Blofeld

Thanks everyone, and a belated happy birthday back to Gerben.

My gut feeling on this runs something like: a. 9 or fewer 10% 10 40% 11 40% 12 10% b. 9 15% 10 60% 11 20% 12 5% But then my gut feeling was also to bid 5♠ now. Very notably partner didn't pass 4♥x, and our hand has a higher than typical ODR for the auction.

I'd prefer to open 1♦. Having opened 1♠, I bid 4♦ over 3NT (this should be a natural second suit rather than a cue) and pass 4♠. I don't like having to bid 3NT with the north hand ; it's not a very good description and it eats a lot of space. Prefer any of 2♣, 2♥ or 2NT (assuming that's a good spade raise) ! Having bid 3NT I bid 4♥ over 4♦ ... this is a slam-suitable hand.

Pass. What's to recommend bidding?

I had to stop myself from cracking up when this was explained to me at the table in a local league match.

Double and pass if partner bids 4M (will raise 4♦ though).

I believe East can scramble 4 tricks in a club contract. :unsure:

This particular combination of suits may well actually be biddable after a 2♣ opening (2♣ : 2♦, 2♥ : blah, 3♦ is the auction I'm thinking of), so I'll go with that. On the given auction, I think I bid 4♦. But what would 4♠ be here? A fragment? A forcing hand wanting to hear more from partner?

I don't play fast arrival, but if it goes: 1♠ : 2♥ 3♥ : 3♠ 4X, I'd take 4♠ as slammish. I'd love to be able to bid 2♥ here, but I don't think I can get away with it.

But 4♦ also looks to be a choice of games, so doesn't 4♥ focus attention on the heart suit?

I voted for 5♣, but I like the idea of the 4♥ bid. Just didn't occur to me.

2♣. I may not be able to get back to spades if partner raises hearts. If the diamonds were something like KJx I'd probably bid 2♦. But here the ace is a useful value opposite anything. And it's normalish to let 2♣ be 3 cards, while not 2♦.

4♣. I like this hand.

We are 6-5 here, which has to count for something. Or perhaps I overestimate the strength of 6-5s. Also, it's considerably harder for them to penalise a 3♥ bid than 2NT.

I'd definitely be doubling on all of those shapes. Why should double here promise 4♥s? Sure, they'd be nice, but we're taking a first call at the top end of the three level.

The opening was 1♣ rather than 1♠, Miron.

You're welcome to bid 2NT, but I'd rather bid 3♥, thanks. It puts more pressure on the opponents. It's passable, and it only shows one suit while 2NT is likely to help them both bid and play the hand. Hearts score better than diamonds if they make, partner is likely to take preference to diamonds with equal length in the two, and this hand may well play better in hearts even if partner's diamonds are a card longer. The advantages might be bigger with other suits, as admittedly we'll get to play at the same level in diamonds as we would in hearts, but this isn't a big deal. Against that, bidding 3♥ rather than 2NT gives up on playing in diamonds. It's a risk I'm prepared to make. With the red suits reversed I'd probably bid 2NT.

I'm bidding 3♥.

3♥ feels simple. I am good enough for this.

♠J in either case.

4♣. I'll come up with a plan later. :P

Well if you mean 'this hand specifically' then of course it's far below 0,1% - but any hand would be! If you mean 'a hand this good or better' (the sensible question, I think), I expect that the answer is somewhere between 1% and 10% ; we have at least one wasted king, and possibly two and/or a wasted ace. We don't have a brilliant fit for partner, either.

I think the problem is that you present your conclusions without any form of reasoning to back them up. People are interested in reasons, not blindly asserted opinions (well, when the blindly asserted opinions come from very successful players then they typically are listened to, though definitely appreciated even more when reasoned as well). For example, you claim that you find it better for the strong hand to captain rather than the unlimited one. There is a very obvious reason why the unlimited hand might make a better captain: it has a better idea of the partnership's combined assets. But perhaps there are reasons why the strong hand is better placed to take control? The only one that springs to mind is that it may be slightly easier for the weaker hand to describe all of its assets, but this must be a pretty small affair especially when the strong hand is fairly constrained. So could you explain what advantages you see, and why these outweigh the perspective of the weaker hand knowing the combined strength of the hands? Counter-intuitive viewpoints always need to be explained fairly fully before they are accepted. You aren't explaining statements, so little wonder if they aren't taken seriously. Even if you don't sway everyone to your side, you'll get people to think more about the issues involved. Please don't sink into this narcissistic grandstanding. If you have arguments to make, people will certainly be interested. You haven't been making arguments, you've been making controversial statements. If that's all you have to offer, I'll be quite happy if you don't mention them again ; on the other hand if you have a case to make I'd love to hear it.

1. I'll bid 3♦. More might well be right, but I'm happy enough defending 3M. Could partner's bid be lead-directional on AKQx? 2. I want to pull trumps and finesse against the diamond ten. Avoid opening the round suits if possible. 3. 3♠. Too good for 4♦, not quite good enough to bid 4♦ and then take another action. And I have a fit or two or three for partner, so I'll mention this. 4. I'll double. Maybe they'll make, but I think most of the time this should be off. 5. Call me a coward, but 2♠. No singletons, no aces ... no real game ambition, particularly as partner may be protecting pretty light.

1. Pass. I can't really imagine bidding here ; possibly this means that I don't play enough matchpoints. 2. ♣K 3. Yes, what would 3NT have been? At any rate I'm not cueing 4♥ with a void in the suit. 5♥ looks quite good if it isn't voidwood, else I think I'll bid 5♦. 4. Pass