MickyB

My view on the 3334 is that pass or 5♣ could be right. 4♣ could be the winning action but I don't think I'd find it. It is fairly unlikely that we belong in a different strain, short trump hand taking the force and all that. I suspect Frances's issue with Fly's pass was not the pass itself but the statement that it was clearcut. If you are frequently passing on hands with three (or four small) trumps then partner probably should never double on a void, it's pretty likely to get passed out and it will rarely be a good result!

Yes, that's another good point, forgot this was a "real diamond" system...I like David's suggestion. 2♦ will normally be right on (43)15, 1NT sometimes right on (24)25. Strange, I feel like it is worse to open 1NT on 4225 than on 2425, even though 2♣ is probably more likely to bury a fit...

I voted for 1♦ with 3 rarely, and as Gerben has said that is ok with 1435, less sure about 4135. Presumably this hand would want to rebid 1♠ over 1♥, could require some system to sort that out.

Dunno, I think as long as you can bid a suit and XX for SOS you've got a workable runout.

You seem to have at least five tricks off the top in 3N Richard... But yes, KQx of hearts would be golden.

[hv=d=s&s=sakqjxxhjxxxxdqcx]133|100|Scoring: IMP You open 1♠, partner responds a forcing NT. Choose your poison.[/hv]

A 3433 11 count.

The question is more interesting if you have one more club and one fewer heart.

Agree with David - if you are going to split your balanced hands into two ranges, strong NT is better constructively - same as if you weren't play a strong club :) There are basically three options in 1st+2nd seat - Keep all of the balanced hands out of the suit openings by playing 12/13-15, 14-16 with 11-13 opening 1♦, or (1st NV only IMO) play a mini NT, 9-12 or 8-11 or so. If you believe that the mini gains enough to make it worth playing then you want a 4 point range to increase frequency. 3rd+4th seat is a bit different, as Helene says the 1NT opener should be looking for game, and weaker balanced hands can be opened a suit (and only look for game if they find a fit). I voted for 14-16, it's the only sensible option that doesn't involve changing your NT structure by seat.

Your opps probably have 7 spade tricks regardless of what outside cards you have Flytoox. Give partner a singleton spade and the remaining highcards, you make 6 of a suit and they are only two off in 3♠.

Agreed, 3♥ is forcing and the right bid on the hand. This doesn't mean that a 3♣ rebid is correct - sometimes partner will pass it, not expecting three hearts and a singleton opposite. On the other hand, you are pretty minimum for 3♣ so I guess you are still unlikely to miss a game... I quite like the idea of bidding 2♣ and taking another call if opps balance. If RHO doubles or bids 2♦ then you can bid 2♥, if he bids 2♠ then you have X and 2N that don't sound natural...any suggestions as to what each should be?

Lol Whereagles, right you are ;) Noone else knows that when you have a four card suit, it will always split 3-3-3 around the table :rolleyes: Fair enough Arend, but so many people use LTC as their only method of hand evaluation once a fit has been found.

I don't believe it is sound to balance (as an unpassed hand) over preempts on much less than you would act in direct seat. Even so, I don't see much alternative to 4♥! Yes we might miss slam, but there's just no other bid to make on the hand.

Sorry Mike, the solution sounds worse than the problem to me.

Unless the hearts are solid, that sounds very much like a 1♠ bid.

Yuck... Make it slightly stronger and I'd bid 2♦ If I was playing weak NT I'd make a single raise As it is, I've got no idea what to bid! Maybe I should have foreseen this rebid problem and opened 1NT ;)

I understand you are upset, but... The game is fair. It is a game of agreements, and the purpose of disclosure is so that the other three at the table all know as much as each other. Please don't say that we believe fairness is not important.

If you have had no discussion, then say "undiscussed". If the opponent has played on the site before, he will probably assume SAYC as you did. If your opponent is new to the site then you should say "we haven't discussed anything so we are probably playing SAYC, in which a 2♦ opener is weak". I realise that you don't always know when an opponent is new to BBO :P

Just to agree with Echognome...you are required to disclose partnership agreements. Not just explicit agreements, also implicit agreements - eg you open a weak 2♦ on one hand, partner will then expect it to be weak the next time you do it. Or you are playing with someone from your country against opps from elsewhere, and you know that nearly everyone in your country plays lebensohl a particular way round...you should say so. What you needn't do is say how you intend a bid when your partner knows no more about it than your opps do. If you do decide to tell your opps what you meant the bid as, you should make it clear that it isn't an agreement (as Echognome does, most of his alerts have question marks on!) - otherwise they will assume your partner knows what he is doing! This (in theory) could lead to an adjustment against you due to providing misinformation.

OK, one of my bugbears... Losing Trick Count. It is a very inaccurate method of hand evaluation - basically, it gives no values to tens or jacks, is frequently applied in a way that doesn't give proportional values to the top honours, and overvalues shape in comparison to high cards by assuming that there will be no wastage opposite. 4.5-3.0-1.5-0.75-0.25 honours count and 5-3-1 shortage count is a much better way of evaluating your hand (although obviously it requires further adjustments for supporting honours/bare honours, honours in short suits/long suits, etc). Compare this to LTC, which is basically a 4.5-3.0-1.5 honours count with a 9-6-3 shortage count. You can read Neil Cohen's critique of the LTC here.

I don't buy this. Next time it's your hand, and your partner will take you seriously when you bid 1NT and raise to 3NT. As to the opponents (us in this case), I think it's best to base our approach on the assumption that West has a spade stopper. While I obviously agree with you that we should assume that we probably have a spade loser, you did cut out the relevant bit of Luis's post - he said "whenever I have support for pd's suit but I know I will be outbid". He could then pull 3NT to 4♥. And yes Luis, it does sound like a good psyche. The fact that you hadn't considered making it before now backs up my assumption that lefty probably has a spade trick :P

Fair enough Dinos, who thinks that the 1NT response may be a psyche, but I'm not quite sure why everyone else is looking for game. Are they placing LHO with Qx in trumps? If you have a trump loser then partner will need two aces and a useful king to make 4♠, so even an invitation sounds like an overbid to me.

I don't think so. Seems like pard will need two aces and a useful king for 4♠ to be on. Yes you have a pretty hand, but you are likely to lose a trump and pard is a passed hand.

Yes, I am fairly sure that East will have spade shortage to balance with. We have a 9 card fit, opps must have an 8+card fit somewhere. I agree that 2♠ then 3♠ may be better on this particular auction, which is why I voted for 2♠!

5♣ isn't likely to make. Kxxx xx ATx Txxx may make it a good contract, but Qxxx KJx Kxx KQTx doesn't give you much chance.