Blofeld

It's not clear to me what "convention" means in that context, tysen. Must all bids be to play (or suggestions to play)? Or are you allowed (natural) forcing bids? And although you'll never be looking to go slamming after this 3rd seat opening, if you had a similar agreement in 1st/2nd, would you be allowed to naturally bid to show strength/controls?

I would also double on a few 1444 hands, but I think partner should read me for a void here.

I think that's Moonraker, actually.

That's a non sequitur, Roland. It's certainly true that only a small proportion of the members post on the forums, but I'm sure that uday knows that. The more important question is whether in this regard they are a representative minority. The distinguishing criterion is that people have chosen to sign up to the forums. Now, I can't be certain, but my guess here is that such people would be more likely, not less, than an 'average' BBO member to want this functionality. All that said, I think it would be a nice idea, but I'm not sure how often I'd use it ; I'd need a group of like-minded people to watch with.

My club holding makes me worry that a double is too dangerous.

I'm also passing. I can't see any attractive bids, and I can't see much that goes wrong if I pass.

Why does it matter whether it was a "psyche" or not? Psyches get good results too sometimes.

I'm bidding 2NT (18-20ish natural), via elimination of the other possibilities. 2♣ or 2♦ really mis-states the hand. 1NT is a huge underbid. Double looks right, treating the hand as a standard strong no trump, except that it goes wrong when partner bids too many hearts. Pass is the only really viable alternative, but at these colours I'm too worried about collecting 50s against our game. Which leaves me with the slight overbid of 2NT.

Can you tell us what 3♠ showed under the partnership's agreements?

"One view per hand." Good maxim. I obviously took my view when I bid 3♠. I'm not quite sure what I was thinking when I did so, but I'd better pass now.

Typically late ... so here's an advance 'happy birthday' for your 22nd, Mike!

This is so you can play the hand right? :P Well this is an individual tournament ...

Pass. I'm expecting three decentish spades and a doubleton diamond. Could be massively wrong, of course. :P

I think that the actual corollary is that those who post-mortem bad results to death [what a wonderful redundant turn of phrase!] are poor players.

Obvious 3♠. Even if we are going to a ♦ slam (and at this point I definitely want to keep 4♠ in the picture), patterning out will almost certainly help partner more than a direct cuebid.

If I bid 7NT with confidence they might save.

As the auction may well not end with my call, I think it's ludicrous to say that we're past the point of describing our hand. Either we need to describe our hand to partner, or vice-versa. And it's a lot easier to get to the right place via the former route. I think doubling is more likely to get me to slam when it's right than a 5♦ bid. Well, in that there's no longer a decision available to him/her, yes. Yes, I know that in general on this hand I'd rather play than defend. I got that across with my 2♠ bid. If you think that partner could consider not pulling the double on the given hand, could you please construct a hand that you think would bid 2♠ and then double?

No, passing didn't really occur to me. But I thought that double was more flexible than 2♦.

Could you explain the problem with doubling? I double because I think it's the best description of my hand. I'm willing to trust that my partner has some judgement as well.

On the one hand, 3NT is an accurate description of the hand. On the other hand, it eats up a lot of bidding space, possibly wrongsides the contract, and indicates a stronger preference for no trumps than we have -- look at those aces! In addition, a large chunk of this hand's strength is in the club suit, so I think I'm going to try 2♣.

First one I'm going small to the king and then back to the 9 (and then the ten). Not sure about the second one. I think I'll try low to the king and then play up to the 8.

I like the suggestion of the pass over 5♣. That certainly helps matters.

I'm not convinced that that's best, Winstonm. If declarer has the hand you're playing him for then most people are going to be in game on this one, so your defence won't really matter (if it makes, you get a top ; if it goes down, you get a bottom). Therefore you should be defending on the assumption that declarer has a holding where the result does matter. I suppose that I'm sending a ♦ back as partner seems enthusiastic about that, but I have no great conviction about doing so. I would definitely have reopened with a double.

Would 3♦ over 1♠ have been invitational? If so, I might have preferred to bid that, but admittedly the texture of the suit inclines me not to.

Well bearmum's method will get you there (how can south, with four aces, not raise to seven?), but I don't like the 6♠ bid as could easily be off two cashing aces, or making seven. I accept that north, holding second round controls everywhere, could launch into Blackwood (better than 6♠ direct, IMO), but this seems non-ideal. I'm also not a huge fan of the 4♦ splinter with the this hand, as partner may well undervalue his ♦K.