skjaeran

No. Partner should subtract a King, because I did bid in the passout seat, and if you take away the King Daimonds, you dont have a hand worth a raise. With kind regards Marlowe IBTD. Take away the ♦K and it's a clear raise of a direct seat 2♣ overcall IMO. So this is a clear raise of a balancing 2♣ overcall to me. But that won't get us to 3NT anyway, since I'd have a clear pass as south. We still go +130.

I don't understand why you switched at trick two. It's possible that declarer ducked from Ax or Axx. As we don't know the bidding it's hard to judge the odds for declarer holding a singleton. I'd assume partner held Axx.

Agree

x KJxxx xx QTxxx or similar. Partner's third trump increases the chances for setting up and reaching the side suit a lot.

Congratulations Roland! You're doing a wonderful job organizing the commentators for the vugraph. Sorry for not putting up more time for you than I'm currently doing. Keep up the good work!!

Clear 4♥ IMO. I'd never consider 3♥, and 3NT with slow tricks only is not an issue for me.

It was Kaplan but he might pass this one. lol. This thread is awesome. As the level increase, take-out doubles become more take and less out. :angry:

Not in 1st seat Han. 3rd seat though. Agree with 1♥ and 2♥.

Normally nothing wrong with partner's declarer play. For some 'odd' reason the singleton ♠K bother me.

The fifth heart and the support for opener makes this a more or less mandatory negative double IMO. Agree that south really should avoid the nasty 2NT rebid. Better show hand type with 3♣.

Me too.

That's really bizarre to me. That 4NT could be anything but both minors would never occur to me. Back to the problem. Both 2♥ and pass is possible over 1NT. I'd most probably bid 2♥. Double of 4NT obviously sets up a forcing pass over 5m. I'd pass 5♣ in the actual auction and bid 5♥ as north. There's nothing sensational about the layout here IMO.

Even versus my own preemtive raises I'd go 4♠. How on earth could it be right for anyone to pass then???? :(

molson? That's velociraptor ^^ I don't know Molson (actually I've played against him once) or velociraptor, but for me it's part of Amundsen. :(

Hmmm, has really the old Fishbein convention resurfaced in Germany, or didn't it die out 25+ years ago there?

I'm passing to, but no apology - so would partner. :)

I'd overcall 2♥ showing 4♥ + longer minor (55 possible).

Agree with Gerben.

My 1NT range is 15-18. With 19 I'm too strong (there might be a reason for downgrading a few hands though) and will double and rebid 2NT, showing 19-21.

I'd surely go on to game here, passing is out. Close between 3♥ and 3NT. The decider for me is that 3♥ might wrongside 3NT. So I'll go for 3NT.

Passing with this hand wouldn't occur to me. Playing standard I'd bid 1♦. Playing T-Walsh I'd bid 1♠.

You don't play a jump reverse as GF Ken? - strange...

1. 1NT. This is a better description of my hand than overcalling 1♥ on that wimpy suit. I'm not strong enough to start with a double. 2. Pass, alternative 1NT. Borderline.

Well...there's several variations of T-Walsh out there, solving different kinds of problems, some of them creating other problems of their own. In some 1♣-1♦-1♥ shows "any" 11-13/14 and 1NT (17)18-19, in other the 1♥ rebid show exactly 3c♥. In my version the 1♥ rebid shows ANY hand with 3, 13-14 with 4 and most 18-19 balanced with 4.... As to the problem, with my new regular partner (I've got two regulars now) with whom I play Walsh, not T-Walsh, I'd rebid 1NT, since 1♠ promises an unbalanced hand. With most non-regular partners in my area I'd rebid 1♠ either playing up-the-line bidding or Walsh.

5♦ is preeptive in my book. 6♦ surely could be on, but 5♦ also might not make, depending on the fit and what finesses (♣K and ♠A) work when needed. I'll pass.