brianshark

Congrats, and keep us posted.

If there ever was a time you had an 8 card fit but defending 1NT was best, it was now.

I'm really liking a direct 3♦. Just right on values, a nice suit, keeps opps from finding their major suit easily. Gets your hand off your chest right away and puts partner in the driving seat. What's the problem?

Same. 2♦.

I agree much more with east's bidding than with west's. Though I personally would probably show the ♠ suit. While in isolation, competing to 3♣ might be the % matchpoint call assuming partner had to pass, partner doesn't have to pass, partner can and should bid 3N bid with close to max values and fitting honours and imo the fault lies with west for the odd diamond opening and aggresive 3♣ call.

3♦ for me. Han just said that they can stop in 2N or 3♥ so 2♠ is hardly an overbid. Besides, with a hand like that, if pressed to choose, I'd GF before I'd downgrade it.

4NT.

I would have passed because I have nothing in ♠s but I'd probably open the new version of the hand. As for part 2, is this not an automatic systemic 2♠ rebid playing normal methods?

The percentage play to get 3 tricks from the heart suit is small to the 9 and if it loses, finesse the K or play to drop the J.

I have seen it with someone I know who plays an awful lot of bridge with loads of different people, mostly weak players. As a result of it, his bidding is erratic and gambling because he is used to not being able to trust his partner to make intelligent inferences and decisions in the bidding and thus has to compensate by making more and more unilateral guesses. Also, of the list above, I believe playing speedball will make you better at bridge, even in slowball games because you are training your brain to work quicker and if can discipline yourself to using the extra time to do more analysis, then your game will be much better. This is a theoretical opinion though. I haven't played much speedball myself.

You can't find out about 3rd round control in ♦s and 3rd round control in ♣s. So I think I'd settle for 6♠.

Double = points, 2♣ = to play.

Penalty/lead direct I imagine. Opps have bid 2 of the other 3 suits.

Double again looks right. I would expect it to show extras values, not thrilled about the suit partner chose and asking partner to make another call.

Playing in a partnership who play reasonably disciplined weak 2s (and that there exist hands that are too good for weak 2 but not good enough to open) then this auction very much exists. I think 1NT rebid is fine and that pass is absolutely clear. I think the entire fault of this is the hand evaluation of your partner.

How about... x KJTxxxxx AQ Kx A hand disproved by partner's 1♠ response, but because partner has shown ~6pts, game is now worth a shot. That's not an acol 2♥ opening.

11 should be an average plus at least. I'm playing safe.

I would assume 3♦ scrambling for 3N showing a ♦ stop, 3♠ asking and 4♣ denying. With that in mind, I'll bid a 4♣ directly.

There is a difference between having game values opposite partner with a 0 count (2♣ opening) and a game force hand opposite partner having a 1-level response. I would expect a long crappy heart suit with just enough to chance game opposite a scattered 6/7 count from partner. Something like Kx KJxxxxxx Ax x. But I haven't given much thought to this so I'm not sure.

Spades are trump (or maybe you can play in 3NT, not sure about this) and 4♣ is a cue showing 2 of the top 3 honours in your suit. I reckon it should request strongly a cue-bid. Maybe even demand. Gosh I'm feeling indecisive this morning.

I dislike double. As usual. I bid 2♦. 2nd choice pass.

I think 2NT would show 12-14 or 18-19 and 3NT would show 15-17.

I didn't think you did. I was just clarifying where I stood. I felt I went a bit astray earlier. Regarding the example hands, they originally had 11 cards each! But I thought I addedd a third club and a third spade to each. :) I would open xxx AQJxxx x Axx and I would probably pass Jxx Kxxxxx Q AJx. I might open the second but for sure the first hand is better, and I can think of much more extreme examples.

If you think that "good bridge" is some kind of constant thing that does not change based on the level of your opponents you are really wrong. To me good bridge is making the decisions that rate to get you the best possible result every time you have a choice to make. Which actions rate to get you the best possible result are definitely dependant on a lot of things that go beyond form of scoring and vulnerability. This must be obviously evident for something like a 4th seat bidding problem where opening is a statement that "we rate to go plus on this board." Surely the skill level of your opponents and their ability to guage a competitive auction and their ability to defend or declare correctly relative to your ability must be factored into whether you rate to go plus. Statements such as: "The opps are so bad that this game is now greater than 50% (or whatever your cut-off is) therefore we should bid it" <- I agree Statements such as: "Even though bidding game is the percentage call, our opps at the other table are so bad, they probably won't find it therefore we don't need to risk bidding it" <- I disagree

I would not expect my pard to treat a double of 5♣ as a support double even playing normal support doubles, unless explicitly agreed that it is in this auction. Anyway. 6♥ looks worth a shot. Opps seem to think you can make something.