karlson

I definitely wouldn't want to give up my natural 3n here -- it's not the same as giving up a natural 2n over 1s-2c (for one thing, partner might be endplayed a bit over 3d or 3h). Obviously you can always do better with more raises, but two raises to the four level (plus a possible fit jump in diamonds) doesn't seem too bad to me here.

The auction is certainly consistent with partner having 5-4-4-0 shape. And he doesn't need the world to double 3C with that shape. So in the hypothetical I mentioned, we are either forced to slam or forced to play the 5-2? I think 5♠ should be an almost impossible bid in this situation, and if it exists, should show basically a single-suiter.

So given that we could have had the same hand with the majors reversed for the double (could we?) what kind of hand bids 5♠?

Agree with jallerton.

I would bid 3♠ on #4 and #6, and 4♣ on #3 and maybe #7 though it's pretty ugly. I think 3♠ shows the good constructive raises and trashy balanced limit raises, and 4♣ should be most normal game forces and upgraded limit raises. That leaves 4♠ for some shapely limit raises or hands that would have bid 1♠-4♠. I think some hands that would have bid 4♠ can bid 3♠ now though -- the preemptive value is much less when they've already bid 3♣. I could see #1 being a 3♠ bid maybe.

I blame opener -- I think the hand is just too good for a single raise. Obviously it also looks quite light for a reverse, but that seems the lesser evil. Hijack: score it up for transfer responses. 1c-1h-1s-1n-2h showing almost exactly this hand the way I play. (or 1c-1h-1s-2s-some try-game).

I would bid a slam on the first one and would try to get to 6♦ via 4♠ if possible. On the second I would try 5♣.

I can't really argue with your points about the siding, it just seems so counterintuitive to grab the NT wth Axx. My main concern is that I think that the secondary fit in diamonds will be the main determinant of whether we should be in 4h or 5c over 3n as well as whether we can make a slam. You're right that bidding 3d will not allow us to show other features -- if the fact that we have the HK and not small stiff is what partner needs to bid 4h, then I lose (I will bid 3n over 3s). Obviously not particularly unlikely. I think that the club agreement at the 3-level is not all that important. It's true that it allows our hand to go past 3n knowing about the fit, but in practice being so limited we're probably not going to do that unless partner suggests it again. Partner on the other hand knew about the club fit already (and in fact 3d instead of 2n shows more clubs, so he is even safer) and after 3d he should certainly be able to know if he's willing to go past 3n.

Sorry, I was concentrating on "wins the ♠A and fires four more spades at you." Seemed plausible to me. I didn't read partner's original holding.

That's nice, what do you pitch on the fifth spade? edited out random stuff that was vaguely relevant when declarer seemed to have 5 spades

I think 1n is really silly -- why deliberately wrongside when it's most likely to matter? I think in general 2c is ok with this shape, but I guess I would bid 2h on this hand.

If I wanted to play transfers here, which I think is a great idea, I would just play that 4d shows hearts, and either 4h shows diamonds or 4h shows spades and 4s shows diamonds. Playing forcing pass over a 4-level preempt with an opening bid opposite potentially nothing seems pretty crazy. With normal methods, I agree with 4h, but I think it's not that far from double. I would double if we were w/r.

I'll confess that I'm not entirely sure what's going on in this auction. Firstly I would think 3d would have been a much better description of our hand than 2n. Now we're at this point in the auction and we're still not sure if partner has stiff spade or stiff diamond, if I read it correctly. The opponents' failure to raise suggests that it's stiff diamond, but it's always difficult to trust this, and if partner's spades were Kxx he wouldn't be quite so eager to give up on NT. Even opposite a stiff diamond slam could have some play though. In any case, I have a heart card and partner may still be able to take control. So I bid 4h. I think partner can likely infer that I have the ace of spades at this point anyway, given that I bid 2n but not 3n. So I'll pass 5c if that comes back. I don't think he's very likely to bid 4s and I don't see how I can have a problem over any other bid.

People are much better at randomizing their 9/T plays than at remembering to play the Q from QT9, so it's really not close in my opinion (whichever spot lefty played).

Anyone up for it?

I would pass.

I think the limited BAM is a great idea, and I would run it concurrent with the first open BAM. BAM is a great format and a lot of people don't get much exposure to it.

I do think the first one is an interesting evaluation problem playing standard methods. I guess I would transfer, splinter 4d, and pass 4h, but I'd be feeling awfully chickenish about it. On the second one, decent methods will either let you show a game force with 6+ clubs and let partner show his stoppers/controls, or (even better) let you show a game force with 6+ clubs with diamond shortness. Barring that, of course 3n.

1♥. I've seen better 17 counts with 6 hearts.

Edit: wow I should read the posts above me, I just echoed MickyB completely. Or you could play good/bad, which seems like a pretty good treatment to me in this auction. Also, if you double, partner has 2n scrambling available which seems incredibly useful to me here. I do agree with your point that the double basically never gets left in, but there are still a lot of advantages that you didn't mention.

To see if I understand gnasher's point, I'm going to modify gwnn's example a tiny bit. A pair plays different NT ranges (12-14 or 15-17) depending on seat and vulnerability. In this position they play 15-17, but opener decides to open a very good 14 count 1N. Partner explains as 15-17 and bids 2n. Bidding 3n may well be a logical alternative, especially if our good 14 had a 6-card minor or something. Since the UI from the explanation suggests not accepting the invitation (even though so does the AI), the laws actually support ruling against a player who passes in this spot. I agree that this doesn't really seem reasonable and at some point we have to give the side with UI some benefit of the doubt.

Last time I bid 5♥ in a situation very similar to this I went for 1400 and everyone thought I was crazy to bid. But somehow it looks real tempting again....

I agree that 4n should be 2-card disparity, but is it really obvious it's 7-5? Could we have a really pure 6-4 for this? It would have to be something like Ax AKJxxx KQJx x. Maybe even that hand just doubles. Anyway, I wasn't sure that I wanted to play in diamonds at all on this hand given the mp scoring (though of course if I thought for sure I could show 7-5 I would have), so I bid 4n and over 5♣ (which was doubled on my right) bid 5♥. I think this shows a single-suited heart slam try. Thoughts? Do you think partner should kick it in with ♥K and out?

Ahh, my bad, I misread and thought you were still bashing gwnn's structure (1n-3d in this case).

My partner also suggested this type of double (takeout of their major, you figure out which one it is). I was reluctant at first, but it seems like it should work quite well. Have you ever had an accident with it? It seems like it could also be combined with the common american meaning for double of 2d (typically 12-14 balanced) after 2d-x-2M.