skjaeran

A huge problem with the poll in my opinion is that they should have polled players at north's level who play a weak NT. (That might be a problem in the ACBL, I guess.) But given that this player was unable to give a bridge-logic explanation for bidding 2♣, the decision was probably correct. I'm quite sure that this decisone would have been totally different in England and Denmark, where most people play a weak NT. North's peers there would be unanimously bidding 2♣ with this hand.

There was a similar appeal to the Norwegian Bridge Federation's Law Committee some years ago where an opponent holding the trump queen made similar questions about a RKB 5♥ response. Declarer playing in 6♠ went one down after misguessing the trump queen. The LC adjusted to contract made.

Nobody asked. Frances only said that pass was normal against sane opponents.

2♥. I won't make any bid promising 4c support when holding only 3.

Pass. If LHO is sitting here my partner won't. Bidding 2♣ is bad when partner has a ♠ fit. I don't think 2♣ improves our chances to get out by much, if at all.

Seeing all the spotcards below the 6 should make one wary of the danger making the normal signal with the 8.

If partner couldn't make a t/o double at the 1-level, he surely can't at the 4-level. This stinks, but it's not my party. Pass.

1. Far too strong for 4♠. With my regular partner I open this 2♣. Most people would open it 1♠ or 4♦ (I don't like the latter). Would most probably reach 6♠ after both 1♠ and 2♣ with my regular partner, certainly after 2♣. 2. 4♠. Cold on a non-trump lead. Often makeable with it too. 3. Low ♣. Alternative low ♦, but ♣ looks best IMO. 4. 4♠. 5. 3NT, wtp?

I don't like 1NT missing a stopper in both majors, but I can't stand east's double. In standard methods it shows 4-4 in the majors. I've got no clue why people can't learn to just bid 1♠ with that hand. Apparently I can't learn either because I play transfers here starting with double. :) As do I. :P Playing standard methods I implied.

Falling for this would be pretty naive, but.... Anyway, this is covered by Law 75F2: I adjust to 6♠ making. And explain to west about the "could have known" clause in the law, and that this ruling doesn't take a stance to whether this was done intetionally by him. And that he should be careful to avoid similar incidents henceforward. However if I had strong reasons to believe that this WAS intentional (the same player having done similar things on other occasion(s)) I'd go to Law 73D2: I'd still adjust to 6♠ making (of course). And give east a heavy diciplinary penalty (at least equal to the top of a board). I'd of course report the incident to the SO. In both cases a warning to North for giving uncomplete explanation is proper.

Try QJx A98xx Qx KTx. This is a clear double IMO.

I agree with Mike here. You've got to evaluate your hand in each situation based on the bidding. I've got no strict rules about holding in the enemy suit, normally I can tell partner's length (and he mine) from my (his) hand and the opponents bidding. I evalueate my offensive and defensive potential and fit with partner, and makes a forcing pass/double/bid based upon this. Passing tells partner (if we forget about pass-and-pull slam tries) that I'm unable to decide wheter to defend or not, and passes ( :rolleyes: ) the decision to partner.

You got the first one right. On the second, try to look at the importance of the ♦8 (combined with holding the ♥T).

Agree with most posters - it looks like an obvious 5♠ bid to me.

Partner is marked with 1453 or 1462. I've got little defence, so I won't discourage partner from making another bid by doubling. I'll pass, but I'm not very far from taking another bid myself.

I don't like 1NT missing a stopper in both majors, but I can't stand east's double. In standard methods it shows 4-4 in the majors. I've got no clue why people can't learn to just bid 1♠ with that hand.

1. YES, declarer is claiming the last two tricks. Absoulutely no doubt. 2. YES, the claim is good, meaning he'll get the last two tricks. And no, the claim isn't according to the law, as a claim statement is missing. But any competent declarer will allow this claim. And no sane opponents would protest to this claim.

If I was an opponent I'd have accepten 13 tricks without any comment at all.

I'd double. Obviously I'm sub-minimum for that, but that's exactly what my partner would expect. :angry:

Us Acol players have it easy. Anyway, I raise 2D to 3D. If partner has a good 5341 he will bid 3H over this anyway. 3H sounds like a lot of hearts, not a fit bid. Agree on all counts.

I lead a trump to have a look. After having doubled, of course. Going for +200 or more.

Huh? Looking at the EW cards alone it looks like you need two ♦ ruffs in dummy, scoring two ♣ tricks to discard the last two red losers and trumps behaving. Obviously you're down with a trump lead on any layout. And four down on a trump lead on the actual layout. On the bidding the odds for making this contract on a non-trump lead must be less than 1%. West should know this looking down at ♦Axxx.

I'd open 2♥ with my regular partner, 8-11. Playing weaker 2-bids than this I'd open 1♥ (in a natural system).

I'd also vote that this sequence doesn't exist. Though Justin's example makes sense.

A fit jump on T8xx - I hope you're joking. ♥KQTxx and appropriate ♣ lenght (depending on opening style) would be more like it.