LBengtsson

Yes. But only for a lead. I just hope - less chance on probability - that partner has not got 5♥ support and raises to 4♥ on LOTT. If the opps arrive in 3NT I want my partner (if he is on lead) to find the best lead.

Why? You are minimum, you hold 4 trumps, partner and west have not bid, and you give the opps. the opportunity to find a better fit in ♦s. I doubt if the opps. will bid 2♠ if you bid 2♣. There is no guarantee that your partner has a fit for your ♣ suit, and could be very weak. I would leave well alone.

Yes, I was, but I forgot to mention it in my post. Duh! Thanks for clarifying that aspect, Mike. I was focussed on the strength/weakness of the hand and position at the table.

It all depends what partner has opposite on the day whether 'Pass' 'X' or 3NT is the right call here, and whilst I feel that if you were in 2nd seat here 3NT would be right, in 4th seat your hand is slightly weaker as you can assume that the ♥ finesse is wrong, and the pre-emptor is not likely to lead a ♥ from a broken suit against a NT contract. It also suggests, given that you have a 4 card ♥ suit, that the pre-emptors partner is short in ♥s so will be long in the other suits, and I just do not think you have enough, even with your own partner who is likely to have a 8-9 count, to make 3NT without some luck, so if my partner held this 16 HCP hand and actually 'Passed' I would not have any reason to criticize imo. I agree with the OP that it is a "tricky hand". As I said, anything could be right on the day. There might be endplay and elimination possibilities to make 3NT given that you will have a good idea of the distribution, so even though 3NT does not look quite right, on the balance of possibilities, I tend to agree it is the least worse of possible bids. And, you do not win matches by being a coward. So 3NT it is here also.

Difficult to bid 5♦ imo without some mechanism such as 2NT by North as a relay. In the absence of this, think North has to bid 3NT over West's 3♠ here. Possibly you can get to 5♦ this way, but it is a push imo. Maybe North should bid 3NT instead of 3♦ on the 1st round, but still difficult to reach 5♦ this way also imo

I would like to pass than bid 4♦ to be interpreted by partner as Leaping Michael's. ♦ + assumed other major ♥ Whether I can do this against the Multi I am not sure lol In the absence of clever bids, X seems a good start. Far too strong for 3♦ imo, when a 4♥ contract would race in with very little from partner.

Nice hand to post, AL78. Timing is everything here. After a few minutes thought I am unsure what the percentage line is here. The lead helps. Before I put my glasses on, I thought the lead was the ♣2. That would made things really tricky. I will come back to this.

When fellow commentators show the actual percentage increase, compared to the countries inflation rates, then I have to agree it looks so wrong in comparison. That is the bogey: it only looks like a nickels-and-dimes increase, just small scraps that poor kids fight over, but in real terms the increase is way over inflation. I do not play with or against robots so I am lucky, I guess: I will not be getting mugged.

Agree. The unusual NT is best used when bidding over one major suit bid only. When the opps. have bid both majors there are plenty of other options available depending on agreements.

Only comment: your partner is not helping your cause. I honestly do not like the 2NT Unusual with a strong 6-5 hand but that is a minor error imo, but worse than that is your partner's reluctance to signal constructively at trick one, then even worse not to ruff the winning ♠ so as to prevent the ♣ discard. Not more else I can say.

I found this analysis by Ana Roth on the net, David. I had not seen it before. It took me nearly half-a-hour to read but it is worth the time. I am not against using RKCB but if you are going high-tech with slam bidding, Turbo and its variants do have some advantages imo. http://youth.worldbridge.org/the-turbo-convention/

There are different variations of Blackwood, Exclusion, Redwood, Kickback, and other slam bidding mechanisms, but I personally think Turbo 4NT is very undervalued. And many players do not like Gerber/Super Gerber except when used in no-trump bidding. Whilst I agree that it is good to have defined explanations for the various auctions that can occur around slam bidding, I am a firm believer that KISS (Keep It Simple, Sonny) is best in the long run. Yes, the variations where RKCB occurs need clear definitions, but I believe it is just as important to understand the definitions for cue-bidding also in slam bidding. There is a big difference between voids, aces, stiffs and kings (second round control) and the definitions for these are just as important in slam bidding.

