Blofeld

I don't think I can bring myself to reopen here. I've got two clubs, which reduces the chances that partner is sitting for penalties. (As an aside, I suspect that I wouldn't open this hand - but it's close; switch the majors and I'd be tempted.)

6♥ is non-crazy.

Nice problems! I think to make the second problem more interesting, you should specify that the points must be distinct (before I found a solution with them distinct, I wondered if this was a trick). A similar problem I've seen (though with very little overlap in the solution): how many essentially different[1] ways are there to arrange four points in a plane such that the distance between pairs of points only takes two values? [1] Up to translation, rotation and (uniform) rescaling (there's a word for that, but I can't remember what it is).

I too agree with Mike.

I too prefer 4♥ to 2♥, and would bid it at favourable. Here I think 3♥ is normal. Having bid 2♥, I'm afraid I'm going to pull the redouble.

I voted 4♥, but I think I'd bid this n.v. and 1♥ when vul.

I double, but I think that this is pretty close between double and 4NT. On the other hand I think double was standout.

Yes, and my claim is that, bridge judgement aside, you're misusing the word. Bidding game is unilateral -- it doesn't given partner a say. I think what you want to say is that 3♣ and 3♦ are not unilateral enough (which can be just as bad). At the table I'm pretty sure I'd bid 2M, but I quite like the arguments for 3♣.

I think you're misusing the word "unilateral". An invitational bid may show astoundingly poor judgement, but it's asking partner for an opinion - and thus can't be unilateral.

Fluffy, what would you bid with a 2=2=6=3?

whereagles: what do you think the masterminding bid on this hand would be?

I think the first and fourth options are the sensible ones. Of the two I prefer the fourth.

Right, and we're not told whether the break in tempo was a super-fast bid or a slower than normal one.

Clearly I won't be that happy if partner bids 5♥ (although it may still make - I'd expect that bid to have a 6 card suit most of the time), but that's far from an argument which rules double out. All the options will go badly opposite some possible hands; 4NT is bad when nothing makes or we could have collected a large penalty (or - shock! - when we belong in 5♥); pass is bad if we can make anything at the 5-level and sometimes just when we'd get more points taking 4♠ down if it's doubled. Edit: Err, yeah, what Justin said.

I guess I double.

For the +190s.

Actually what this hand shows is that you can't just take HCP into consideration when deciding what raise to use. It's completely clear that putting some raises through 1NT will lose out sometime when partner doesn't know about your support. The hope is that you will gain enough on other hands to make it worth it. With the hand given I'm pretty sure most people would bid a constructive 2♠, though.

Sorry, I meant I bid 4♥ after the intervention, not intending to rebid 4 when I open 1♠.

With just an 18 count I would tend to open 1♠. I'll then bid 4♥ when it comes back to me. Had I opened 2♣ (which seems OK with this particular 2-suiter) I think I'd bid 4♠ over 4♣.

Lots of reasonable possibilities. The one that you don't list is 5♦, and I suspect that this is what I'd do at the table, although I'm very willing to be persuaded that this is wrong, as it could easily be too high or the wrong strain. I have some sympathy for opening 2/3♦ with the intention to rebid spades unasked ... though I really hate bidding again having preempted and am not sure I could convince myself to do this.

That's awesome.

I was going to construct a few hands to make my point about 4♥. Attempting to build them has led me to agree that 2♥ is better. The problem is that of the 31 HCP available for partner to hold, 16 of them are completely useless. The diamond ace isn't all that great, either. And we're very unlikely to be ruffing any spades. So while there are hands which pass 2♥ and let us make 11 tricks most days (AKx xx xxxx xxxx), which are the sort that I was worried about, they're not dense enough in the space of hands-which-are-passing-2♥ to make going on the percentage action. I hate it when my instincts on these things are wrong. :angry: ;)

I agree with 1♥. I think I will bid 4♥ now. Certainly I'm not going to introduce spades; I can see the case for 2♥ and it may be better, but it seems too easy to miss game that way.

[Richard: I'm not likely to go to work at Google any time soon, but if I find myself in that part of California I'll try and remember the sushi recommendation.] Matt: I showed working! Sheesh, how much do you want? :) Now I'll take my dosis elsewhere.

I think lots of people who would ask you to donate would agree with this - they'd just say that this isn't the sort of thing you should be donating towards. Instead, perhaps, cheap operations to cure blindness and give people their life back. It's very hard to argue that they become dependent on blindness operations and never learn to solve their own problems! [FOUR, while I'm at it]