jonottawa

I like 2♣ and 6♦ now. 9.5 tricks with first round control in every suit is plenty for 2♣ imo.

Sho nuff. Sorry, my ulterior motive in posting this thread was to confirm my belief that virtually nobody would lead a ♣ with this holding on this auction. I was wrong so I was just shutting her down by posting the actual hand.

I'm at least tempted to bid 1♠ at matchpoints. Is that what you did? That's kind of an ultra-high variance, probably slightly anti-percentage call but it certainly could be a big winner if rightsiding the contract is important or playing in a ♠ moyse is worth an extra trick.

Much obliged.

Wow, the votes started as I expected and then the ♣ took over. ♣ was the winner. [hv=http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?myhand=M-35754525-1307759450]400|300[/hv] Must I enter the hand manually or is there a way to link myhands somehow that sizes it properly?

I'm picturing GIBs sitting around in their Human Discussion forum posting this hand: 'Was that an overcall?'

I assume that the default agreement would be 2♠ is 4SF. YMMV. I'd force to game with the E hand opposite an opener (especially a club opener, we could have a grand slam opposite a prime minimum if no wasteage in ♠) unless we had an ultra light style. YMMV. I give W 100% of the blame for the bidding misunderstanding but as someone said 5♦ isn't so bad a spot.

I whip. I don't think it's all that close. Just because it's a crazy hand doesn't mean I have to be.

Because you're in 2nd seat, this is WTP territory. No sense preempting your partner and missing good slams when you have no reason to believe the opps have a big fit (since your pard will usually have 3+ ♠ and 4+ ♥.) Open 1♦. I'd still open 1♦ in first, but it's at least worth considering 5♦ there.

I blame whoever tried to place blame. (No blame.)

I whip.

♥J WTP? (I like it when partners lead my suit absent a compelling alternative and most of my pards seem to feel the same.) I'd prolly negative x, but I guess it's tempting to pass at these colors. I'd say that's a tougher question than the lead 'problem', no?

I find the whole reputation thing rather Orwellian. Rarely do popular thought and truly insightful thought overlap. There's enough groupthink in the world already, thanks.

7♥ I'll bid what I think I can make.

7♥ I bid what I think I'll make (the 65 of ♥ add substantially to entry potential.) I tend to play these hands one trick better than the other fellas. If LHO started with the ♠A and not the ♣A, unlucky ... sick, even. You get a couple of hands like this in a lifetime, you should bid them accordingly.

IMPs, unfav, opps are random BBO people. ♠32 ♥J642 ♦9 ♣K87632 Uncontested auction, starting on your left: 1♥ - 1♠ 3♥ - 4NT 5♦ - 6NT

The 2♦ bid was awful. What was I thinking?

I like 3♠ because it's sexy (as far as bridge goes, which is, admittedly, not very far.)

fascist test

5♦ is awful. 3N is a midnights bid. I pass.

I think you're allowed to ask. I'm not crazy about 5♥ in an auction you have good reason to suspect has gone off the rails.

A hand that qualifies for the category for a change.

Oops, nvm, optical illusion, my bad.

Isn't it normal to start with 3 ♥ and pitch a ♦? Trading a possible ♠ loser (or tap-threaten) for a sure ♦ loser. After that, doesn't exiting trumps (hoping for 2-2 at that point or stiff A or K) make the hand pretty simple?