ochinko

Another thought. Assuming that opener expected that 2♦ could be that weak, then shouldn't we expect 4NT to be natural instead of Blackwood? This would still allowed East to answer for key cards but only with a much better hand. But no matter how many faults we find with East's bidding, it is still West's responsibility for putting the final contract in hearts instead of NT. In any case I would take with a grain of salt the opinion of any pro that has a conflict of interests here by being both a bidder and a judge.

If East had ♣ KQx, 2♦ would be right, yet 6♥ still isn't a good place to stop. West had to park in 6NT instead. Edit: I am not a big fan of 2/1, and could be wrong but playing it I would bid 2♦ (with the original hand) only over a 1♥ opening, as the fit would make me feel better about forcing to game from the start.

2♦ is only right in SA, not in 2/1. I don't know how much of an error is from West to continue with 4NT knowing that they're gonna play with Moysian fit, and his hearts are not solid.

North can overcall 1♥ to tell a lead if nothing else. Failing to do that it is impossible to recover in these vulns.

No. I think it's a great hand for partner. :) But still, this hand has already told its whole story, would be lunacy to accept an invitation. That's why it is so important for the holder of the other hand to be able to evaluate it properly.

That's why I voted for 2NT. I missed it on the first read, but when I read mikeh's post I realized it's the systemic bid. 3 and 4♥ mean less defense and longer hearts. Strangely enough 2NT isn't very popular choice though.

No, partner has decided that his hand isn't worth 3H. That leaves a pretty wide range. Peter That's exactly what I meant and what I find relevant here, minimal loserwise, not necessarily pointwise. There is no range. Partner has exactly 7 losers. He could have 8 but never 6 as with 6 his bid would be 3♥.

Any number of diamonds is a "no win" bid unless it shows a heart fit as well, which would be pretty non-standard. And even then it doesn't accomplish anything. 1) Do you expect partner to give fit with ♦Jx or xx? 2) Do you even want to find a ♦ fit? As soon as you do, opps will know they have two black fits, and with the boss suit in them they'll always be able to overbid you if they find it to be worth it. 3) If LHO blasts off to 4♠ after your 2♦ would you know what to do? Would you have given your partner a chance to make an educated guess or just the opposition? You bid 5♥ now only to find that it is -2; 4♠ is -1, and 5♦ is =? 2♦ is a good bid only if the rules require you to cooperate with opps for them to find their best spot while keeping your partner in the dark.

Any bid that doesn't immediately give a ♥ fit is too adventurous to be considered. 2♦ from me denies more than a single heart, and is non-forcing. 2♥ is a slight underbid, so I prefer 3♥ as I prefer to overbid sooner rather than later. If I am unable to find 3♥ in the bidding box, I'll take out 4♥. :P

This has nothing to do with partner or partnership. We don't ask partner not because we have no respect for his opinion, but because we are unable to formulate a sensible question. Short suit game trial, long suit game trial... nothing works here. The buck has stopped with us. An invitation means that we are going to attempt a game if partner is above minimum. However: 1) Partner already declared his hand was minimal. 2) That doesn't diminish significantly our game chances. How about that hand: xxx Axxx KQxx xx It is consistent with the bidding, it is not minimal, not even subminimal. It is a trick worse than an opening hand, yet there is a chance to make 4♥ even with that hand. Imagine what would happen if we add a black Ace to it, our game is almost certain, yet why would partner bid further when whatever he has, he has already bid? Axx Axxx KQxx xx is 13 points, 7 losers hand without any exceptional distribution. Why would partner accept an invitation with such a hand?

For once, I agree with The_Hog. :) Perhaps that's what Wayne wanted to know, I can't be sure anymore. I just thought the idiotic 4NT was a separate issue from the 2♠/3♦ bid.

3♥ is very rightly missing. I would avoid playing with a partner that would put me in a position to guess which bid is right without knowing his hand. The opener described all that was there to describe, now it's your turn. Do you belong in a game, or not? That is the question. Edit: I mean, after the first three bids the game depends on how the cards in opps are distributed, not on whether partner will discover another ace in his hand.

I would bid 3♦ (not necessarily extra strength) because 2♠ would promise 6 of them and no other suits. It is more a matter of agreement, I believe, than a right/wrong bid.

No point in 2NT as I don't intend to play there with a 9 cards ♥ fit. If we lack ♥A and another Ace, the defenders could set up their suit first. No point in 3♦, as a game in hearts is easier and pays better. Nothing else is there for me but to bid 4♥ with my 7 losers hand. Most of the time I'll be right, of course, some of the time the point counters that would pass will be right.

Oh boy, I'm getting dizzy just thinking of the possibilities. If I trade my $5000 for the other envelope I either lose $2500 or win another $5000. With every two swaps my (average) net gain is $2500. So if I am allowed unlimited number of swaps, I'll be a millionaire within a day by just swapping the two envelopes back and forth. Will this strategy be hampered by the fact that after the first swap I already know what is in the other envelope? :lol:

I agree with everyone that the choice between 1♠ and 2NT is above all a matter of partnership style. But if your systemic bid is 2NT don't you at least consider making an exception here? It is likely we belong in NT, there is no high card to protect in our hand, but the same is not at all certain about partner's hand.

1♠ from me. It doesn't deny 18-19 points, and leaves all our options open. Spades are my strongest suit, hiding them can't be a winner in the long term. And even though my hand is the stronger one in our line, I prefer partner to be declarer in NT. I don't expect any of my partners to announce that they have three spades if I had denied having four of them.

Yes, I stand corrected. It always makes.

I don't see why you should have gone down. Any lead but a heart presents you with the ninth trick, and the heart lead is anything but obvious. A club lead would give the defense a second chance to find the heart switch, but still not easy for South.

I don't see any difference between doubling a 3+ and a 2+ ♣ bid. Such precision in competitive bidding is unattainable.

I believe that every double is theoretically passable, and every double should be passed when it looks like the best decision. If partner couldn't tolerate another pass from me, he would bid 2♠ on the second round instead of doubling.

I don't play strong jump shifts. I like your 1♠ bid. I'd always go through 3♣ now even with a pickup partner, since it's the cheapest forcing bid, and I don't know yet where we are heading to. Bidding 3♣ with a singleton/void appears to be non-standard though, and I took a lot of criticism when I suggested such a bid in one of the BPO's here. The least exciting bid from partner now is 3NT because it suggests a ♣ stopper, and therefore wasted values in clubs, and also no ♠ fit. A slam is still in the picture though.

It depends on the vulns and the scoring, but all in all I agree with the first pass, and now I am going to pass again except in unfavorable when a game on our side could bring more.

I voted for pass as I have neither points, nor hearts for a t/o double, nor a solid 6 cards suit to overcall.

I recently played with a guy that bid 1♠ - 2♣ 2♥ with AK108763 AJ3 6 J5 We lost 8 IMPS because we didn't reach a grand. I thought inventing a suit without necessity was a weird blunder, now I understand it's a whole school of thought. FSF is one thing, but here I can't see the method behind the madness. Why would you distort your hand by bidding 3♣? 7:3 is not exactly like 6:4, or is it? It's not like 3♣ is forcing. You can't be sure you'd be given an opportunity to steer the contract from your 6 cards towards your 9 cards fit. If you really feel 3♦ is an underbid, bid 3NT like helene_t suggests. Edit: Sorry, I haven't realized 3♣ was a jump. There is some merit in it, as 3NT from partner would be properly sided.