Siegmund

The double was a good practical action even if your hand is a bit subminimum for it. Partner isn't willing to play 3N with his spades and doesn't have 4H... I am leaving it at 4C and hoping we make it. At least in clubs we are ruffing spades in the correct hand, which we won't be in diamonds.

@gurgistan: 1♥-3♥ shows 4-card support in SA too. The only real difference between SA and 2/1 practice here is that the 3-card limit raise in 2/1 goes via 1NTF while in SA it goes some other way (2m then a minimum heart rebid for instance). Various conventional raises are available in either system.

I guess I bid 2C, thanks to the ace-and-spacey high cards and the spade shortness. But I have no complaint with anybody who passes it, and I wouldn't be surprised if that's the better action. Not vul pass would have more going for it.

I pass at both forms of scoring, but I do open more weak semibalanced hands up front than many others on the forum. I expect this invitation is going to be based on 10 more often than 11 (12 is all but impossible for me), with the idea that the 2S raise was 12-15ish, and the 14/15s want to be reaching game.

3NT may have chances, especially if partner has more respect for 2nd seat than for the vulnerability. I would have no quarrel with a partner who tried 3NT, but I would bid 5C anyway even at matchpoints-- while partner MIGHT have AQ6 and out or KJT6 with a working side card, I think there's considerable risk of a club loser and no entry to run the clubs.

5♦. Doesn't feel like a close decision to me, at equal vulnerability with no ace. That said, there are a lot of people who open 3♦ on so many of the hands that are worth a 4♦ opening, that they don't feel any need to open 5♦ when they get a hand like this one.

The briefest possible answer I can think of is "bad". You can't prevent them from finding a spade fit with a 1NT bid, AND you aren't going to cause anyone to grossly misplace the high cards. What DO you hope to gain from this psyche, that can justify doing this instead of some number of hearts? (A simple 2♥ is fine - but if you're trying to be cute, 3♥ to make them misguess their game prospects or 5♥ to force an immediate final guess both have more merit than 1NT imo.)

Apparently I have been abusing the term "guard squeeze" the whole time I've played bridge (to refer to any squeeze where one of the opponents was guarding his partner against a finesse rather than holding a winner or a stopper himself, rather than specifically to him having normal guards in two suits and finesse-protection in a third.)

In the ordinary guard squeeze, East is protecting only two suits, one with a winner/stopper and the other with a card that saves his partner from being finessed. Your East is guarding THREE suits (two stoppers and one finesse-saver). Garden-variety triple squeezes will work when you still have two losers left; since you have only one loser on this hand, he will indeed be squeezed "even if part of what you wanted to have happen doesnt happen". Or, perhaps, he will be squeezed a trick before you even think you are trying to squeeze him, if everything does go according to play. You may find the end position clearer if you cash CQ and one high spade before you run the diamonds (if there was any uncertainty in your mind about where the hearts and clubs were or anything.) I don't know off the top of my head what the name for a triple squeeze with a guard-squeeze component included in one suit is.

Doesn't strike me as close in 1st or 3rd seat either, to be honest. 2♥ for me too.

Vulnerability matters! Choices for me are 1H-then-2H and opening-4H.

Scheduling it in the south in the summer got in the way again, for me.

Put me down for something real simple: 2H 2S P 3NT. At least it's a makeable contract, and it avoids misunderstandings. (I am constrained a bit by system... new suit by advancer, 1S 2H P 3C, for instance, is agreed to be a fit-non-jump with my regular p, so 2H 2S P 3C has potential to be misunderstood in two different ways, either as not showing such a good hand or as implying some spade tolerace.)

In a style where partner virtually never responds with less than six, I can see doubling and then going straight to 4. Yes, there is a chance it will go down. Going via 3D is as practical as anything else.

4H looks pretty clear now. I could have had less for my 2D bid, but I don't see a better alternative on the previous round, and I don't see us having the methods to explore sanely for a slam.

The good news is we have a shot at making 4S. I can't imagine accepting a slam try, any slam try, with 4333 and only two working face cards, after 1M-2M. That's the definition of (almost-sub-)minimum; if partner splintered with 4C opposite these cards, I would be expecting to go down in 4S.

One more vote for 4H immediately over 2H.

Highly speculative. I understand the temptation but I think I would restrain myself.

I am not tempted, unless I have a bid for both minors in the system. But then I am one of those strange folks who doesn't like to see voids or second suits in first-seat weak twos.

I think action is mighty strange here too. [hv=d=s&v=n&n=st63h9762dkt84cq8&w=sq5hjt4d532cj9542&e=sak72ha53dqj7ct73&s=sj984hkq8da96cak6]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv] The pro (whom I had never met before) tried 2♠. I can see why he wouldn't double and risk letting partner become declarer; but even at favorable vulnerability I found it a mighty strange action. I was just curious if anyone might have an insight into his thought process... I was the 1NT bidder, and unfortunately started with ♥K, but after that start we got the maximum possible (down 2). The funny part is that I consciously said to myself "this guy knows what he is doing, we can trust him to have 6 spades rather than be 5332" as I planned the defence. He was unhappy with the dummy he bought, and unhappy to be off two against a partscore, but he got an 80% on the board for beating 120.

No, your partner is one of the better non-life-masters (and most diligent book readers) in the room; she did her part to help you get to the low 60s.

Regional open pairs game. You are a pro playing with a client, and you think you're having a nicely-above-average session though perhaps not good enough to win. Favorable vulnerability, 1NT (15-17) - pass - pass to you. ♠AK72 ♥A53 ♦QJ7 ♣T73 Do you take any action? (Or, perhaps, I should say, what caliber of gun would have to be put to your head to make you take action)? Would your answer be the same in a normal partnership vs. a pro-client situation?

From the Midnight Sun Regional this past week. Your side vulnerable, partner deals, nice quick 1C-1S-2S-4S auction. Opp leads a neutral S8. ♠J762 ♥AK5 ♦872 ♣AJ8 ♠AKQ3 ♥J97 ♦KT96 ♣Q7 Setting up a club to pitch a heart is probably the safest line to make 4. Attacking diamonds has potential to produce an overtrick. Which do you prefer (or something else), playing in an A/X game against a solid-but-uninspired local pair?

Is there also an entry in the Encyclopedia for "Equal-level conversion"? I would not call it standard, but it's a reasonably common agreement among the good players in my corner of the world. It could very well be part of BWS now (I don't have BWS system notes handy.) Offshape weak doubles when not playing ELC remain common beginner's errors today just like they were in the 1920s.

1) Really obvious yes. 2) Subminimum. I've been known to try it, but no. 3) I force myself to pass if not playing equal-level correction, but I don't like it. Really would like to get involved.