mw64ahw

Misfits are misfits

Yes 6-5 stay alive 3R - 3♠ ... 4♠ 3♠-4♠ 4♣-Pass

Even without the 2♣ gadget (which I don't use with one partner) I'd take this approach in this instance given the shape.

My rebids at the 3-level show 13-16, 6 or fewer modified losers and 5-5 or 6+. In this case I'll try 3♣ and if corrected to 3♠ I raise to 4 given the extreme shape.

That works here, but I think partner would have passed regardless of whether they had a stopper or not.

Thanks spoiler corrected

This is one I got horribly wrong playing with no agreement over INT 15-17 interference going for 990 What's your bid? [hv=pc=n&e=skth2dkjt92ck7652&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=1n2h?]133|200[/hv]

4♠ looks like the spot on bid for this distributional hand over 2♣ While it may be tempting to try 4♣ your combined hcp count just isn't there assuming 1♥ is 8+ish and 2♣ is at least the same if not higher.

I'm not even sure that I would open with that weak 11 count, but after revaluation I can understand why North raised

Does the balanced include 2353 & 2533 or are these still 2♦ & 2♥ responses?

I've moved away from a standard approach so never rebid 2♠ to show 6 or balanced. This is why I show the ♥ first and I'm happy with KJxx if playing standard. A direct 3♠ shows the self-sustaining hand with extras if I do want to skip ♥

Perhaps not if you find yourself facing a minimum without the entries to ♠/♣ and go down especially if you stretch to open. I also have the 3♣ bid, but not with the ♥. I did run a number of simulations when considering whether 11 or 12 should be the top end of the range for this bid, settling on 12 especially with the void.

I bid 2♥ rather than 2♠ as you have the option of placing the contract with a self-sustaining suit.

That was clear - I hadn't seen the hands before posting, but regardless of what South responds North should and did push to game regardless. It looks like your question is did you miss the slam because of the 1NT response rather than making or not making 3NT because of the GF response? South has a self-sustaining ♠ suit and 4♥ so do you have a GF rebid that shows the 4♥? If the answer is yes then why wasn't it used? I would have thought at the basic level 1♠-1NT-3♥ puts South in a great position to go for the slam.

Interesting problem which is tricky to solve even if you play 2/1 GI unless 1♠-2♣-2X-3♣ remains invitational If opener is 6331/6241 and minimum would you rather play in 2NT or 3NT? You are taking a punt on whether ♣ or ♠ can make the extra tricks required If you start with 1♠-1NT (assuming F1) then you preserve the option to play in 2NT when the field may be competing to 3NT and going down. If you play a subsequent 3♣ as invitational with 6+♣ then you may have another way to 3NT Take your pick, but with a void in ♠ what are the probabilities of a weakish misfit?

I think you can delete as I have done so in the past. It asks you for a reason

Over 1M only

I stopped using splinters some time ago, but tended to use 4+ and 6 modified losers.

No immediate GF although openers rebid obviously puts you in that space. Modified losers assigns 1.5 to a missing Ace, 1 for the King and 0.5 for the Queen; there are some more subtle adjustments for intermediates/tenaces. In this case opener has: 0.5 2.5 2.5 0.5 = 6 Responder can then cue-bid with 7 modified losers or 7.5 with good controls or raise to game otherwise. So 19-6-7=6-level. Over 1♥ I use 2♠ to keep the steps symmetric and the memory load down. Correction: As opener I bid 3♣ to show a minimum and then responder jumps to 4♣ to show a ♠ honour and ♣ control SI. Opener can upgrade their minimum and show an even number of keycards with controls in ♦ and ♥ with 4NT After that further cue-bidding leads to 6♠

Nope - I moved to a strength based Limit+, 4+ approach. Initially opener shows their hcp count and responder then moves forward based on modified losers. In this case 3♠ (16/17 balanced, otherwise 15/16 hcp) is the bid. Responder assumes 6 modified losers and either places the contract or cue-bids to investigate the slam. Partner finds the approach straightforward and I don't remember a time where we under/overbid.

Takeout X with 6/5.5 modified losers, but partner's failure to bid raises the possibility of playing in a Moysian. North is too weak to support directly for me.

Both NV, but max IMPs

Surprisingly no - lots of part scores and a couple of ♥ contracts with the top scores being 5♦ & 1♥X. I was surprised at the 1♥X as these were competent pairs.

No, but only one pair ended up in 5♦ which may say something about the quality of the field.

A similar one from last night A swallow doesn't make a summer, but can you bid and make 6♦ or even 5♦ to make the top? [hv=pc=n&s=sq9hkqj965d654ca7&w=skj6ha73dkt97ct63&n=s87532ht42d2cq942&e=sat4h8daqj83ckj85&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1h1n(Takeout)2h?]399|300[/hv]