nullve

It's certainly legal to open 1♥ with this hand almost everywhere, but that doesn't mean that the 1♥ opening NS were playing had a non-HUM meaning like "8-15, 4+ H, possible canapé". Maybe it showed "0-10, any shape", which is HUM.

Yes. Ok, I realise it sounded like I wanted to find out everything about the club suit before playing on diamonds, but that wasn't the idea. Sorry. The idea was rather that even partial information about the club suit, e.g. about who has the K, might be useful when handling the diamond suit. For instance, suppose the ♣Q/J is not covered. Then it makes sense to switch to a "diamonds first" line of the kind that others have suggested, except that one's handling of the diamond suit might be influenced by whether RHO follows suit. And suppose the ♣Q/J is covered, which seems to be the critical variaton for my line. Then it might be relevant whether i) RHO shows out (indicating diamond length) ii) RHO follows suit with the 8,9 or T (Grosvenor from ♣T98x, so suggesting a (32) or 41 club break and therefore diamond length with RHO rather than with LHO). iii) RHO follows suit with the only spot below the 8 (not revealing much about how clubs break, except that RHO might have chosen to Grosvenor with T98x) I'm not sure what's best in each case (and I must admit I haven't thought much about it), but I can think of two natural sublines: 1) [cases i) and ii) primarily] Play the ♦J from dummy at trick 4, both with a view to finessing diamonds twice and as a smothering play against LHO, since RHO is the opp most likely to have diamond length. But if RHO covers and the 8 or T doesn't appear from LHO, it might be best to duck a club at trick 5 in ii) or iii). 2) [cases ii) and iii only] Play a diamond towards the Q, intending to duck a club if it holds the trick. Then if clubs are (32), I'm home. If clubs are 14, East will again be squeezed in the minor suits provided he also has the ♦K (seems likely).

I stick my head in ... Pass! Seems like East bid 4♥ on "points", so I have no reason to expect more than 16-17 total trumps.

1N is how many points and hearts?

Yes, unless losing a club trick also means that my line is losing. The cases where I "lose": a) LHO has the stiff ♣K b) RHO has the stiff ♣K c) RHO has ♣Kxxx(x) In all cases we can assume that the ♦K is onside, or else all realistic lines will fail. But then a) and c) aren't really bad for me at all, as RHO will eventualy be squeezed in the minor suits. And b) isn't necessarily that bad for me either, since on many layouts it will be possible to get 3 diamond tricks without letting opps in. That might actually be the most likely outcome, as RHO not only is favourite to have diamond length but per hypothesis also has the ♦K.

Why not take the club finesse at trick 3 (after cashing the ♥A and seeing that both opps follow)? The point is: * If there are 4 diamond tricks available, taking the club finesse can never cost the contract. * If there are at most 3 diamond tricks available, we'll need to take the club finesse at some point anyway. * The number of diamond tricks we need depends on how the club suit behaves. (There are 4 possibilites to consider, in terms of who has the ♣K and whether clubs split (32).)

Thanks, Amonias. It looks like I misread as ,i.e. with the red part omitted.

Except when Opener has 4351 (or 4360*), Responder has a weak hand with 5 H, and the bidding goes 2♣-2♦; 3♠. I can see two obvious solutions to this problem: 1) Treat 4351 as balanced. 2) Let 2♣-2♦; 3N = 4351, NF. But maybe there's a standard solution already. * With this shape Opener can probably afford to follow up with 4♥ over 2♣-2♦; 3♠-3N.

nullve 42 - cherdano 50 (cherdano +8): http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:d17e293b.83c9.11e6.8e99.0cc47a39aeb4-1474881350&u=nullve

Reality check: dealer west predeal south SAQ9853, HQT4, DAQ74 west1N = hcp(west)>11 && hcp(west)<15 && shape(west, any 4333 + any 4432 + any 5332) northP = hcp(north)<13 eastP = hcp(east)<12 && spades(east)<5 && hearts(east)<5 condition west1N && northP && eastP

Maybe you're right. Then how about 3♠ (invitational?) or 2N followed by 3♠ (once upon a time suggesting a strong 2-suiter with spades)? This kind of fallacy (sorry!) is a meme here on BBF. Someday someone might say: "I think finessing with xxxxx in hand opposite AQJxx in dummy will be a loser. Try giving RHO the stiff king and see how it does."

