Blofeld

I think you've got the wrong hands bidding.

Agree with Gerben on both counts.

1♠ (3♣) 4♣ (5♣) 5♦ (pass, I assume) 5♥ (pass) 5NT seems a good start, but I'm not sure that I'd actually push beyond the 6 level.

Perhaps that's an argument for opening 5♥ on that hand.

This is completely false and a common misunderstanding, even in live bridge. Apologies then. I've never played in an ACBL jurisdiction, and have picked up this impression probably mostly from these forums. However that's largely irrelevant to the thrust of my point (which you appear to agree with), which is that when self-alerting we should be following different guidelines.

Well yes, that's my basic problem with things. I don't fully understand the implications of the 2♦ bid, or the implications of not making the 2♦ bid when it's available. My intuitive interpretation is that we've shown five spades, but I could be wrong (and if we have only shown four then I think I change my vote to 4♠).

I think I'm doubling despite the spade king. Doubling can lose in a big way, but there are also several different ways that it can win, and this is matchpoints so a zero is just a zero.

Haven't we already shown five spades?

... but so are lots of other alert systems. In particular, there are ones that are easier to learn. For instance, "alert any call that isn't natural". And the ACBL policy of not alerting responses to bids above 3NT is silly in an online context of self-alerts.

I don't understand the reasoning there. Partner knows the vulnerability as well, and I could hardly have a more defensive hand at this point. If you're not doubling here, would you never double on this auction at these colours?

Oh, you're preaching to the clergy as concerns a 10-13 no trump. I was just interested in your approach to the 14-17 hands.

This post is not helpful, as it points out merely that you get there if north opens a weak no trump and south uses Keri's transfer splinters. On the other hand, I like 4♣ over 2♣.

So how do you decide what to open with a 14+ hand?

Don't think that's necessarily true, pigpenz. In particular, as Frances pointed out, after (1N) P (4♦), bidding 4♥ is dangerous, whereas if you can make a 'takeout' double then it's much safer to suggest a save. I like the question of whether it's permissible to double with a void. I wouldn't at the table for fear that partner would sacrifice on our 'fit', but I'm not sure whether it ought to be permissible. My inclination is that suggesting a save somewhere is going to be more useful that lead directing with a void.

What Justin said. My 2♠ call (if I made one) showed an offensive hand. The double shows a defensive hand <i>given this context</i>. Partner has a very offensive hand in context, so will bid over the double.

No real content in this post, I just wanted to applaud Fred and Uday for their work!

I'm going with 4♠. Sometimes it's wrong, but sometimes it may even make, and sometimes when it is wrong opponents will do the wrong thing (also when 4♠ is right opponents are more likely to do the wrong thing than over 3♠).

FWIW, when I vote in a bidding poll here, I always force myself to vote before reading the comments. We learn the most from mistakes, and unless you commit yourself to make the possible mistake, you may not realize you would have made a mistake in misjudging the hand somewhat, or missing an aspect of the situation. But I guess not everybody does that. Arend I do the same, Arend. I was a passer here, but I really wasn't sure. I'm not used to not playing fourth suit forcing, so I'm not entirely clear what I've promised on this auction. Presumably I've already shown five spades?

Assuming that north refuses to take the ♦K on the first round of the suit [else trivial], and wins the second round of the suit, any return he makes is going to give another entry to dummy. Someone can probably explain why this doesn't work.

While we had about sixteen tables at our first session of the term. Can't quite hope to keep the numbers that high, but still ...

Double without thinking. Then I might think, and I'd still agree with the double.

Could you explain the logic here? I can't follow it.

4♠. I've been trying to talk myself out of this bid, but I can't.

I'd devised the same method of play. I've never actually tried it, though I think it's an excellent idea.

You won't pull the wool over my eyes that easily! 12+13 is only 25 points. At 3 points per trick, this is on average taking only slightly more than eight tricks. To make a game in a major, say, we ought to have combined 30 points between the two hands (or possibly 31, as there are 40 points in the deck rather than 39).