TylerE

1♣ Never downgrade to 1N.

I don't think that's a valid aet of sims for determining this. How do we do in ♥ when responder's ♥ are 2 or more cards longer than spades? Or better yet, do this: Generate 5000 random responder hands If responder holds 4 good, or any 5 clubs defend 3♣ X Otherwise we play in responders longest suit, with ♥ rather than ♦ when equal length. That will come close to telling us how X does. I'm sure ♥ is worse than ♠ on random hands, but how about when responder actually has ♥?

1st Choice: Pass 2nd Choice: Pass 3rd Choice: Pass Don't like 1♠, even though I'm not opposed to 4 card overcalls at all. This is just sort of in that "uncanny valley" where you kinda want to bid again if partner makes some minimum noise, but you don't really have the values for it. Also ♥xxx is v. bad.

Perfect fit. If you N donks it out it's a bit embarassing to catch S on QJ Qxx KQJx Qxx

I don't get this line of logic. It's either a potential mechanical error or it's not. All the physical boxes I've ever seen have the ♣ cards at the opposite end as the NT cards.

It's conceivable that partner is as weak as a one count here (give both opponents bad 12 counts). We could very well be out-gunned.

Yes, precisely. The whole reason I'm Xing is to get to 3red when partner has a not-uncommon unremarkable 3-7 count and a 5 bagger. Even a 4-3 is likely fine...and if partner has THAT hand it's probably worse than useless as a dummy in 3♠, might as well play in partners suit.

4NT as natural is std. Around here, expert standard is 1N-noise- 4♣ by responder is RKC Gerber for either the suit responder transferred to, or the suit opener showed after a stayman auction. Has the extra advantage that you can stop in 4M quite often (but not always)

http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?myhand=M-37809431-1378863361

The reason I don't like 3♠ is that we can never play 3♥.

X looks clear to me.

Well, in fairness, it's probably a 2♥ response in most ACOL variants.

The point isn't just to make bidding 6 easier...it's to help partner out of they bid 5♣ over 4♠, for instance.

Looks to me more like a case of E and W deserving one another. While I certainly can't agree with the 2♠ opening, why on earth doesn't W bid 4♣ to show a good raise to 4?

Assuming you're playing some sort of 2/1, I think 2♥ is a gross over bid. Standard, and ptobably best, is 1♠-1NT (forcing)-2♣-2♥-p

Convinced until a later action shows otherwise.

The club suit might say 'run', but the ♦ suit and "matchpoints" says stay. I pass.

Partner's auction suggests he needs tricks, not controls, and we don't really have tricks.

I'll settle for 6. Sounds like partner is 6-5 or maybe even 7-5, so black suit aces may well not be what partner needs, especially since partner didn't ask and removed any chance of me asking.

It's non-forcing because you have XX to show a hand like this.

I assume the argument is something like magically finding the K♦ lead and then scoring multiple ♦ ruffs in the west hand.

Because in a weak club game like the one here it absolutely slays most of the time.

Really Art? EW have 5 top tricks (3♣ and 2♦) .

I don't think I mind opponents bidding 4♠ here. At MP I'd probably even double it. If they're bidding it over 4♥, they're probably bidding over 3♥, or at least 3♥-4♥ as well.

If the 11 count bothers everyone so much, give N the J of spades in addition. 2♥ is still pretty much the last making spot.