I would have doubled 1N as South. Although the double may nominally be for penalties, it's real purpose to put an upper limit on other calls. Or maybe I'm just out of touch with what people play these days. Anyway, a 2♠ overcall in 4th seat that can be anything from 8 hcp and 5341 to 14 hcp and 6340, looks unplayable to me.

1N. But people tend to get away with doubling although they seem to be unprepared for a 1N or 2♦ response.

nullve 22 - Stephen Tu 5 (nullve +17): http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:afd173bc.828c.11e6.8e99.0cc47a39aeb4-1474745143&u=nullve

Reminds me of this recent thread.

When I experimented with this (well, I've toyed around with it quite a lot the last couple of days, too) the idea was to play a 14-16 NT, yes. But 17-19 bal. was still in 1m. (Actually 1♣.) It's my impression, too, that seat matters a lot and that the shapewise unrestricted Micro-Mexican is just bad in 3rd and 4th seat, and significantly worse in 2nd seat than in 1st. It would certainly help if the opening guaranteed 3+ C, as in the version mentioned by Kungsgeten (where 2♣ = 9-11 bal., 3+ C), since Responder will often have to pass with 4 clubs. But it might be interesting to compare with classical Precision's 2♣ opening, showing 6+ C or 5C4M. Here Responder will often have to pass with 0-1 C, knowing that this can lead to a 5-1 or 5-0 C fit instead of an 8c+ M fit. So if one focuses just on what can go wrong, classical Precision 2♣ certainly looks unplayable, too. I've actually tried your medum-Mexican (my Mini-Mexican) 2♣, and my impression is that one can even play Bocchi-style responses to it. And I agree that your proposed scheme is probably superior in 3rd and 4th seat, maybe also in 2nd seat.

Ditto.

No.

Something like P = 5+ C or "gamble"1 , weak 2♦ = 5+ M, weak / GF hand types unsuitable for 3♥+ 2♥ = 4-S4H1 or 4S5H, weak, 2♠ = 4S3-H1, weak, 2N = 3-S3-H5-D4-C1, weak, 3♣ = to play2 3♦ = to play 3♥ = ? 3♠ = Puppet to 3N3 3N = to play 4m = South African Texas 4M = to play, both because I can't think of a better scheme when Responder is weak, but also be because it allows fancy continuations like 2♣-2♦; ?: 2♥ = 2 H or 3+S3H [can't afford to superaccept hearts] ...P = 5+ H, weak ...2♠ = 5+ S, weak ...2N = relay, slam interest [usually bal.?] ......3♣ = 3- S, but not 4m333 .........3♦ = relay ............3♥ = 3244 or 22(54) ...............3♠ = relay ..................3N = 3244 ..................4♣ = 2245 ..................4♦ = 2254 ............3♠ = 3S5C(32) ............3N = 3S5D(32) ......3♦ = 4S4+D .........3♥ = relay ............3♠ = 4243 ............3N = 4342 ............4♣ = 2452 ......3♥ = 3H(433) .........3♠ = relay ............3N = 3334 ............4♣ = 3343 ............4♦ = 4333 ......3♠ = 4234 ......3N = 4324 ......4♣ = 4225 ...(...) 2♠ = 3-S4+H or 2S3H [can probably afford to superaccept hearts, but not spades] ...P = 5+ S, weak ...2N = relay, slam interest [usually bal.?] ......3♣ = 2S3H .........3♦ = relay ............3♥ = 2344 ............3♠ = 2335 ............3N = 2353 ......3♦ = 4H4+D .........3♥ = relay ............3♠ = 2443 ............3N = 3442 ............4♣ = 2452 ......3♥ = 3433 ......3♠ = 2434 ......3N = 3424 ......4♣ = 2425 ...(...) ...3♥ = 5+ H, weak ...(...) 2N: idle 3♣ = 4423 [can afford to superaccept both major suits] 4♦ = 4432 [can afford to superaccept both major suits], assuming 2♣ denies 5M(332), when Responder is very strong. 1 Respomder will also pass with either with very weak hand (when opps are likely to have game) or with 4C333/4C4O(32)/5D4C when 2N is unlikely to make] 2 At first I thought 3♣ should be (Puppet?) Stayman, because I forgot that the "multi" 2♦ response already doubles as a kind of Stayman. 3 It occured to me today that this must be useful. I haven't given it huge amounts of thought, but one obvious way in a standardish 2/1 context involves * 1m-1x; 1M = 4+ M, unbal. * 1m-1x; 1N = 17-19 bal. * 1m-1x; 2N = Bridge World Death Hand * 1m-3m = preemptive, often with less support than in standard 2/1 (since 1m promises 5+ m or 4m(441) unless 17-19 bal.) * 1m-(1x)-2m = 3(4) m (with 8c+ m fit almost guaranteed unliess Opener has 17-19 bal.) * 1m-(2x)-3m = 3+ m (with 8c+ m fit almost guaranteed unless Opener has 17-19 bal.) I'm not sure this is compensation enough even after finding out what to do with standard 2♣ opening hands, but it should be a good start.

Five-six years ago, I experimented with a Mexican-style 2m opening with a weak NT range. Naturally, I started to think of the opening as "Micro-Mexican", carefully reserving "Mini-Mexican" for Mexican-style 2m openings with a medium NT range. Then a couple of years ago I was told that none other than Paul Marston (or was it Stephen Burgess?) had been toying with this type of opening recently. He even had a hilarious name for it --- something with "transfer", iirc. And a while ago I ran across this thread, http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/70187-what-would-your-two-level-openings-be/ where antonylee mentions a 2♣ opening showing 8-11 bal. w/ 4+ C, and then Mbodell a 2♣ opening showing just 9-11 bal. So apparently the basic idea wasn't crazy enough to have occured to me or Marston (Burgess?) alone. For the sake of discussion, a Micro-Mexican 2m opening (or whatever you want to call it) will cover a subset of the hands covered by either a Weak 1N or a Kamikaze 1N opening. However, when I experimented with the opening, my preferred range was 11-13 because * the lower limit of 11 points meant the opening was not a BSC; * it fit well into the 2/1-like framework with 14-16 NT I used; * the 3-point range was not wider than that I could be handle it with something analogous to the pass-or-bash style that I used (and still use) after a 1N opening. And since I wanted to rid my 1m openings of all balanced minimum hands, I put no further restrictions on shape other than tentatively disallowing 5M(332). It would be fun to hear what experience others have with this type of opening. Other comments are also welcome, but feel free to spend 5+ minutes at a bidding table (bidding all 4 hands) to get a feel for the opening before commenting on how bad it is. Your instinct should obviously be that it sucks, but vulnerability, seat and whether the opening is 2♣ or 2♦ can make a huge difference. So even if Micro-Mexican 2♦ in 4th seat V vs. NV may be objectively horrible, that doesn't mean that Micro-Mexican 2♣ in 1st seat NV vs. V is nearly as bad.

I'll play.

If I do A, something terrible might happen to me. I do A. Therefore, I deserve that something terrible happens to me.

There appears to be 17-18 total trumps, so I think pass was the right LoTT decision.

I'm trying to figure out what SCOR-SCOR might look like over 1♠-2♣(GF relay). Maybe 2♦ = 5S4+D 2♥ = 5S4+H 2♠ = 6 or 8 S, denies 4+ H (H is same rank as S) ...2N = relay ......2nd part of SCOR-SCOR: ......3♣ = 4+ C ......3♦ = 4+ D ......3N = 8 S, 1-suited ......other = 6 S, 1-suited? 2N = 7 S ...3♣ = relay ......3♦ = 4+ D ......3♥ = 4+ H ......4♣ = 4+ C ......other = 1-suited? 3♣ = 5S4+C 3♦ = ? 3♥ = 6S4+H or 8S4+H1 + lots of relays? 1 "With 6 card suit you show your 5+ card Basic suit, then you show your side suits by 2nd part of scor-SCOR, thus informing your partner that you have 6 or 8 card suit, then you will show your 2nd longest suit naturally, revealing your exact shape, BUT if your side suits are RANK, you must immediately bid your 2nd longest suit by jump, despite that you will bid over the 6th step of SCOR-SCOR Convention! In this case, from 6th step and up, you will enter the Extended SCOR."

3♥ over 3♦, and then if Opener rebids 3♠ or 3N, maybe (...) 4♣ = catchall, slammish ...4♦ = 2-S7+D ......4♥ = 5+ H, slammish ......(...) ...4♥ = 2-S3H ...(...) 4♦ = D support, slammish 4♥ = 5+ H, NF (...). If "standard" extends to the fourth round of bidding, that is. (I think not.)