Blofeld

I don't speak any Danish, Roland, but I think that you're denying Claus the benefit of the doubt. What he said doesn't sound very nice in English, and it could well be that your translation isn't very nice in Danish, but into any language that isn't totally constrained (Newspeak anyone?) there are almost always several ways of translating something, perhaps even (owing to imperfections in translation) with very different meanings. Why don't you let Claus furnish you with his original before you lay into him for that (not that there aren't enough things to lay into him for already) ?

I don't much like North's 3♣ bid, but having made that call I don't see how he can bid differently. After 3♠, South's 4♥ has to be a cue bid for clubs, so the 4♣ bid is denying a spade control, and 5♣ a retreat into the agreed suit without slam ambitions. South should just have bid 3♥ at his first turn (assuming this is forcing; 4♥ if not). So I can't call North blameless (as the overcall is rather exceedingly light - I agree with Antoine about possible continuations if East had bid 4♠), but I dislike South's actual bidding more.

I always try to look like I'm thinking after someone preempts.

Doesn't the stop card offer you some measure of protection in this regard? Perhaps not enough, though.

That's a lovely idea. It's possible to try to arrange such things at present (typically by asking the host of a table with two players seated), and often gives a much more enjoyable game than playing against opponents who often don't have more a line of agreement in partnership bidding/defence. A method to encourage this and make it easier would be welcome, I think. On a similar note, I think the only really sensible way to assign ratings is per partnership, and even that would have problems to be overcome and almost certainly be more hassle than it was worth.

You say "same general strategy if 1444", but isn't the 1444 hand trickier to deal with than the 4144? In particular, are you opening 1D with a 12-14 1444 and rebidding 2C over 1S? One way to dodge the prolem some of the time is not to open 1444 hands on 11 or 12 counts.

That seems really quite a fun idea. Have you had much experience of actually playing this? What response structure do you use to 1nt to allow for the 4441 hands?

I rather think I'll pass. I'm slightly suspicious that partner couldn't double. 3NT a second choice, unless double shows a strong NT hand.

Do you think you could count extra points for two singletons in the same suit? :)

Did 1♦ promise 4? If just 3, without any agreement I think 4♦ is probably natural and preemptive. Of course, if it's something else then it's probably slam going, so my pass will be expensive. :(

:) An ideal solution might be to get the panel members to each award a percentage to the bids, and then take the averages (also consider that so far, the fact that there are 101 different scores available hasn't seemed to have any application, as everything awarded has been a multiple of 10% ; if taking averages this would clearly not be the case). But this has the not insignificant disadvantage of demanding a lot more from the panellists.

My 4♣ splinter has forced to game even opposite a minimum hand with wasted values in clubs. Opposite a non-minimum or one without wasted club values, therefore, I expect partner to bid something other than 4♠. The entire point of the splinter is to get an evaluation of partner's hand in light of the club singleton. If I hear 4♠ then I'll happily pass that.

How are you going to get to 3nt? If I double, I'm passing just about whatever partner bids.

Their example hands are appalling. On the first, opener uses blackwood after hearing the ace-response to 2♣, and therefore presumably knowing how many aces his p has! I'm guessing that one needs some values apart from the ace in order to show the ace. At least the scheme makes marginally more sense then. On the second hand, they say "6♥: We have 33-34HCPs, not enough for Grand Slam. Final Contract." when 7♥ is absolutely laydown (given that the opening lead isn't ruffed). They don't seem to make any use of 2♣ : 3♥ or 2♣ : 3 ♠ --- As described, I think it's an awful system. It might be possible to have a good system which starts by showing your aces, but this isn't it.

I plumped for the nebulous 3♣. 4♣ is not without attraction, though.

If RHO gives me an opportunity to better describe my hand, I'll take it. Double.

I like 4♣, except that I'm not sure what I expect partner to bid now. There won't be a diamond cue, and unless the opponents have a 10 card fit no ♥ cue, either. I have a bit of sympathy for blackwood, but everything goes pear-shaped if you're missing 3 keycards.

I wavered between 3♥ and 3nt. I think I like 3nt better, but can't now remember whether I did the same when submitting answers. :lol:

I'm afraid that I haven't played enough different defences to be able to comment constructively, but "worst defence" seems a little silly, as it's easy to come up with some truly terrible defences (a pathological example would be to bid 7NT regardless of your hand). Presumably you mean "worst defence that's widely used", which would at least be beneficial in terms of avoiding playing that defence, and opening 1nt whenever possible if your opponents play it. :)

The reason I think LHO has 5 spades is because there are 9 out and I don't believe RHO has more than 4, as he bid 1♥ on a 4 card suit ; if he had a longer ♠ suit, surely he'd have bid that first?

I think I'll draw another trump and then try the club hook. LHO looks marked with 5 spades (as rho bid 1♥ with 4), and therefore, according to style, either 5+ or 6+ clubs. either way the club finesse looks a good bet.

Isn't 6NT played by North on the first hand a good contract? ;)

Mostly I agree with various comments so far. 1) and 2) look like obvious passes. On 3), the 3♦ bid would be nice (what other than a fit jump could it be?). After this or 3♣ (preferably this as partner's bid will be more informed), though, I'll pass partner's 3♠. 4) Can I go back and change my first bid? Partner's shown a 5 card suit for which I have good support. I'd like to let him/her know about my support straight away, precisely to keep p informed in decisions and avoid guessing myseful if the bidding proceeds like this. Would 3♥ have been a splinter, or do I need to go to 4♥ for that? Splintering in ♥s or bidding 2♥ to show diamond support seems better than emphasising the spades. As set I think I have to pass, though. 5) 3♠. If p has some support and shortage, it may well play better in spades than hearts. Happy to bid 5♣ over 4♥. I don't really mind an immediate 4♣ bid, either. 6) 4NT may work some of the time, but I'm afraid that partner will prefer hearts when this is wrong, so I'll bid 5♦

Opening 1♦ looks like it works fine when p bids a major, but what's your rebid over 1NT or 2♣, or for that matter 2♦? It also seems to give up any hope of playing in a 5-3 heart fit. And gives your partner a big headache if you end up looking for slam. At least, that's how I see it. :P

I've been lurking on the forum for a while, but have to break silence here to ask: is double-dummy play assumed in problems like this? Or do you play as if you could just see your hand and dummy? I'm probably wrong, but it looks to me that the contract goes down only if east finds the ♦9 at trick 1.