brianshark

I like the "all purposes" 5♦ bid. It's 0 or 3 keycards. It's a ♦ cue showing my ace. It's supporting his ♦ suit. And its forcing him to ♥s if he wants me to pick the better of my suits.

Ooh... this is more like a live auction than a quiz. I'll cue my ♠ Ace.

I'm more reluctant to pass. Partner will make a judgement call based on the expectancy that you have a more normal 5422 shape and 12-14 pts or so. You have fewer points and more extreme shape. I'm thinking pulling to 4♦ might not be such a bad idea.

I'm in agreement with the reversers. I think the hand is good enough in spite of the heart singleton.

You may assume it's game forcing playing with any pick-up partner unless agreed otherwise. While I'm sure there are people who think it's better played as invitational, possibly with merit too, they must surely face reality that game force is what anyone will expect absent agreement to the contrary.

... or the quiet types' partners either... hehe. ;)

Of course the number of spades you have is relevant. If you have shorter spades, then the spades rate to be distributed fairly evenly among the other 3 players, thus the opponents are statistically more likely to have a spade suit, and therefore even if we have 22 points, they rate to end up playing in 2♠ or something. And as you said, it's easy to make 1/2 level contracts even on 18pts with a fit.

I play any decent opening hand (13+) or 15 Pearson points.

Sorry, am I missing something? Did North overcall 3♠ with Qx and a balanced 9 count?

I would play the 9, but I guess I'm the only one. I'd play it simply because it's the highest non-honour, and because pitching honours seems to have mixed meanings behind them according to everyone's posts. Playing an honour card, particularly an unusual one like the Q could mean anything, maybe partner will interpret is as me having only 6 cards and wanting a continuation? After reading everyone else's posts, I'll still play the 9 I think! :)

"Usually one of the opponents will claim himself, so you know which one of the opponents was being an ass. I add some personal note to their profile(s)." That's not true at all. Sometimes they reject because they thought you had made a mistake and realise themselves a few tricks later. Sometimes they accidentally hit the 'reject' button. They may not have even noticed and thus think their partner has rejected the claim or declarer has cancelled the claim. In both of these cases (and I'm sure plenty more), the person who conceded may well have been the person who rejected the claim in the first place. So it's foolish to automatically black-list the partner of this person. VERY foolish.

What's the story with GIB (the product) anyway? Is it no longer being supported or updated or something?

I know more people going to this thing than I originally thought! Kinda regretting not going now. Oh well, have fun all!

"Pass is your friend".

I think Ben means 'this coffehousing is unethical', or 'is not ethical'. But yeah, tempo bluffs are for Poker, not Bridge. It's just the way the game is, I guess.

5♦ for me too.

*rant* I don't think anyone playing either online or in person has ANY obligation to ask for the meanings of bids that should be alerted and aren't. Not only does it slow down the play waiting for a response (sometimes in vain) but it encourages the strategy of reluctant disclosure of methods, and not everyone has the patience, or cares enough, to wait to squeeze every piece of information out of them. I think they are entitled to assume that the bid is natural. And if/when any damage is done, they are entitled to whatever compensation they get, and the no-alert culprits deserve any punishment they get, and then some. *rant over*

Don't think I saw this hand. At a quick glance, I think I'd cash club Ace, then unless Q or T drops, lead small to the J. Assuming I only get 4 club tricks, depending on how clubs break, and what I learn of the distribution in the meantime, I either fall back on a heart finesse, or a spade/heart squeeze.

My gut leaned towards a passive trump, but I didn't see Roland's reasoning either.

I'd definately double... I'm unconvinced by any of the arguments in favour of bidding the grand, at any form of scoring.

Clear pass for me. We're not making game unless p has an opening hand, and this hand is much easier to respond with than open. I won't open light unless I have a 5 card suit, and a rebiddable suit opposite any response. And rebidding ♦ on a FOUR card suit is not my cup of tea. As people have said though, with more texture in the suits, it might be worth upgrading to a 2NT rebid in which case opening is ok. Though I'll still probably pass.

Don't quite follow the final sentence. Say Club honours are 1-1, lefty has a heart and Spades are 6-1. Lefty wins the club, leads heart to Ace, Spade through. Finita la musica. Sorry, right you are. Plus I'm discounting all the risks of ruffs too.

No reason to think declaring is better than defending. Pass.

Everyone keeps posting what I was about to say (first ArcLight, then FrancesHinden), while I'm still previewing my post! :) The ♦ finesse line relies solely on the ♦Q being onside, but I think the better line is trying ♣ first. It works if both ♣ honours are onside. It also works if they are 1-1 and LHO doesn't have a ♥ to play back to righty (so he can't play through your ♠K). It also works if ♣ honours are 1-1 and lefty does have a ♥ to play to righty, but ♠s are 6-1 so they can't finesse twice and you'll eventually get your long ♣ anyway.

I just play leaping Michaels to show my 2-suited hands, and the cue-bid is just the stopper-ask-3NT-try. In this case, absent agreement, 3NT should be to play. Either 4♥ or 4♣ (pass/correct) sounds like an intelligent way to find the minor, but 3NT is just to valuable a final contract to sacrifice.