jodepp

I Pass without much thought; I don't think is too hard. The only bid that makes sense would be 1♥ but on this suit that's just too 'out there'.

IMO this is simply a question of 'does partner's 4♠ set a game force?' Personally I don't think it does; partner could have established ownership with, for example, a heart cuebid. Of course if a pair wanted to define this sequence as GF that's fine, but for me 4♠ is more 'tricks' than 'power' and therefore does not set a game force. I'm bidding 5♠ because if partner bid 4♠ with such obviously weak trumps, partner must have a distributional oddball. I wouldn't expect many spade tricks to cash so beating 5♥ looks very iffy.

You open whatever you want :) I open 1♥ but would not criticize a 1NT opening. Like the old saying goes: "You pays your money and you takes your choice". This is an 'eye of the beholder' hand. Maybe there should be another choice in the poll - 'Is there a clear-cut superior choice?'

Take the cash and double. Given the structure that Pass is regressive, Partner is unlikely to yank this unless looking at freakish shape. As a general rule, I gave up trying to be perfect in such preemptive situations - IMO sometimes you are better off simply taking what the opponents give you.

I guess most pairs would like to be in 6♠, which essentially requires 4-3 hearts and trumps not 4-0 (you have chances with worse heart breaks when trumps are 2=2 as well). Maybe it's a little better if one dodges a diamond lead. I think it's almost impossible to reach 6♠ in a standard system if North opens only 1♥. After this start: 1♥-1♠, 4♠ is an underbid on the North cards, so unless North jump shifts (into a 2-card suit, which most players hate to do) North will be leaving values 'on the table'. After the 4♠ jump, maybe South could cuebid 5♣ and then you get there. There is NO WAY South should bid 4NT after a 4♠ jump. Maybe this is easier to bid if North starts with 2♣: 2♣-2♦ (say) 2♥-2♠ 3♠ now a 4♣ cuebid becomes obvious and you get to slam.

This has been the most entertaining thread I've seen in awhile :) I think this pretty much depends on opener's style. If opener is a 'solid citizen' I think 5♥ is fine; I think this should imply controls in the minors as well. Opener can then make an educated guess as to 'how high' you should be. If opener like to open on bare 11-counts however, 4♠ has to be where the money is long-term.

If one does not wish to lead the spade queen, then maybe leading low from one of the four-baggers is preferable to leading a card that will surely get partner to question our sanity... I get that the ♠6 might work on some layouts. It also might block the suit on others. Rather than give partner and opponents more ammo for thinking I'd rather be sneaky than reliable, if I don't want to lead the ♠Q I'll just lead something else.

I too think a trump is the lead least like to cost something, although IMO the adage of 'when in doubt lead trumps' is not enough of a reason to lead one. This digresses from the thread topic but it's something I feel strongly about. For a trump lead to work it has to be right; when you lead a trump you are conceding a tempo to declarer. The opening lead is the one advantage the defending side has in the play, and if the defense needs that tempo to build their tricks up before declarer gets his tricks - and they boot it away by leading a trump - there is often no recovery. I'm not saying a trump lead is never right; I'm saying one needs a good reason to lead one (like when you are 'loaded' in declarer's side suit). "When in doubt" IMO does not qualify.

Double keeps all options in play. 1) If partner passes, I will be happy; 2) if partner bids 3♥/♠ I will bid 3NT (thinking 'ick!), trusting partner to 'correct' to the major when that is right; 3) If partner jumps to game in a major I will have a decision to make but will probably pass on the theory that one should not try to be perfect on preemptive auctions. Doubling then 4C is a nice description but aims at too small a target.

I would think 4D has to show the bigger hand - I don't think one would introduce a new suit at the four level unless one had extras. If I had the weaker hand you suggested, I might make a competitive double (if I was sure that was how it would be interpreted) or just Pass.

I too think I'm aiming at clubs, but the utility in 4♦ is in suggesting shape and extras, not necessarily suggesting diamonds. I can't see a cheaper non-cuebid that gets that message across. Since when did bidding out one's pattern become gauche?

I think any cuebid is premature and will probably only wind up confusing partner about what suit is agreed. 4♦ for me. It implies extras, four diamonds and longer clubs which IMO looks much like what I'm holding. At least partner now has more information.

