pbleighton

1NT (in spite of no D stopper), 2C, and 2D are all reasonable. I don't think there is a clear best bid on this hand. I wouldn't pass - the hand is too strong. Peter

One thing I found very useful is 1M-2NT as 11+ dummy points with 3+ trump support. Rebids: 3C dead min 3D better, but not enough to force to game Other - GF, singleton or void. This allows a "re-invite" by opener. You can then "invite" with 11 opposite potential junk. Sometime 3 is too high, but OTOH your conservative opps probably haven't found a fit. You give up on distinguishing 3 vs 4 card support (except for splinters), but nothing is free :) Peter

I hate to pass, but: Agree with coyot, pass. Bidding is chasing waterfalls, IMO. Peter

"If you open 1N with this hand, please alert! You can do this once, but after that you and your partner have a deemed understanding and the opps should be told that 1N does not deny a singleton." Untrue. You only alert if you have a method to find out whether pd opened with a singleton, or if you routinely open with a singleton. Opening with a singleton ace doesn't constitute "routinely". Peter

"I don't think passing 1♠ with four card support is generally winning tactics." Agree 100%. Peter

"East did when he opened! Unless you play 10-12 or 11-13 NT this is not an opening hand." I would agree, except that this is a third seat opening. As such, it is OK because of 4 spades, though it is marginal. West's 4S is an overbid opposite a third hand opener. It would have been fine opposite a first or second hand opener (though perhaps a bit aggressive depending on how light they open). I don't think it's a terrible bid, though. Peter

"3H is game force, it does not show a "weak hand". It does not promise a weak hand, show a weak hand or infer a weak hand OK? Yes, partner is bidding under great pressure so let us cut them some slack, but a weak hand, never." It is a game force, but it may be a hand with a long suit and no outside defense, as is the case here. This hand is marginal, but 3H is not a bad bid. Pass would not have been bad, either. If you bid 3H, then you have to pull partner's double. BTW, I agree that 4H instead of 3H has merit. Peter

"I simply cannot think of anything more "lame" than to sit at a computer in your own home, playing against people you don't see, for no prize money, no prestige, no rating points, and with no cost to use the site, and feel the necessity to cheat at a game of all things." I agree. I can think of one thing which comes close, however: obsessing over online bridge cheating. Peter

"In fact, I think it's 100% clear to make a slam try on opener's hand -- partner's 3♥ followed by 4♥ almost surely indicates slam interest!" To me, it indicates the reverse - a long heart suit with no defense. Peter

3H is marginal (but I might do it). 6NT is terrible - pd has told you that his bid was very light and distributional. Peter

I think this is beginner bidding. Wtp? Peter

5S. Peter

"My crude and basic understanding of the "laws" is that special understandings between partners ARE alertable - and as such, full disclosure applies." True, but it is not that simple. What are "special understandings"? Norms vary from country to country. Peter

"A bypassed 4 card major is a "special understanding between partners", standard 1nt denies a 4 card major. wtp?" The problem? To quote Jack: "I am not convinced that there was a failure to alert. Perhaps it depends on the jurisdiction. You may think that the 1N rebid is alertable, and it may be in your jurisdiction. I do not know whether it is on BBO, so guess I would alert it to be safe, but in my local f2f area it is definitely not alertable. I have no evidence to support it but I would guess that a significant proportion of the population plays it either way, and I would make no assumptions in the absence of an alert." Peter

Agree with Ron and Jimmy. In for a dime, in for a dollar. Don't play weak NT in a strong NT field unless you have a strong stomach for zeros. But if you like tops, by all means play it. Peter (who plays 10-13 NT at all vulnerabilities)

"You might also want to discuss what you play over 1NT-Dbl. In my experience, this does not come up very often, so a simple and clear agreement is preferable (unless you are a very serious partnership)." You might play DONT or soemthing comparable (I play Meckwell), if you play it over the opps strong NT. Peter

I open 1D. You could upgrade to 2C, but showing this hand is hard enough opening at the 1 level. Peter

"To my reading -- though I am hardly an expert -- reading Laws 9B and 75D of the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge make clear that the director MUST be called when a bid has been wrongly explained (which is an irregularity). Must be called. No discretion." Nonsense. If an explanation is unclear (as IMO this one certainly was), most people I know will ask for an explanation rather than calling the director. To call the director after you have failed to ask for a clarification is IMO poor sportsmanship. Again, this may be a language issue - if EW thought 6more 22-24 was clear, then they have poor English skills (no criticism intended), and they are not guilty of poor sportsmanship. If they understand English well, and were just lazy, then... "So blaming EW for calling the director -- if that happened; as jillybean notes, she does not know if they did -- would have been extraordinarily unfair. "Sorry EW, I'm penalizing you for calling me, as you were obliged to do..." I am not suggesting any penalty, as you would know if you had read my post carefully. They were within their rights. They were also guilty of poor sportsmanship, if they did call the director after being lazy. BTW, if they didn't call the director, who did? I'm also not being critical of people who call the director when an irregularity occurs - I do it myself. But this type of behavior, if EW did what I think they may have done, REALLY pisses me off. Peter

"Since the explanation as it stands is meaningless ("6more" doesn't mean anything in English or in bridge) E/W should really ask for clarification." I agree, and, like Ron, I think that this is probabaly a language issue, though it could be a typo. NS should have had a better explanation, but I fault EW 99% on this one. People who call the director asking for an adjustment in marginal cases like this are a disgrace to the game. Unfortunately, they are not so uncommon. Peter

2D, wtp? Peter

It is close. You didn't give scoring or vulnerability, but: I would double, but wouldn't be upset if a partner bid 2S or passed at MPs. At teams, I think you have to double or bid 2S. Peter

"I was at the junior reception when they announced the "bridge is cool" webpage, and it was met by many eye-rolls. Seriously, even if the word cool is still used, being TOLD something is cool by older people makes it even less appealing than before. I couldn't believe the lack of awareness of their audience." Don't trust anyone over 30! Peter

"I keep it simple: Dbl = penalty 2X = natural NF, fighting battle scores" Agree. Peter

Double in a partnership with fairly normal opening bids, pass if we open very light. Peter

1/. was I strong enough to reverse here (I did not, but curious if I was strong enough or what extra I would need if I was not) Yes. 2/. I opened a club (would opening a spade have been better) 1 club is right, IMO. 3/. what is your opinion on opening the longest suit first with a 6/5/2/0, is it personal preference or is there a recommended way of doing it Assume you mean when the 6 is lower ranking. You should be strong enough to reverse if you do this, except that when you have 6 clubs and 5 spades there is a case for always doing it. 4/. is 6/5/2/0 better than 6/5/1/1 (this might seem a dumb question to some of you but I will ask it anyway) Very marginally. Peter