ulven

Double. I don't expect to make 5S with likely bad breaks in our suit(s) and I have two defensive tricks in H's. Partner should be good for at least one.

Yes, thank you. In a strong club context I'd rebid 2H as would most others.

4S

I'm sure you're joking. 3D was a really horrible bid and everything after that doesn't matter. 2D is ok playing standard.

I share this view. EDIT: I can't find the number of kibs, in summarized form. That I'd like. I also think that the boxes in the listing should be smaller so more can fit, cutting down on potential scrolling.

3D. No way I'm sitting for this, although it may be the winning decision of course.

Pass. Partner has a good defensive hand to come in 'live' against the highest ranking suit, i.e. forcing us to the 3-level without a guaranteed fit.

I'm a passer, after checking their agreements about X (which could change my mind). I have mixed feelings about 5C. It helps with lead and possible double fit but gives our LHO a chance to bid 5D/H freely, showing values to do so. That gives the doubler a chance to punt 6 or 7, virtually forcing us to save (well, maybe not but how is partner going to make an informed decision when we have 6-c support?). If I were to bid, I'd go with 5S therefore.

There's not any difference about those statements to my mind when it comes to bridge. As this is not the laws of nature, where every occurence behaves the same way. For something to be a "bridge fact" it doesn't have to be correct everytime. A double finesse is correct with xxx vs AJT - that's considered a fact by even you I'd believe. That play doesn't work everytime but is does work in the long run making it a statistical correct play. If the statistical edge is significant, it's a "bridge fact" in my terminology. The second statement, cited above, only spells this out by adding "in the long run". So, yes it's a fact 1S is better. I'm sure. I believe. I think. Take your pick. (Yes, I'm in a bit of a foul mood today for other reasons than any posts here ;-))

Great post! Some comments: My observation is that people, in general, are too conservative (pessimistic) entering the auction. The risk of going for a number is often overrated, btw. And overbidding (optimistic) when it comes to preempts and later rounds of a competetive auction. About forcing opponents errors, this is a field of mixed views. If you tend to make a significant number of unforced errors yourself, you may need to adopt a pressure style to win against teams better than yourself. Against weaker teams, you risk losing matches if things go wrong. The main thing is to identify which auctions/situations that are suitable for pressure and which are not. Like counting the deck in Black Jack and only go aggressive when odds are favourable (the main aspect here is how much information is exchanged between opps). I think the need to force errors is overplayed. Focusing on error free bridge is still a winner. Sure the number of errors of a certain kind are much lower now than years ago but check the finals of a long knockout tournament and you'll see that focusing on playing well yourself wins most matches. The number of unforced errors are much higher when people are tired. Avoiding those outnumbers "pressure imps" by a significant margin. The setting may be a factor though. Some people fail to make the transition in style as their skill level increase. Early in their 'career' they need to be on the wild side but as they gain experience and become good players they fail to see that they should adjust as they don't need to roll the dice as often. My 2 cents.

Peter and Josh, My post did contain further arguments why I feel a slower approach is superior. What I meant by my last paragraph, in maybe sloppy wording, was that when a thread has been active for a while and arguments has been expressed and people still persist with why another way is better then it's unlikely that they will change their mind about it for any reasons. And I feel that this one isn't close regarding the alternatives. Fact? ;-) It's not about being dumb Peter, it's mainly about having a fixed opinion about the matter and/or not enough experience of a certain type of auctions. I'll now edit my original post, hopefully making it clearer (english is not my first language).

I'm certainly not disdaining 4S because I'm afraid of missing a slam. I want to gather info and plan to bid clubs on my next turn at the cheapest level (up to 4C). We want to be able to gauge how the strength is distributed and the degree of fit, because we have the boss suit (as stated in other post). If you don't understand why this is a better approach, in the long run, then I don't think any more arguments is going to win anybody over. [edit]

X on both.

This is a matter of cuebidding style and preferences, and everyone picks what suits them best, theorethically sound or not. To my mind, there's no "flaw" as Josh puts it in my reasoning but I don't have the time or will to expound on all aspects of this now, especially the value bid reasoning put forth by cherdano. I'm not ignorant of that and it's not impossible. I don't play 4NT as DI but see no problem in having 4NT as possibly inviting the grand. As for responder's ambitions, quoting myself "With a hand with real grandslam interest, I might have bid RKC instead of 4S. " The hand that would seek cooperation for grand vs a hand that invited 6 is very unlikely to have bid 4S the previous bidding round in my methodology. This may sound strange but if we start pouring out example hands, it would be easier to see. "How do you differentiate the fact that you only have grand slam interest opposite his second hand type from a stronger responding hand that has grand slam interest opposite the first hand type?" Exactly what kind of info are you trying to extract at this point? Sometimes someone has to take responsebility for making a decision. We can't kick the ball around at midfield forever. You can always use 5NT after 5D as a way to state that you want to cooperate if partner is looking for grand...

Your RHO bid diamonds, voluntarily, FOUR times up to 5D at equal vul. And you think the ace may blow a trick in that suit ???

So will I.

You're right, maybe I shouldn't have elaborated. But, it was a reply to a direct question from jillybean2 above, and a part of stepping up from beginner/intermediate is being exposed to alternative ideas.

Well, if you're short in spades and bid diamonds three times, perhaps pushing the opps into a spade games they may not have bid otherwise, it's a bit unexpected to carry on to an unilateral save in 5D at the same vulnerability (i.e. not white vs red) when partner may have defensive trumps tricks (or threatening length). It's more attractive to bid on with 3-4 card spades (I don't believe that dummy is void in spades with some support as he would've bid 5D himself).

1NT serves to slow down the auction and makes it more difficult for the opponents to get in the auction as they may fear a misfit, i.e. if we don't have a fit then the guy with shortness have to cater for (4)5+ hearts with his partner. After the expected 2m rebid from opener, I would bid 3H, which shows a weak, but decent hand, with 4+ support. We never expect to buy the contract at the 2-level anyway and this leaves partner well placed to determine the level. Although this hand makes games against minimum opening hands with a shortness, it plays really terrible vs balanced/semi-balanced openers and lack entries to lead up to declarers honors. Should partner pass 1NT, then he's balanced and we where not making any high H-contract anyway, but 1NT may still make on the wrong lead vs say Axx/Kxxxx/QJx/Kx when opps make 2S/3C etc for a 5-6 imps swing. If partner passes 3H, we've made it pretty difficult for opps to back into it. They may even be missing a making 4S. I do like to play with an artifical 2C-rebid after 1NT, any strong or 1-suited M (2M-rebid showing 11-15 with 4+C). This gives you the tempo as well to convey the extra trump when partner is strong also. In standard if the auction goes 1H-1NT; 3C now you can't indicate the extra trumps which may be crucial since we still can be on for slam, unlikely or not.

I'll lead the ace of D. Agree with Paul. I've seen on more than one occasion that this a winning lead in similar situations. Declarer's final bid may easily have been based on spade-length, anticipating ruffs in dummy with implied diamond length. It's even likely if our RHO is a sane person (rare at the bridge table on the other hand ;-))

Time to show us what partner had.

I agree with 4C as we need fillers in other suits. I also know what to do now - I pass. Had the minors suits been switched, I would not have splintered 4D, leaving no room. Then 3H would be my choice.

I'll cooperate at least once. This is a very good hand in the context. I don't share the view that 4C should imply a good/better suit and that 4D doesn't deny a club control. My choice is 4C.

I'll just punt 6S. Probably a good approximation of what we can make. The space is just not enough to get a useful cooperative auction going for the grand and I have no high spade honor (giving us a chance to pick up the queen offside). They did jump overcall 4D and may have a void outside of spades, which is also a factor. I'm all for science but sometimes you have to let it go. For me, this is one of those occasions.

Pass. I echo Josh (we had to find common views some day, J :))