hatchett

Kenrexford must have more than one id

I had GIB bid 2NT after 1♣ P P on[hv=s=sajt7hkt6da865ckq]133|100|[/hv]. Seems a bit light to me

Obvious 2♣ for me.

Agree with Phantomsac

I also don't live in US and agree with hanp and gnasher.

Increasingly players seem to leave a money bridge table when they have picked up a bad hand. I have never worried too much about the assigned scores but recently I have had a couple of really weird ones. This week my partner GIB opened 1NT and I had a 4441 15 count and I was assigned +180 lol. and with ♠Jxx ♥AQx ♦AQJTxxx ♣- opp ♠ x ♥ Kxx ♦ xxxx ♣ AQ9xx vul against not after 1♦ p 1NT assigned -600 lol

What if North had ducked the Q from KTxx ♦? Then finessing the 9 would have an advantage....

Agree with JDONN both are penalty for me.

Why? If he has your example hand of xx AKxxx xxx Jxx he makes if he ducks a spade and then guesses clubs.

Since we are on lead there is something we can do about this.

5♥. 4♦ has not set up a forcing pass for me. With a ♦ void and 5/5 majors partner may have stretched to make a descriptive call on the first round.

This seems a major problem with X showing exlicitly a void in partner's suit. The opponents will be able to run to 6NT a huge percentage of the time.

Obvious to continue over 4♠. Slam is playable opposite some 2♠ rebids eg KJxxxxx Kxx Ax x, so I can hardly give up after a 3♠ rebid.

I can do better than that. Here's a 9 count where 7NT may not make. 2 KQJT9876 432 K DQ offside 7NT off on ♣ lead.

Pretty sure this is incorrect. The weaker hands would be a lot rarer than the slam hands. If you play GF transfer you have a big advantage in the slam zone plus the fact your gains are double you losses say 11 IMPs for finding a thin slam versus lose 5-6 for playing the wrong partscore. Of course a fair amount of the time you make 3M you will also make 2NT.

Are you playing a style where partner raises directly with a 1354 minimum? If so, partner's mostly likely shape is 2254 with stronger 1354 bidding 4♥ over 2♠. I can't really think of a hand that bids 4th suit and then jumps to 5D over 2♥ when partner might have a 2254 17/18 count, so it should probably be artificial but it is rather torturing partner unless you've explicitly agreed what it is.

I also much prefer X and would pass 4♠ with the weak hand

. Not recommended because it would out of turn. Better to hope partner has a trump to lead.

I pass the first time and second time. I don't have 100% security at the 5 level, and expect 4♠ to be 300 minimum and 500 quite likely.

3♣ is terrible even if it is a limit raise. Partner could be 4333. If you want to show your hand as a limit raise 2♠ has to be better.

And indeed this hand is no expection, since a ♠ lead beats 3NT

On a quick look I agree with Lamford. The chance of LHO having four ♥s has gone up but not by nearly enough to take the finesse in the suit when we still have the ♦ finesse in reserve. Also I would think as an aside the chance of LHO holding the ♦ K has gone up since we have discovered he has led from 3 low clubs when 4 or 5 low diamonds would probably have been a more attractive lead....certainly at the very least there is a restricted choice argument here....but maybe the auction suggested a ♣ lead as very passive

LOL

It would be ruff luck if 5♦ was defeated by a ♥ rough.

LOL so you wouldn't bid 4♥ or something even stronger with this after a takeout double. I thought I was the one misreading the problem seeing all the 2♥ calls.