Kalvan14

The only worry here might be partner void in diamonds (which is impossible, he would not have passed 3♦). I double, and would be surprised if we do not get 500 (much more likely, 800)

but it gives a very good indication for an opening lead :)

3NT for me: specific A asking. The worry in opening this hand 1♥ is that oppos might heavily pre-empt in spades (assuming that they are not at unfav-vul). Still, if you have not a specific opening, there is no alternative

I prefer to win the ♦A, three rounds of spades (discarding a diamond), and hearts to the T. Ruff the return, and ♣K. 3 spades, 4 trumps, 2 clubs and 1 diamond add up to 10 tricks.

6♠. And I am not running.

either you open this hand in 1st seat, or you pass after the posted sequence. Giving a detailed map of your hand to oppos which are likely to play the hand is never a good idea.

Acol players need use very good judgment, SAYC is a lot more rigid. IMHO, it's quite difficult to pick up 2 "natural" systems more at odds with each other.

All the answers are yes, without any minimum doubt. Bottoms are bad; spinning the wheel very often to get a top or a bottom is bad; partner's confidence is one of the most important things in bridge. Playing against the field is not wrong in itself, but: - most of the times (3 times out of 4? 4 times out of 5? 5 times out of 6?) the field is playing according to the best odds. If you want to play always against the odds, bridge is not a good game. - in general, the field results benefits the most consistent players: even in a lay-down contract there is always someone who does not reach it, or plays against the odds, or makes a mistake. - tops (in general) are a present you receive from oppos. Bottoms are earned. - if you get a bottom, and spin the wheel to get a top, odds are you get another bottom. I know it sounds like popular wisdom. But it works.

How many times in your life are you anticipating having to bid a balanced 24 points after an oppo's opening bid? Is it worth to go and analyse it in details? Frankly, I am sure that it I had got this hand bidding would have been: (1♠)-X-(2♠)-P-(P)-3NT. No need for agreements or further investigations: there are a lot of hands where even a yarborough is useful (actually, every time partner has 5 cards in a red suit), and I'm close to 8 tricks by power on my own. Enough, and more than enough.

I agree with Mike, there is something strange. Even a 2-suiter (spade/minor) is a bit too dangerous (=too revealing) in this situation. Oppos have already exchanged their most important messages: fit in hearts, GF situation. I find it difficult to imagine a hand that I'd have passed originally, but that allows me to come back at 4-level (after my pard has passed!!)

Slam is difficult to bid, and is not guaranteed before looking at the cards: if W holds the A♦ instead of the A♣, the slam fails. I am surprised by the optimism that noth dsplays in looking for a pre-empt at 4-lev, vuln vs. non-vuln. 4♥X is 3 off (800 vs. a possible and a bit optimistic 980, but it might be 1100 as well, if the hearts are not 2-2).

OTOH, I can see very well how 3NT can be made by N (don't tell me that E leads a club)

If the guy is over 30, 2♥ for me

Quite funny. I was strongly convinced that there were just 3 standard bids in this sequence (all the rest is subject to agreements): - double, proposing a penalty - 4C, pass or correct - 4H, to play Now it look like that 4H is the only one on which there is a consensus

The first question to ask is the meaning of 3♠: I'd assume that it is a competitive raise. 4♣ is easy: pass or correct (4♦ is a forcing raise in clubs; the forcing raise in diamonds is obviously 4♣). Double denies a fit in hearts, and proposes a penalty (not necessarily with a trump stack). I say "propose": if pard has chosen a very distributional 2♠, he should pull to his minor (where the double guarantees at least 3 cards). IMO, Marshall Miles would agree with this definition. 3NT is a forcing raise in hearts (as opposed to 4♥, which is not forward going): pard bids his minor with a good hand, and 4♥ with a minimum. 4♠ is a forcing raise in both minors (with spade control) and 4 (?) covers 4NT ditto, but no spade control 5♣ is pass or correct - not forward going (IMO, should mostly be pre-emptive) I don't think there is a standard (except - maybe - for the double). This is what I play, but I'd guess that a lot of partnerships never discussed this auction.

I remember this quote, but I suppose it goes to prove my point. Roth is the only big name still playing free bids (and he's not an up-and-coming player, to be charitable). MM is an old school gentleman, and, while he likes to be unconventional, always makes a point of supporting contrary POVs (if I were completely cynical, I'd add that dog does not eat dog :lol: ). The concept of "fads" has merit: otoh, looking at the top players cathegory only, who is still playing free bids nowadays? Isn't it reasonable to argue that this proves that the "fast-in, fast-out" approach has been proven more profitable?

1NT by a passed hand is forcing by agreement only (e.g., if you want to keep some invitational balanced raises: IMO, if you play Drury it solves your problem). The real issue is what to do with clubs in an invitational hand (diamonds or hearts can be shown as a 2/1). Not a big deal, in particular if opener will keep the bidding open with a good opening (14/+).

evidently your partner(s) have never made bidding mistakes... and evidently, neither have you Mistakes are what makes bridge interesting. IMHO, there is a limit to everything: I'm going further, and repudiating any partner who passes a Stayman 2♣ :lol:

Ahh to the woodshed for such logic....something is not winning bridge for no other logic than being outdated? A free bid is still a free bid, what it means, what values it promises and what is winning bridge style can be debated and bantered back and forth :lol:. If 90% of good bridge players have abandoned the concept of free bids, I'd assume that there must be a reason.

I fail to see why showing the double fit hurts the slam exploration: there must be a logic behind it, but I'm afraid it is too convoluted for me to follow. I would not bid 3♠ after a fit in hearts with 3 small, that's for sure. IMHO, knowing that there is Hxx in front should help a lot opener to judge the continuation: KJxxx in front of Qx or Qxx is not exactly the same kind of horse. Not to mention the cases where opener has AQxxx in spades, and knowing that there is Kxx in front helps even more. Let's examine the other road toward a game (or a slam): advancer holds maybe Kxx AQJxx xxx AJ, and decides to hide his best suit (and most likely source of tricks) to avoid thr "risk" of finding a double fit? Living as I do on the borders of the empire I must have lost touch with the cutting edge of bidding.

Both sides erred on the side of optimism. I'd assign the larger blame to E: the splinter was already stretched. He should not accept LTTC (W is looking for a miracle slam, IMO he's not without blame).

With which of the following hands (if any) would you balance with 2♣: x Kxx xxx AJTxxx x Jxx Qxx AJxxxx xx KJx xxx QJxxx xx KJx xxx QTxxx xx KJx xxx JTxxx

Top priority should be not to miss 3NT, if it is there. Note that after 1D-1S-3D-3H-3N, advancer can always force (if justified). OTOH, if 3♥ was an advance cue, 4♦ fixes trumps, and denies clubs. Even if advancer has 5 spades, and Hx in diamonds, a slam in diamonds is equal or better than a slam in spades (in a possible 5-2 fit).

Not again a hand where opener gets cold feet: whatever the outcome (even 4♦ just made), I'll refrain from playing again with anyone who passes 4♦

A clear target, but this statement does not provide us with a re-bid