skjaeran

Pass really looks like the odds on action, so that's my choice. Of course you could hit gold by bidding 2♠, but not too often.

I have to say I agree with Justin and Josh on this one. Sure, it's tough to pass at the table, it really looks like partner has got a nice hand. But you shouldn't hang partner here. Just like you shouldn't hang partner for balancing - it's just the same here, just on a higher level.

The method in the OP is just the same as I play with my regular partner.

Even vs a light opener we might hav game here. So I'll have to make a bid now. Sure, if partner is broke it's going to cost. But I'll stick my neck out. 2♠ is my bid, for the same reasons given by Justin.

Partner's discards are unclear to me, I suppose he's gotten rid of all his clubs and has discarded four of them. Giving declarer T6 doubleton from the start. Partner followed with the ♥6-9. Partner thought it could cost following with the 9 first. If partner held 963 he'd give correct count. Declarer thus started with AQT3, and is now down to ♥A3 and a singleton ♦. I'll throw the ♣Q. If declarer plays his diamond I win the ace and return the ♥K, pinning the remaing 8 in dummy and setting up my 4 as the last trick.

So you make if ♣ are 3-2 (68%) with ♥4-3 and ♠4-1 (17.36% combined) or ♥5-2 and ♠3-2 (21.08% combined) or ♥4-3 and ♠3-2 ((42.16% combined) for a total of 54.8%. In addition if east has singleton ♣ (14%) you make with ♥4-3 and ♠3-2 for an additional 5.9%. All in all your plan give a 60.7% chance of success. The simpler plan, cashing dummy's trumps, ♣A, ♣ruff, draw trumps and use ♥A as entry to the established clubs need ♣3-2 and trumps not worse than 4-1. This adds up to 65.3%. I've used rounded percentages here, so these numbers are just approximate. They'll be so little offset that it's clear that setting up dummy's clubs is the better line.

It isn't considered forcing in standard bidding. Peter I'll second that statement. 2NT is definitely not considered forcing in any standard natural system, whether a response promises 6 hcp or not.

As it happens, I also own a hard copy of the Encyclopedia of Bridge, 5th edition. Under "Mathematical Tables, Table 4: Probability of Distribuiton of Cards In Two Hidden Hands on page 278 I find (4 outstanding cards): 3-1 49.74% 2-2 40.70% 4-0 9.57% Any competent player knows that the percentages for 3-1/2-2/4-0 is roughly 50/40/10 respectively. (Btw, on the website you pointed to, you'll find this information too: http://www.durangobill.com/BrSplitStats.html) The notion that the distribution of the 9 known cards between the two known hands should alter the odds is.....I haven't got words. If you've got any understanding of probabilities you would know instinctively that this can't be true.

I've got absolutely no sympathy for north's two doubles. And I'd prefer 4♥ by south to 4♠, assuming this shows a suit, not a splinter. But I still think south's pass over 5♦ was the worst call in this sequnce. I'd not make a t/o double with west's hand either, but that was the "best" call in a series of blunders. Only 1♠ and 2♠ are bids I agree with.

I'd bid 3♦ at any vulnerability and scoring.

Obviously this was the south hand, since it's not possible from the auction that it could be any of the other three. Agree with Josh and Han that this is an easy pass. If I for some odd reason HAD to bid over 1♣ I'd reluctantly chose 1NT - not that I'd recomend it at all, but it's a better alternative than 1♦ on that motheaten 4-bagger.

And I think you are mistaken. Well, if the 2NT rebid is agreed to show a normal 18-19NT, I must say I strongly agree with Han. If it systemically shows support that's quite another kettle of fish.

I agree. And if north jumps to 4♠, east does't know about opps double fit, and it will be much tougher (insane B) ) to make a save.

Agree with all of this. I also agree with Josh that 1NT by north is better than 2♠.

Many using the Ekrens 2♦ (weak with both majors) also use 2NT as natural invite and 3♣ as a forcing relay.

I agree 100% to 2♦ showing equal major suit length by advancer after overcaller showed both majors. That's absolutely standard here. 2NT is a game invite, an asking bid. In all multi-type situations where the multi-type bid is doubled I play pass as showing the suit bid, xx asking partner to show his hand type/suit and a new suit by me to be natural (I don't need to know what you've got, I KNOW where to play).

I haven't hear about Trash overcalls before, but googled and found them. TRASH is an acronym for TRAnsfer or SHape. It's a 1NT defence (can be used vs 2NT too), and shows either a 1-suiter in the suit transfered to or 55 in the next two suits. That means it's just the same as Suction or Yeslek as it's called in Norway. Yeslek is a somewhat popular defence to a stron 1♣ opening in parts of Norway. Brogeland-Sælensminde uses it - it's been on their CC as long as I can remember and they're using it in the BB in Shanghai.

why wouldn't it be natural? I know that 2N natural is becoming an extinct animal, but it is still useful in some auctions, such as this one. When playing with a non-regular partner I often agree that 2NT is always conventional.......except when it IS natural. B) This is an example of the latter.

With my regular partner I'd open the first two hands 2♠. We play this as very constructive; 8-11 hcp and a 6-bagger. Both are very close to maximum, but we're allowed to hold a maximum hand on occasion. B) The last two are obvious 1♠ openings in my style. (With my previous partner the 3rd would be an absolute maximum vulnerable 2♠ opening, showing 8-10 hcp and 5♠5m.)

Agree with many advocating the same. Without very accurate agreements I'd just transfer to ♠s and rebid 6♥.

New Zealand???? Sydney used to be in Australia..... B)

Agree.

I like this scheme.

On the second hand I've got a top loser in both minors and a possible trump loser: If I manage to ruff a club in dummy, there's still a possibility that west might play a late fourth round of clubs which east might ruff (it looks like the suit is 4-3, but 6-1 is aso possible) or that east might give west a ruff (if clubs are KQ-xxxxx). On the other hand, if I play west for the ♦A I can discard a club. And the spade finesse is also a (not so attractive) possibility. So this is a more complex hand than the first. I'm not sure this is the best solution, but here we go (hidden):

On the first hand I'm worried about a spade ruff, the switch looks very much like a singleton. How to avoid a ruff - see hidden text: