Blofeld

6♥. I can see the appeal of 6NT, but not of 7♥.

Hi Kathryn, Playing a standard system 1NT is indeed the only bid here, and you're right that passing isn't attractive. 1NT can't promise any support for ♠, though - precisely because of hands like this that are too weak to make a 2/1 bid but too good to pass.

I think the question is not 'grand or not?' but 'which grand?' I expect most of any field to be in slam here. I think 7♣ is probably safer (in case we need to ruff a spade) but I expect 7NT to make most of the time. I wouldn't open this 2♣.

Is this true? We should certainly be bidding 3NT contracts that are considerably more likely to fail than to make. But we should also be bidding our 100% 3NT contracts. I haven't done any calculations, but my guess is that I'd expect over half of 3NT contracts to make. Of course, it also depends on what 'much more frequently' means. --- I like the idea of randomising responses to promissory stayman with 44 majors.

We'd like a method that bids the grand here but stays out of it when you reverse opener's minors, though. What does your 2♣ opening show?

If you want more standard keycard agreements, how about making the auction a bit longer than your suggestion: 1♠ : 2♥ 2♠ : 3♠ 3NT (serious) : 4♣ 4♦ : 4NT 5♠ : 5NT 6♣ : 6♦ (doesn't work playing frivolous 3NT) Now opener has already shown a diamond control, should he be pushing to grand with just the king? I might expect 6NT now to show the diamond king. But not really sure.

If you luckily have the right set of gadgets such that North can cue diamonds twice, it might be doable. Here serious rather than frivolous 3N would happen to work better, for example, as north starts cueing diamonds immediately. But if we avoid the heart raise (which would kill it for the same reason Josh has), we might get: 1♠ : 2♥ 2♠ : 3♠ 4♣ : 4♦ 4♠ : 5♣ 5♦ : 5♥ 6♦ : 7NT where 5♣ is turbo-style, showing an odd number of keycards, and 6♦ promises the trump queen. But I suppose opener's hand might still be: AKQxxx Jxx KQx K

1. [Looks like an obvious takeout double to me.] Edit! Misread, and thought the opening was 1♥. Over 1♠ I am definitely not doubling. I think I bid 2♦ (the hand is fairly suit-oriented), but 1NT is ok too. 2. Ick! I think I'm going to bid 4C, but I don't really like anything. 3. Edit: I'm just confused about hearts and spades. I initially had my majors mixed up and bid 5♠ here. With the changed problem I think I bid 2♠. 4. I'm passing. 5. Have to take the last guess. I'll bid 6♠ -- I am 7-4 and I haven't a clue who's making what.

Well what does LHO bid? Can't imagine them stopping at the 2-level with a 12-card fit.

I want to bid 3♥. If that's not available, 2♥ (assuming that's forcing) looks ok.

I can believe that pass might work better at these colours, but I can't bring myself to do it. Add me to the 5♣ crowd.

1♥. If the auction is getting back to me at 4♠ I'll be very glad I bid this and not 2♣. Afraid I think a 5♥ opening is too much of a guess, Richard. Sometimes partner holds the spades.

I double because it's a problem hand. Otherwise I pass.

I'm very happy bidding 2♥ even playing constructive raises.

Multiple channels would be absolutely great! So consider this a plea that they be considered for the new build.

The worry as West is that partner appears to be more likely than not to be void in spades.

What would you be doing on the one Mark gives, Free?

Would 2NT still be two nontouching suits? If so, I'd like to bid that. I'd be more inclined to show just hearts if I had some direct natural preemptive bid. Bidding some number of diamonds makes it rather too easy for them to double.

I'll rewind, even if it is a violation of Burn's law.

The main difference between the two styles on this auction being that you tend to have a slightly better hand playing Acol, Joe (assuming a weak no trump)? Unless very non-standard, I wouldn't expect your constructive style to have anything to do with whether pass is forcing here. I can't see quite why it should be forcing in any case: could you explain?

The question is whether you'd double if you were forced to pass 1st time, Josh.

To Peter and Paul: To me, it's in the definition of 'Logical Alternatives'. A bid is a LA if it would be chosen by a certain proportion of players of your level. At the table this seems impossible to determine: you have to approximate for yourself what counts as a logical alternative, and you have a sample of one person to rely on for judgement. If that person's judgement says always bid one way then in the lack of fuller information it seems slightly absurd to me to assume that there are any other logical alternatives. Even if you suspect that there might be, if you were always bidding one way then I don't know how you can be expected to guess which alternatives would or wouldn't be logical. So you are effectively constrained to picking the single alternative which you know to be logical. Now it may be that a director will later, with a more complete knowledge of the facts, rule that other logical alternatives exist. I am with Ken here in that I would support such a director's ruling. Also, you require the players at the table to interpret "could demonstrably have been suggested over another" before making their call. I know that players' opinions of what suggests what in this kind of circumstance often differ substantially, so when this is potentially ambiguous it seems wrong to get the players to interpret it on the fly. What if they know that their judgement of what it might suggest is often wrong? If for some reason they were absolutely sure that the hesitation suggested one thing (which they would otherwise always bid), and[/i] they were equally certain that there existed other logical alternatives (and knew what they were), then I would agree that they should not bid their original choice. I simply think these circumstances are unlikely in the extreme to actually occur. I also think (a much more common occurrence) that if a player was considering more than one action and the UI fairly obviously suggests that one is likely to work better, then they should avoid picking that. But that's a different issue. Prepared to be proven wrong, Owen

Of course it's the correct approach, Peter. It isn't your job to decide what action the hesitation suggests, nor what the logical alternatives are. If you were always making a call, then go ahead and make it. Perhaps the director will agree that there were no other LAs.

I think that you missed one of the major advantages of the weak no trump: 1NT is one of the most descriptive opening bids, and places partner very well if the auction turns competitive. Weak no trump hands are considerably more common (also probably more likely to engender competitive auctions) than strong no trumps, so you gain this advantage more frequently.

I suspect I would double. Definitely prefer pass to any other action.