP was still cold after misguessing trumps.

Well done everyone.

I would bid 4♠ as South opposite a passed partner. As to the play, if West has 5+ diamonds plus 3+s (which I think he must) then declarers line looks fine.

Gunnar's negative double dropped them in it. Partner made a great pressure bid to get them into a no-play contract, but then ...

Bird, Smith, Segal, Hardy, Rexford, King ....

1) Prefer 1NT. 2) Pass.

Rainer is psychic? Apart from the relaxing the 10 point requirement for a Ferdinand Spade, I have one that would change the result a lot - I would not double 1♠ with 12-13 HCP and 2443 or 2434 distribution opposite a passed hand, but that's just me. And my experience is that most do not jump to 4♠ with 5332 shape. Since my initial guess was that both sides had about a 30% chance of game, I want to tweak things until I can justify myself. B-)

I might be being a bit thick but if Josh voted for doubling 4♠, why would he not like the result of the sim?

Most bridge authors have never played in the Bermuda Bowl. :(

Well, it was unanimous for not bidding 4♠. Does that settle the argument?

Only if the poll contained enough of South's peers.