Vilgan

The K of diamonds and a diamond are likely correct and were already mentioned, but for anyone considering the J♣: The J♣ can never ever be right. Assume partner has Qxx(x) of clubs. We lead a club and continue clubs after declarer leads a spade off dummy. Now declarer is out of top clubs. However, when they play a diamond to set up the suit we have no entry to partner's hand. If partner DOES have the A of hearts, we were always going to beat it so its irrelevant. There is a small chance that a heart is the correct switch, if spades and hearts are 6/1 with partner having the A of hearts. However, partner should probably lie about their count in that situation to discourage a diamond continuation. The odds are strongly against a heart switch though, as a diamond continuation wins whenever partner had a singleton OR Qxx of clubs which is a lot more likely than 6/1 6/1 major suit splits.

Most will fly A on 1 I think. Even if the finesse WAS working (which seems anti percentage), I might still escape if LHO is the one with 3 spades. Taking the finesse just seems a bit strange. Even asking about 2 seems strange, as anything but discarding a heart would be pretty insane.

3♠ for me. 4♠ could still easily be the best spot opposite xx xx AQxxx AKxx. Can handle 4/2 spades in 4♠, not nearly as much fun in a 5♦ contract. With a 6th diamond they can punt again to diamonds and then we can raise to 5. I don't think partner has guaranteed 6 diamonds, so if we're going to play a 5/2... lets play a 5/2 at a lower level. They might take our bidding as showing 6, but 5 headed by AKQ is almost the same as 6 :) It also keeps 3NT in the picture. Even with no heart stopper, 3NT could be our only making game. I think 4♦ is overly committal at this point and punishes partner for being in a tough spot with 2254 or 1354 shape and no heart stop and bidding 3♦. Sure partner will bounce back to spades with 5 diamonds and Jx of spades.. but with 2 small spades they'll probably be endplayed into bidding 5♦ even though it might go down with 4♠ and/or 3NT making.

Also some partnership things here. If you double, and partner DOES land in a 4-2 fit and it goes badly.. will that have any long term negative effect? 2 top players probably not, but many people will not be in that category and for them the answer to this question is probably relevant.

3♥ is very likely to get a double imo. Clear pass, and I hope that we are lucky and things lie very very badly for E/W on the hand and we are -130 instead of -200. Most likely heading for a bad result on the board, but I still don't think that justifies another bid.

This. Although as already mentioned, your example hand is clearly a GF hand. 9 tricks for NT and you can probably supply 7 by yourself after partner opened? :P Advantage to rebidding still being a GF is when partner bids 2♦ now you can rebid 3♣ hoping to get partner to declare the 3NT.

New(ish) players should consider starting with SAYC imo. 2/1 is superior but I think you'll likely develop bidding judgement faster with SAYC. If both players have already played bridge for a little while and feel comfortable, then 2/1 is pretty clearly superior imo. Dan's link on why is one of many good arguments for 2/1.

No fix here. If they open 2♥ you have the exact same problem. North passing 2♥ was a clear error, but if they don't see it... it might be tough to do anything about it. I would suspect that north is one of the (large % of bridge players) many who will simply go omg I had a meh hand and only 3 spades and consider (forever) anything but pass to be ludicrous.

4♥ is overly aggressive given the balanced hand imo, but north is a bit off their rocker if they are trying to say the X isn't 100% their fault. I see a lot of people like north at the club and they seem to spend half the time telling partner what they did wrong that made the latest bad result.

Too strong for 2♠, too weak for 1♠, so I just pass. Just kidding :P Easy 2♠ for me. I love to open appropriate 10 counts (and even 8/9 counts) at the one level but there is nothing that says "open this at 1♠" to me. Even not vuln I'd probably open 2, but the KQT9xx example I'd open 1 if not vuln.

Thanks for all the suggestions :) Dan is also apparently doing a mailing list where he talks about Polish club/other things which I subscribed to. Will be tracking down (at the least) 4 card majors the scanian way and have been looking at Jassem/WJ2005. I guess people revert to 2♦ weak in ACBL Land pair events?

Passing all 11 counts seems pretty strange. Seems safer to open them all imo for the simulation. Also, imps that change hands also seems to have relevance. Obviously gaining 2 imps for -50 vs -110 is not as important as -500 vs -140. I think its hard to simulate pass vs double as there will be a lot of differences in how partnerships will work together after the X. I would personally suspect that pass is slightly superior but wouldn't be surprised to be wrong. I do think that just about any simulation will show 2♥ to be a crazy bid against decent opponents though. Also a bunch of partnership implications if you CAN overcall 2♥ on that hand that will make other auctions/defense/bidding sequences harder imo. edit > oops, posted after you did. Sounds like imp implications were looked at :)

Huh? 2♣ with that kind of holding (knowing that your likely end is 3 NT) is a awesome imo. Why would we want to discourage a heart lead and encourage a club lead by bidding 2♥? Our auction would probably go 1♠ - 2♣ 3♣ - 3 NT (partner wouldn't raise clubs with 4 hearts) all pass although 1♠ - 2♣ 2♠ - 2 NT 3♣ - 3♠ 4♠ also makes sense. I'd assume the spade fit to be slightly better, but as we would tend to raise the minor with AKTx support I don't know that we'd ever find it. 3NT seems fairly normal to me. LHO could lead a heart. Or they could lead a diamond and that doesn't bother me as long as they have 4+. I have 2 spades, 3 hearts, a diamond, and likely 3 clubs on the auction. Chances exist for a 4th club or possibly an extra heart or spade on a squeeze or discarding error. Lots of other hand types might exist where 3NT would easily outscore all the other contracts while duplicating the same bidding.

