kgr

Because partner has (almost certain) 8 card ♠. With a 7-card and 8-9 tricks, he would rather bid 2♦-2♥-3♠ (semi-GF in ♠). Therefor ♠Q is only useful if ♠ are 3-0.

This hand was bid in teams at other table. At our table the bidding of the enemy :o was : 2C (GF) - 3♥ (7 Italian controls) 7NT Sitting over 2♣ bidder I had: ♠QJTxx ♥QJTx ♦xx ♣J9 Playing all natural, do you bid something over 2♣? I almost did bid 2♠, but I think we were vulnerable.

This were my thoughts as well. After reading the other posts I'm however less sure that South should move over 3NT

good point!

..to make the sytem worse :o : 2C would show 4c♠ and 5+c♣. So, 2♣ was not possible. Other possibilities beside DBL were: Pass 3♣: intermediate, but shld normally have 6c♣ Yes (♥ 6-1)

I doubt this. System designer plays at the top in Belgium (..ok; I know that it's a small country and that this is not really a reference). It will rather be the system applicators then the designer. Note that you loose a natural 1NT overcall, but gain a bid to show minors early. I wonder how you can say this is a bad system without doing a simulation or anything. I agree that system was not good for these hands. We loose IMPs one these kind of hands, but maybe gain Imps on other hands (where overcaller can bid 1NT with both minors and 3th hand can preeempt opps out of their best contract).

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=stxhkxdaqxxcaqxxx&s=sak9xxxxxhaxxdxcx]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] 4D!-4NT 5D!!-6C!!! 7S 4D!: Namyats (showing 9 (or 8 good) tricks in S). You have other bids to show a S preempt (4S), a GF in S (3D-3H-3S), or semi-GF in S (2D-2H-3S). 4NT: RKC (North can also bid 4H to show slam interest) 5D: 3 or 0 of 5 6C: This bid was not correct. By agreement it asks 3rd round control in C. North could bid 5NT (iso 6C) as specific K ask and then South would bid 6S showing no K. How should this correclty be bid to 7S? W had ♠QJx :)

South did bid 3NT. North DBLed 4D. ..I edited the bidding after reading your forcing pass comment. North DBLed in pass out seat. Should this be a forcing pass situation? South did bid a non-forcing 3C before bidding 3NT. This should show doubt about 3NT and not much extra's?

[hv=d=e&n=skxxhkxxdjxcjxxxx&s=sjxhajtdqxxcakxxx]133|200|Scoring: IMPs[/hv] (1♥)-DBL!-(P)-2♣!! (2♦)-3♣-(3♦)-p (Pass)-3NT-(Pass)-Pass (4♦)-Pass-(Pass)-DBL All Pass DBL!: in your system 1NT would show minors. You can pass or DBL. DBL followed by NT shows 16+ 2♣!!: 2♣ shows at least 7HCP, otherwise we go via 1NT. ...4♦x +1 Who do you blame? (Edited the bidding)

[hv=d=s&n=saxxhaxxxdakxxxct&s=skhkxdxxcakqxxxxx]133|200|Scoring: IMPs[/hv] 1♣-(1♠)-DBL-(2♠) 3♠-(p)-3NT-All Pass South could have opened 2♣ GF, No semi-GF available. How should the bidding have gone?

At the level that I play, I would also play like this. But at your level East will take ♦K and return a ♠. Not sure if it is best to duck the ♦ against experts.

Thanks for the answers! I played a ♠ to my ♠Q, taking by LHO with ♠A. LHO returned a ♠ and I did put up ♠K, ruffed by RHO B) RHO returned a ♣ and I did put my ♣Q, ruffed by LHO :lol: (Is ♠ or ♣ finesse clearly better?) Trumps were divided: Axx - Qxxx RHO passed the DBL because he felt to not have a good bid (I told opps are not very strong). It's still not clear for me why leading trumps first is best.

