MickyB

With all eight players sat down, we were NS and our teammates were EW. At this point, I stopped worrying about it!

Indeed, it seems to have happened to both teams on this occasion! [Actually my impression was that our teammates' card was pretty good, but I can't claim to have studied it very closely. Our card was negative.]

What if East tanks, then wins the heart king and plays a diamond in tempo? [i was declarer vs PhilKing, declaring from the North hand - most, but not all, of his tank was before winning the heart].

As Philking has said, there is no answer to this question. It is not like a pairs event, for which you might be able to draw a conclusion that one movement leads to a result that has twice as much significance as another movement.

Bidding 3♠ will not get partner to lead a spade against 3NT.

If you decide to GF you do so with 2H. This doesn't promise four cards.

Ouch.

Spoiler edited

4♠ in sleep

Not a bad idea, but no, if partner rebids 3NT then 4♣ would be a slam-try. BTW, 2N:3S, 3N doesn't deny a four-card minor for us - we play 3N = unsuitable; 4m = four cards, not unsuitable; 4H = 3-3 minors, suitable. I chose to pass at the table. It felt like I would get 3NT from partner most of the time, and I didn't fancy my chances there. If partner had responded 4m to 3S, I'd have been tempted to pass; We may already have picked up a swing just by bidding, and partner may raise 5m to 6m. To be honest, I didn't get as far as constructing hands for a 4m bid to decide whether I preferred passing to raising.

Not everyone found 5C...some of us opened 3C and got doubled in it :P Looking at both our hands it is far from obvious that 4H is making, passing it out looks right to me.

Given that it is known in advance that division 2 won't be on vugraph, it would seem more reasonable to only pass the cost onto the division 1 teams, i.e. £100+ per team.

[hv=pc=n&s=s53h4dt9742cq9542&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=p2n(20-21)p]133|200|IMPs. 3S would show both minors. Edit: 3C is vanilla Stayman[/hv]

I think the heart lead marks me with the spade ace. Declarer crossed to the heart ace at T2. You are right that it isn't cold but I think he's always going to make it on the lie of the cards?

xx QTxx AJTx AJ9 Kxx Ax Qxx QTxxx so it was cold on a heart lead and requires some guessing on a spade lead

Yup, there was disagreement about which way round 3S and 3N should be - is 3S natural or 4th suit? Edit: By 'should', I don't mean theoretically, as I doubt there's much in it. 1534 bidding 4D sounds fine to me, if responder wants to play 3N opposite that I guess he just has to bid it himself.

IMPs. LHO is a sponsor, RHO is a good player. They are playing strong NT 5cM. [hv=pc=n&s=sa8hkj6542d43ck74&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=1d2s(weak)3cp3sp3nppp]133|200[/hv]

1H:1N 3C:3H What shape(s) would you expect for 3S or 3N now from opener?

My methods allow the 17-19 NT to frequently stop low; For example, in 1NT when responder has no major, or in 2M when we have a 4-4 fit. Is this possible if you switch the ranges? It seems far from obvious that it is better to do so. Even if we concluded it was, it fits with my philosophy of not wanting to play completely different systems and different conditions, given how clear-cut it is that opening 1D with 11-13 NT and 1C with 17-19 NT is better than the other way around B-)

Deleted

Not a ridiculous idea, but - a) I suspect strong+4 is pretty good 1st NV at MP, but that weak+5 is better 1st NV at IMPs. b) I would sooner play strong+5 than strong+4 or weak+5 when 2nd NV, there's just so much less gain to preempting in 2nd. c) Strong+4 isn't an easy system to play well. For a start, you really need methods to divide 1S:2S into two ranges. d) I'd sooner just play a better, more aggressive system than strong+5 at all positions+vuls. You are probably aware that my two favourite systems are both based on a 14-16 NT; one opens 1D on all 11-13 NTs, the other opens four-card heart suits on 11-13 NTs. While neither of these methods can match the Hacketts or the mini-NT brigade for aggression, I'd back them to get most of it back in other areas, even just looking at 1st NV openings. Having said that, Wank and I do play an 11-13 NT 1st NV [all 14-16 NTs open 1D].

Let's say we knew that partner had thought for a while over 7H. What lead(s) would the hesitation suggest would be more likely to be successful?

And leading passive works better when you can't solve a guess for declarer Leading low from KQxx works less well when declarer can't misguess and play you for KTxx/QTxx I asked David if his book relied solely on DD analysis, and he said yes, but that was justified in the book. I haven't seen the justification but I can't imagine I would find it persuasive. The bridge world seems to be divided into those that never lead from kings and those that never lead from jacks. Apparently the book strongly supports the latter group, can anyone think of reasons why DD analysis would favour them?

Is it really worth giving up on 2S promising six just for this specific handtype? 3♣, wtp. If partner has weak diamonds we will find out now.

Disagree completely. Our suits are equal against spades and we're not looking for game, so the only difference is that 3H tick scores more than 3m tick, which is basically irrelevant to our decision to compete. The relevant point is that partner has denied five hearts, while he could easily still have a five-card minor. A well-trained partner will bid 3H here infrequently, 4H4m will go through 2N scrambling. I think it's clear to pass when vul, I think I'd double NV. This isn't a situation where love all is clearly a better time to act than favourable, because a large part of the upside to doubling is being able to take a penalty, and the upside to doing so tends to be greater when oppo are vul - if partner has a marginal hand he can shoot for the magic 200.