Hand 1: 2♠, probably on the way to 4♥. I'm willing to drive this hand to game at IMPs. Hand 8: Ugh. Is a negative X totally insane? I can correct ♠ to ♦ at the game level if partner responds unfavorably. 3♣ a decent second choice. Hand 14: If I had opened this I'd guess to Pass; this is just a case of disliking this choice less than other options. Next: 2♠ if forcing, 2NT inquiry if not. If pard shows something decent I'll try game in ♥/♠ at IMPs. Last: If 3♣ implies 'stuff' (i.e., 15-ish or 12 with 6+ clubs) I'll try 3♠ hoping this buys 3NT from pard. If pard's overcalls are loose, I think I Pass. A direct 3NT is just a bit too rich for me.

Not in my area - everybody from all skill levels preempt first then worry later :) It's pretty aggressive.

Totally agree. The 'field' bid has to be 4♥, so the way to beat the field is to bid 'with' the field and hope you play the cards better.

Pass 3♣. 3NT might be more appealing if the clubs were Ax, so that at least I can hold up once. 3NT on subminimum values and Kx in clubs is just asking for a boot in the you-know-what. However, if faced with 3♣ then 4♣ by LHO I think I can try 4♦ safely. This has to be 'diamonds and a secondary major', doesn't it? At least this way partner with at least 4=4 in the majors can bid 4♥ as 'pass or correct' with at least a fair hand.

So much depends on methods available that the answer to 'what's best' is very subjective. If one isn't sure how 3♠ will be interpreted, and a fit-jump isn't available, I think an immediate blast of 5♦ seems practical. The opponents seem to have a spade fit and just in case they have a cheap save (or make) I'll make 'em guess at the five level. I slightly prefer the fit-jump to the splinter if both are available, but would hardly object if someone else preferred otherwise.

Roth And Kantar's discussion is not as archaic as you imply. They discussed this - at length - in 'Bridge Today' magazine about 12 years ago if memory serves, taking opposing views. Personally my answer to this age-old question of whether to open 1♣ or 1♦ with 4=4 isn't mainstream - I say 'open whatever you want'. What I smirk at are players who - in threads like this - imply that the thread author did something egregiously wrong by opening 1♣, especially when the choice of 1♣ is not demonstrably wrong and is a matter of personal and partnership preference. Thanks for the opinion.

If playing support doubles, this isn't too hard. Pard has invitational values and knows you don't have three spades (or three spades to an honor - some pairs only offer the double with Qxx or better). If you happen to have a strong spade doubleton (or xxx) you can show it with 3♠. Maybe partner will want to try the 5=2 fit in game. Lacking such a doubleton, I'd Pass on general LTT grounds. It's similar if not playing support doubles. Whether or not playing 'maximal' doubles, pard's double simply sounds like 'I have a good hand and don't know what to do'. Again I would Pass on general LTT principles. As an aside, I confess to smirking when a player says something like 'If you had opened 1♦ like you're supposed to, you wouldn't be in this pickle'. What to open with 4=4 in the minors has been debated at length over the years (see Kantar and Roth's discussion on the merits of both choices). Even if I had opened 1♦ it's hardly clear to bid 4♣ now (I think I'd still Pass).

How could any red-blooded bridge player not bid 2♠ :) If playing a forcing notrump I might try that, settling in 2♠ if partner bid my void. Otherwise, I think it's masterminding to Pass. Seriously, this hand lacks nothing for a raise.

First, there has been some discussion about the 2♥ call being psychic. In my part of the USA such bids are not unheard of. If there is worry that doubling 3♥ would be interpreted as takeout when you actually have hearts and want to double for penalty, that might be enough to avoid doubling and just hoping partner fields 4♥. The upshot is: if you haven't discussed what 4♥ means, the default meaning is 'it's natural'. If I haven't discussed it and I had spades and a minor, I would not force partner to guess what 4♥means. Good partners don't put undiscussed bids into the middle of delicate auctions. In this case I would just bid 3♠ or 4♠.

Call me naïve, but maybe partner in the 'do you prebalance' scenario might be able to look at their hand and figure out what we have (stiff heart, short spades [no double] and skewed minors [no unusual 2NT]). So, if partner can play either minor I would expect a balance from that side. I agree with other who pass the hand out that I'm afraid of giving the opponents a 'second bite at the apple', either allowing them to find a spade fit and/or a game on very thin power but with exceptional distribution.