beatrix45

To me it really depends on the the calibre of the opposition. Against better, I pass both. Otherwise, I open #2. Opening #1 seems too cheeky for me even against lesser sorts. You figure to get at least average against them at least.

4♥. This might be wrong, but I can't help it. We do have 9 trumps. Plus, the opps have another chance to bid.

Dbl. Going for four tricks (maybe) instead of 11.

An old fashioned dish from Charlestown, South Carolina. Shrimp and Grits. 1/4 lb sliced bacon 1/2 lb frozen shrimp - uncooked and unshelled - jumbo sized (21 to 24 per pound) 1/2 an onion chopped a green pepper chopped clove of garlic - chopped butter flour milk or cream hot sauce - to taste grits or polenta Cut bacon into pieces and fry until soft. Add onion, green pepper and garlic. Fry until bacon is crisp and onions begin to brown. Pour off part of the liquid bacon fat and replace with butter. Saute thawed shrimp for a few moments (some fancy versions even leave the shells on). Add enough flour to make a roux. Cook until very light brown. Add milk or cream to make a smooth buttery sauce (also, hot sauce to taste) and cook on low heat until sauce is done and shrimp are cooked through. Serve over freshly cooked grits or polenta. You can make the dish a little more heart healthy (but not quite so tasty) by using milk and less fat. Don't completely leave out all the butter, though. It marries well with the grits/polenta. If you thaw frozen shrimp in cold water in the sink, you can easily finish the whole dish in about 30 minutes start to finish.

Neither side vul. Partner deals and opens one ♦. Your RHO passes. Your call with: [hv=pc=n&s=sa83hjt4dk54cqjt4]133|100[/hv]

They tell me that even with 2/1, with an overcall, you are back in the SAYC jungle. If so, then 2♠ is just the cheapest and most convenient rebid. Seriously, you can't Pass. 2♦ shows five♦ and a one suited hand.

I don't think these four are much worth learning from. N has an easy 4♠ bid. Failing that, given at least a rational option to walk the dog, E has to show some strength. 3♣ is the recommended bid. After that, W holding the absolute hammer will see to the rest.

I have to go along with 4♣ instead of 5♦. With two glaring losers in ♠, I think one try is enough, but it ought to be made. You can't bid 3♥ lest it be considered to play. Partner will likely bid 4♦. Now 4♥ should get you to slam. Once in a while ♠ will be 6-1 AND the ace will be led and continued. Oh well.

Playing SAYC or 2/1 I don't think any expert players have ever advocated a system with a gap between an opening one bid and an opening weak 2 bid. I suppose one might do it, but it doesn't seem to make any sense. How do you show it later? This particular example hand is right on the borderline. I like 1♥, but 2♥ is OK.

In this particular situation your bid should have maximal effect versus a partnership that has likely never played together before. The probable impact on partner, wtf. Ain't BBO indies fun. To say that this is really bridge - whatever?

There must be a reason this hand keeps coming up in BBO forums. It is, imho, not really marginal. One NT is not really stupid, although your ♥ stop does not actually exist, and your hand way more than a minimum for 2♦, and it is MUCH better suited to suit play than for NT. Just bid 3♦, and let your partner work it out. One NT is not terrible, butt it is basically a dumbass bid. Even worse at IMPs than MP's.

Not a promising situation. Duck a trump early. Then go for the club suit. 3-3 or 4-2 with the ♥ as your entry.

Partner evidently has extras. Your hand is worth ****** for slam. You should have some play for game in ♥. So bid it.

x

Nice problem. Looking at all four hands, I would cash the ♥ ace and seeing partner's card continue with the ♦ appropriate to show count. Not at all sure I would have found it at the table.

Disease or not, I don't seem to be looking at a ♥ stop. If pard's double is based on cards, let him/her bid 3NT after my 3♦ call. If pard has Larry Cohen's model hand - 4-1-4-4 and a minimum he/she will pass, and we will be in the right spot. No one can fault a 1nt bid, but it is a mastermind call. Why should this bid end the auction?

Best of luck. Giv'em Hell. Don't give an inch.

How odd. I used to play with the guys who devised Lebensohl, which, by the way, had nothing to do with Ken Lebensohl who was just another player at the club. If 2nt is artificial and shows all minimum hands, a strange thing to call Lebensohl imo, then you have exactly what you advertised the first time. Since my 2nt was forcing on partner as an artificial relay bid, I have to pass 3♦ since I do have support but nothing extra. Partner is probably just scrambling for a landing spot opposite a declared minimum. Why would anyone play such a strange treatment? Even worse, why call it lebensohl?

It shows a two suited hand willing to play for 10 tricks in spades opposite nothing - and not enough defense to beat 4♥ if partner has 109xx in hearts and one other high card.

I would go ahead and bid 5♥. Let them make the next guess. At least you have lots of trumps to support your bid. Will you push them into a makeable slam? I dunno. You get to figure that out on the next round of bidding.

One simple ♠. Not ready to give up on even a 3♣ part score. A preemptive type of bidding seems wrong in this situation. I am neither telling nor asking at this point.

U and MrAce R correct about ducking the ♦. Leading a stiff ♣ with a small doubleton trump as opposed to a ♦ from KQJ or KQ10 on this auction where partner is marked with zilch deserves an error charge, imo.

This is a real problem hand. Imo, 2♦ is out because two bullets and the red jacks give you too good a hand. The choice is between 1NT and 3♦. RHO is the dog that did not bark in the night. Is RHO broke or just short in ♥? At the table absent any serious tells from the opponents, I wud prob bid 3♦, but 1NT looks OK as well.

E has seven almost certain tricks in a 3♠ contract even if the sky falls in, so how can he/she get seriously damaged by bidding 3♠ over 3♥? If partner has nothing, NS have an easy ♥ game. Imo, this is not an expert forum problem. E should know better than to pass 3♥. Whether W should have hazarded a negative double over 2♥, meh. I don't think I would, but I really dunno.

I would rather overcall 4♠ than pass. 'Sneaky' my aunt Petunia. Passing is like playing Russian Roulette with only one empty chamber. Exchange the ♣ AK for the ♣ 65 and you have a legitimate (although, imo, optional) 'sneaky' Pass.