Blofeld

? Adam didn't mention being worried about the relative strengths of the hands at all.

I agree with Phil's auction. While the North hand has 25 Zars and spades, it isn't what I'd consider an opening without special agreement, and without some kind of weak 2-suited opening the East hand is also going to have to pass. The 6 spade bid also seems to be gambling that we'll find a way to deal with a heart loser, but we can't be that precise when opponents are preempting, partner is likely to have something for 2NT, and we can always attempt the finesse (even if it is likely to be off).

Gut reaction: 2♣, will pass 2♦ or bid 3M. Obviously I ignore the hesitation.

I think that Frederick's suggested line is unreasonable. When declarer loses the club, obviously he is no longer bound to believe that he makes the rest regardless of which cards he plays. Hence, just 2 tricks to EW.

I'd rather like south to mention his solid 7-card suit in one of his first two calls. 3♦ seems misguided as you know what you want to mention about the hand - clubs. But if you are consulting partner with 3♦ then surely right to agree spades? 4♠ doesn't seem such a bad contract (and looks to be where you land after 3♣, as well).

[hv=d=e&v=n&n=saqj4h6dkj975ct42&w=s52hkqt8542da82c9&e=st986hj7d43ckj865&s=sk73ha93dqt6caq73]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] The full hand. At the table, I passed and collected 300. 3NT is doomed but the 4♣ bidders get the best result (assuming that they will find their way to 5♦).

[hv=d=s&v=b&n=saq64hj8d4ca98432&s=sh3dkqjt8632ckq76]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] This was partner's hand. At our table they led a heart, so I went one off in 6♦.

I think that's a little unfair without knowing the system (though you may still object to it when the system is known). We were playing WJ05, so 1NT shows 15-17.

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=sk73ha93dqt6caq73]133|100|Scoring: IMP (pass) 1NT (3♥) DBL* (pass) ? *takeout[/hv] Thoughts?

The Clayton. Going to remember that one.

I'm asking what 2♦ means and then getting 2♠ on the table almost regardless of the meaning (think I'd bid this even if it's Ekren). I don't want to create ethical problems for partner by not asking.

3♣ has the distinct advantage of letting partner know about the fit. That said, I think I'm still going to try double.

I don't think that it's quite fair to call 1♦ a mastermind. You're just picking 1♦ as the best description of the hand. Which, in a certain sense, it is. I'd definitely open this, and waver between 1♦ and 1♠.

Clearly he means you shouldn't be playing for a procedural penalty in your favour if it risks the contract.

1. 2♣: however tempting a 2♦ reverse is, I feel miserable when partner raises. 2. 4♦ 3. Pass without a lot of conviction. 4♣ tempts. 4. I think a spade game looks reasonably likely, and I'm tempted to just bid 4♠ now. If 3♣ is forcing then I'd prefer that. Tough problems!

I'm going with 2♦. If partner insists, I might leave this in 3♥, but on the other hand slam isn't out of the picture.

My gut objection to a 5♦ opening is that the hand is too offensive! I won't be very happy if the opponents bid 5 of a major (sure, sometimes they'll do it and it'll be wrong. But lots of the time it won't). Which inclines me to look for another bid. Am I being too fussy?

Oh, I know that 4NT is not a good bid here. It will work well sometimes and pretty poorly elsewhen. I'm not convinced that it can be a misfit if I hold KQJTxxxx, though.

[hv=d=s&v=b&s=sh3dkqjt8632ckq76]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Your preferred opening? Partner knows that you tend to preempt fairly aggressively. I bid a semi-psychic 4NT (specific ace-ask), figuring that it had a reasonable chance of working out ok (for one thing, if partner has no outside aces opponents seem less likely to bid over 5♦ than a direct opening, despite actually having more opportunities to bid). Of course, it was a silly hour in the morning and my brain doesn't function well at the best of times ... Still, would like opinions of the 4N bid, as well as of the other options (my first choice was really 1♦, but I never get the chance to psyche 4N openings with a reasonable hope of a good board); the other table had a 5♦ opening. Mock away!

But we've already suggested that our values are in our suits rather than theirs. In this context, aces are very defensive.

I would definitely open the second hand (1♠ ; I hate 2♠) and I'm close to opening the first, though I think I pass. State of match considerations might incline me rather to open, though.

I agree that 4♣ has to be fit-showing here, and seems the best bid to let partner know what's going on (although the suit texture isn't perfect). But I disagree that one would always splinter with a singleton. Given a 4135 shape my decision to splinter or bid 4♣ would be based on honour location. If I have something in ♦s, the splinter will appeal. But give me three little diamonds and ♣KJTxx and suddenly the fit-showing 4♣ seems to let partner make a much more informed decision. On the actual hand, I double. I can hardly have a more defensive hand.

I like the idea, but I strongly feel that more than six people on a team should be permitted. The more people on a team, the easier it should be to field 4 at a given time, and so the less likely things are to fall apart because people can't agree times.

I'm not sure whether I'd do anything more than 2♠ or not with the North hand. Certainly double doesn't feel right. I don't agree with the 2♦ bid, but I don't think it's awful, either. The hand has some shape and the suit has some values.

It's not that hard to construct hands for parnter where even slam is a good prospect [ok, I don't expect to get to slam here - just playing the devil's advocate].