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=skt9xxhxdajtxxckx&s=sqxhkjtxxdxxcqtxx]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] South opened 2♥ Muiderberg (5cH, 4+minor and weak), West DBLed for takeout and East passed: 2H-(DBL)-All Pass. (Opps are not very strong). I felt like I completly misplayed this hand. There is no clue. I hope that I'll get some answers here and that I learn something from it! Thanks in advance.. 2♥x: West leads ♣A and continues a ♣ (East playing 2 small ♣'s - discouraging). What do you play now? (Does it feel best to make some ruffs in your hand to play play trump and try yo develop ♦/♠?)

[hv=d=e&n=sjtxxhaxxdxxxxcqx&s=sahxdaqxxxxcakxxx]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] After East opened 1♠ opps did reach 5♦ and made +2. Disadvantage of 2NT is that it is more difficult to know partners ♦-length then after DBL (except if partner bids 1NT after DBL). Risk of 2♦ is that it will be passed out? How to bid to 7♦?

Thnaks all, seems to be split between pass and 3♥. Main reason why I passed was that I didn't want to push opps to a making game. (I don't remember actual result)

[hv=d=e&s=sahxdaqxxxxcakxxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] I was East and saw opps did have above hand. (1♠)-2NT-(Pass)-3♦ (3♠)-5♦-All pass If you start with DBL then it will go: (1♠)-DBL-(P)-1NT (2♠)-?? How would you bid?

[hv=d=s&s=saxxxxxhaxxxxdjcx]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Not all of the x's in ♠ and ♥ were very small and it is possible that I had ♥T and/or ♠T. Bidding was: 1♠-(DBL)-1NT-(2♣) 2♥-(3♣)-All Pass Do you agree with Souths bidding?

Are you sure that all the experts in the MSC think the same about this? If 2♥ is 4th suit (I would play it like that), then it makes more sense to play 2♠ as non forcing.

I would have lead a ♦ here. If anyone could explain when a trump lead is good against low level DBLed contracts (I thought most of the time) and why it is bad here that could be very usefull. ...Is reason that partner promised a balanced hand and therefor dummy will probably also be balanced and not much trump possibilities?

I did setup a deal profile in Jack with bidding and with given cards for opening leader. I dealt a deal and Jack did bid as requested in the deal profile, so contract was 3Dx. Analyse position for lead: ♠J: -17.5 ♥4: -44.0 ♠9: -48.6 ♣2: -53.4 ♦5: -191.6 - I'm not sure how this works and what Jack uses for possible deals for this bidding (maybe does does not correspond to biddigns we would do). - It seems like the exxpected score for this deal is negative for us.

IMO 3H is possibly a search for 3NT. If no D stopper is found then forcing to 3NT. 4C can be passed if no stopper.

If opps play weak or very weak NT, like 12-14, 8-10 .... and you agreed to play a system with a penalty DBL: what points do you noramlly have agreeed then for then penalty DBL in direct and balancing seat. (I assume that this is mostly based on pnts and not on suit length or trick taking against NT?)

Thanks for the answers. My partner passed with this hand and he almost convinced me that it could have been good with his long ♠.

I don't understand giving a split ruling here. Either you decide that Pass was not a logical alternative for 3♥ and you let the result stand; Or you decide that Pass was a logical alternative for 3♥ and then 3♥ should be taken away and you give the likely result for playing 3♦ by S. ...How can you say that 3♥ should not have been bid, but then still say that because the defence was bad you give the result of 4♥= to EW? If 3♥ didn't exist then there is no (bad) defence against 4♥.

[hv=d=e&v=n&n=shjxxxxdakxxxcaqx&w=sajtxxhtxdjxcxxxx&e=sxxxxhakqxdxxcktx&s=skqxxhxxdqtxxcjxx]399|300|Scoring: MP (1H)-p-(1S)-2D (2S)-all pass[/hv] Thanks for the answers. This was the full hand and bidding. 2S was almost a 0% for NS