The only explanation I can give is 'LOL' There is no other word that can be used.

I think what is confusing the matter here is the presence of the ♥8 in dummy. If it were ♥765 opposite ♥AQ10 it would always be correct to finesse the ♥10 on the first round. To me, this is basic technique, that given the choice of two finesses with dummy's cards, without any knowledge, you always play the lower card, the ♥10 on the first round except if an honor is played by West.

My thinking is on this bidding is that 4♦ here would set the trump suit and ask for controls. I guess you did not have a Soloway 2♦ bid available on the first round - Criss Cross Raise? - because that is what I would prefer than 1♦.

In my book, though GIB might play it differently, a superaccept is when you have 4 card trump support and a hand with some ruffing strength, not just 4 card trump support with a minimum 2NT opener in a 4-3-3-3 shape. (Though in my notes, this applies when partner opens 1NT as opposed to 2NT, so it might be fair to say that superaccepts with a 2NT opener might have a different base for accessing LOTT with one hand having the majority of the HCPs.)

It is worth going into the GIB Robot Discussion forum, change the filter to 'All' and see all the entries that our forum colleague 'thorvald' posted. I am guessing there were over 100 instances of Bizarre Bot Bids, maybe more.

My dime's worth. Modest + modest = modest. 12 + 14 = game values, not slam

Thanks. Yes, I forgot to say you need the high card points to respond at the two level first in any system. Duh! (What a complete putz, I am.)

A simple rule which is 99.99% applicable with many suit bids, is to bid length over strength. (There are exceptions MAFIA - Majors Always First In Answering, and some Canape systems). And the quality of the suit can make a difference. However, in this example, the length and the strength is in the ♣ suit, so there is no alternative in natural systems other than to bid 2♣.

In terms of distributional strength it is coming close to 23-24 total points assuming the ♥ finesse is right, and we are control rich. eagles123 suggests 3♣ here, and while it is the safe bid, I cannot see partner being able to make a move beyond 3♣ with the assumed 6-7 HCPs that you can place him with. The only problem with 3NT is that it suggests to the defensers that a ♥ lead is not productive, so they may find your weak suit ♦s from the off. But I have to agree with DavidKok that 3NT on the balance of things looks the best choice.

The idea of a splinter being forcing to game is not always a good idea imo. Responder in response to a 1m opening bid will especially in the 2/1 system bid 1♥ or 1♠ with the minimum of values to try to improve the contract, though usually if they have bid 1M with less strength, the suit will be five cards such as ♥/♠Kxxxx or QJxxx. Though a 9 card fit will be better than a 8 card one, obviously. If the 1M response has been made on something like ♠Axxx ♥Qxx ♦xxx ♣xxx then you are going to need plenty of good cards from opener to fill the gaps and make 4M a viable contract, so again having a splinter as invitational seems preferable. I think that you also have to closely define what hands (HCPs, distributional points and hand shapes) opener rebids a splinter with also.

There is Michael's Cue Bid 5/5 interference, and there is a 6/5 hand which has a lot more distributional strength. Personally I would not be using Michael's as West

I actually do not like this variation of Michael's: the mini version comes up 20x more than the maxi, I guess, and with a strong hand with a ♠ suit, I'd rather bid 1♠ even with a two-suited hand here. As for would I 'sacrifice' give me one good reason why I would want to? I realise at MPs it is fight for the part score, and now that partner has pushed the opps. into game, am I going to now fight for the game? If I think we had game in the first instance I would have bid it. Partner does not need much for 4♥ to be down, and your balanced hand has no feature such as a stiff/void to make it more attractive to sacrifice than the two aces that you already have. Defense for me here also: I am passing.

Have to agree with the other commentators (without knowing the answer specifically) that it sounds like Western Cue Bid territory, asking for a stopper in the ♦ suit, and for responder to bid 3NT with a stop (even though responder could have a garbage hand generally.)