Blofeld

1) a diamond switch looks right. I've been wrong before. 2) It isn't clear here what partner's signal means, as declarer may be concealing the 3. I think I'll switch to a heart. 3) 3♠.

3♣. I expect this auction to bounce quickly, so 1N is out. 2♣ isn't that bad as it's unlikely to be passed out, but then it's hard to get any useful information out of partner as it conveys nothing like this hand. Splintering carries the wrong message about the other red suit, as well as making it very hard to play in clubs. I don't want to play in 3NT, and 5♣ seems too unilateral. While I don't actually expect partner to have a club fit (and 3♣ may make it harder than I'd like to eventually play in the suit), it will tend to get partner to devalue points in the red suits, which seems the best effort that I can make here. Second choice 5♣.

But what if the players disagree about what the implicit agreements are? Saying 'no agreement' seems a valid route here. You haven't discussed anything. You have a decent hope that your partner will understand you, but it is nothing more than hope, and your opponents should be in the same position as your partner here.

Hand 1 is a workable psyche (I hesitate to say 'good'), but I'm not too impressed by either of the others.

Unless he psyched.

I think not.

4NT could of course be a minor and a major, but pulling partner's minor to 5♥ should clear the water. Of course if you've discussed what 4♣ and 4♦ mean then that's fine.

How about 4NT over 3NT? Certainly can't be natural :)

Is 4-6 possible Justin?

I'm fairly sure (on Frances' hand) that if East is going to take an action other than double that it should be at the first opportunity. Being willing to let partner sit for penalties at the 2-level but not the 4-level makes no sense. That said, I'm doubling.

While I won't actually stand up for Raptor (I haven't had anywhere near enough experience of it), I think you're being a little unfair to its proponents, Fred. They don't claim that they can put the natural 1NT overcalls into the takeout double without any adverse consequences: they just believe that the downsides are outweighed by the advantages on the hands that get to bid 1NT.

3♣, almost everyone above me said so so I know it must be right!

3♠. 3♦ doesn't sound encouraging looking at our hand, but partner is unlimited and may need to know about the ♠K. If he now bypasses serious 3NT, I'll sign off.

If Matt's defending I bid 6♠.

Over a double I would have bid 3♣ with your partner's hand.

5♦ seems practical.

Not clear that the slow 3♠ suggests anything in particular, so I can't see any particular action being barred. As an aside, I think that there's a reasonable argument that pass isn't a LA on this hand. You can hardly be better for your bidding so far, and partner bid a free 3♠.

3♣ looks about right. Not raising seems silly.

I sometimes don't realise when an opponent has psyched. Could we have the software automatically alerting psyches, preferably in a different colour? That would stop all these annoying people who think that they can open on 11 points. An option for doubling out of turn when you want to take penalties would be good too.

1. I bid 1♠. Just occasionally, partner has diamonds ... 2. Certainly I bid 3♣. I'd rather play this in a major if possible.

3♥ seems a pretty reasonable way forward. There's no way that I'm going to rest in 3NT here. I can see that 4♦ might be better.

Pass. I can well believe that 3♥ or 3NT (or even 4♦) will work out a significant proportion of the time, but I think pass is the action most likely to bring in a good score. Spade values opposite don't appeal.

I wouldn't be all that keen on hearing "I seem to have 14 cards", either ...

4♣. This one seemed to be a case of 'guess the system bid'.

Not sure that it could get worse than 5♥. Maybe 6♥.