7♦ seems like the preferred grand. Both grand slams can handle a 4-1 diamond break. 7♠ will die on almost any 4-1 spade break while 7♦ might be okay. 1♦ - 1♠ 2♥ - Stuff - 7♦ (your choice) seems like the route to it.

I can't pass. I'd consider 1 NT with a different spade holding, but with a single stopper I'm bidding 2♥ always. Stronger hand and a double stop, I'll probably bid 1NT.

At the table I'd pass. I have some respect for X, but would be nervous with that club holding myself. 2♥ is crazy imo. Do I want the lead? No. Do I have a solid suit? No. Is hearts a safe suit at this point? hell no.

I'd pass. I don't know that bidding 3♥ has a lot of advantage to it while it poses some serious dangers. I have a partner, and most of the time that I want to be in 3♥ I'll hear them bid it, and now I'm not badly positioned for those times when I didn't really want to be in 3. I think its also a bit dependent on partnership style. If 2♥ is always a good raise, then you are safer bidding 3. For partnerships who are more competitive (good thing usually imo) I think its good to not hang partner and let them have their say.

I'm looking for books on 2 subjects if anyone has suggestions. 1) Guide on 4 card majors. Ideally focused on the nuances that would be unfamiliar to someone who typically plays 5 card majors. A partner of mine is interested in switching to 4 card majors but neither of us have much experience with them. Would still prefer to remain as close to American standard 2/1 as possible so I've been leery of investigating ACOL books as I've heard ACOL has other differences unrelated 5 vs 4 card major openings. 2) A book on Polish Club written in English. Preferably more than just a collection of what bids mean. I've felt somewhat off balance playing against PC in nationals and would like to play it some (online probably) to get a feel for it. Feel like I'll be more comfortable playing against it once I've had a chance to play it myself some. Thanks for any suggestions! :)

Did you notice that the new President has said that a rating system will be amongst his priorities? Tell him you think that's a great idea when you see him in Newton. I know I plan to. I spoke with Rich DeMartino and his description of the problem and solution reveals that his idea of a rating system is something within the framework of masterpoints. His objective (in a nutshell) is not to create a whole new rating system, but come up with some basis so that lifetime masterpoint accumulators (those that win ~100 points a year for 25+ years) can "play down" while still keeping up-and-comers who have won regional events on their way to 2500 points out of Flight C. It sounds like the goal is to separate the life-time Flight B (and C) players from those just passing through. Seems reasonable, especially if there is a way for true seniors (aka like 75+) who are starting to lose their faculties to drop down as well. I know we have a few around here who were definitely A players in their prime... but not so much now that they are in their 80s.

1) Yes I have a spade card (might only be half of a stopper tho.. Qx or maybe even just the Q which will protect your Kx or Jxx) 2) minimum/not good for game. agree that 4♦ shows a 6/5 hand 3) preference opposite a weaker response. 4) preemptive 5) cue bid with strong SI even opposite minimum (most likely wants a spade singleton out of the overcaller's hand).

3 bad bids 1♦ opener (how the hell is this not a 1 NT opener?!?) 5♦ bid by north (why aren't you asking for a spade stopper again?) 6♦ by south I'd say 95% south 5% north. Both of south's actions were clearly wrong while 5♦ by north is a meh bid but isn't clearly the wrong bid (imo).

On perfect defense I think I like pooltuna's line better. In real life, I think the squeeze might work better as I'm not sure a diamond return is clear even at top levels. Non diamond return I play for the following position: [hv=n=skqxhtdxc&s=sxhdaktxc]133|200|[/hv] and you get a classic double squeeze if LHO has the J in addition to the KQ. Makes with the various situations adam described. I'd actually put the J in with KQ at more than 50% given the lead... with KQx(x?) someone might not lead a heart while with KQJ its clear. Diamond return sucks as I now basically need LHO to have the long spades AND the J of hearts I think.

At first glance it seems like the diamond suit needs to be 3/4 on my right and 7 on my left. Interesting exercise :) I hope its legit and not a "haha made your brain hurt" situation :)

Okay, remove all masterpoints from national events. See what happens. Track winner and 2nd place only, with absolutely no reward to any other position. Spouting nonsense like "its not about the masterpoints" is relevant if the ONLY members of the ACBL are people who have a solid chance at winning a national event. For those who don't fall in this category, platinum points are a good motivator in the interim as they get better. Heck, even if they never win an event.. but they have a thousand platinum kicking around.. that's still a solid accomplishment imo.

This. I've taught some beginning bridge lessons, and the difference was ridiculous. Played euchre/pinochle/spades/hearts/something with tricks before? They ought to pick it up reasonably well and advance at a speed in accordance with their intelligence/logic abilities. Never played any card game before? Looks blank when I talk about "taking a trick". They will learn really really slowly, expend 10x the effort to get somewhere, and never become a really great player. I'm sure there might be an exception or two, and obviously this doesn't apply to people who are still young. However.. it certainly seemed like an ironclad rule from what I saw teaching easy bridge to a mostly over 50 crowd.