skjaeran

If there's no trump loser and clubs are 4-3 you'll often make 12 tricks in a spade contract. If one but not the other black suit is favourable you'll often make 11 tricks. The only way to counter that, I think, is to play for Qx in trumps in 4♥. That means cashing ♥AK dropping the queen, then ♠AK and ruff if needed, trump to jack and claim 11 tricks. You can never match 12 tricks if that's the outcome in a ♠ contract. I believe the Frances proposed line is better - play as safely as you can for ten tricks, get 11 part of the time and hope you match the normal result playing in spades. I don't think you need to go 'all in' for making five here.

What I do now depens upon what agreements we have after a reopening double from partner IF I PASS. If we play lebensohlish 2NT, so that pass followed by 3♣ shows constructive values or bad invitational values, I might pass. Though it's not a certainty that partner will reopen. If we don't play something like that, and pass followed by 3♣ could be bid on anything from a zero count up to, but not including, a good invite (I'd GF with that) I have to act now. I don't like the bid at all, but if you have to, you just have to. 2♥. I can't bid 3♣. It might not be defined as a GF fore everyone, but in practise it'll work like that anyway. And I'm not strong enough for that versus a minimum opener unless partner have extremely sound openings, which my partner usually haven't. :P

If you switch to a diamond and it's wrong (declarer holding ♥A and ♦KQ) it's fatal if declarer also holds ♠Kxx (or even Qxx). He'll draw trumps in 2 rounds (finessing if holding the queen), and play a ♣, setting up his Q for a heart discard. So that's not the reason why a diamond is best. If partner holds an ace and a king in the red suits, it's a pure guess what suit to return at trick 2. If you guess wrong he'll make, if you guess right he'll go down. But partner could also have ♦AQ.

It isn't GF. (Hands to weak to GF will of course have 4c♠.) So partner with a minimum with 4c♠ will rebid 3♠, which you can correct to 3NT with the actual hand. Partner will interpret this as a non-obvious 3NT - that is, he's can pull. If partner jumps to 4♠ over double you can likewise correct to 5♦.

Agree. Move one ♦ to ♥'s, and it looks right to bid 5♠ (no I don't think the hand is worth 3♦/3♠ earlier, but it's close and I can understand a jump). Take away the ♥J and ♣Q (if that's not an opening for you, add the ♣J), and a non-forcing pass looks best. There's no way to tell partner that you'd accept the game try but can't bid at the 5-level (if pass is non-forcing, which I agree is correct).

Equal Level Conversion is a principle where if you make a take out double of, a major and partner bids ♣'s your ♦ rebid at the same level doesn't promise extra strenght. (It's not normal to extend this to bidding the unbid major - that does promise extra strenght.) ECL allows you to double 1♠ holding ♠x ♥KJTx ♦AQJxxx ♣Qx. If partner responds 2♣ you can bid 2♦, showing a normal t/o with a long ♦ suit. Thus you can safely enter the bidding assured that you'll find your 4-4 ♥ fit when it does exist, and else play in your ♦ suit without partner going bananas, expecting lots of extras. Thank you very much.I always had a problem with this hand type.But what do you do with a very strong ♦ single suiter after a 2♣ response from P?Or should that be a different thread? I guess you're talking about a hand too strong to overcall 2♦, planning to double next to show a strong hand. Playing ELC you have to double and rebid 3♦ over 2♥ or 2♣ from partner.

That would be a splinter in my methods. I'd transfer to ♠ and jump to 4♥ (that's NOT a splinter to me :D ).

Hei jbr, og velkommen i klubben! I think this is an obvious 4♥.

I'm with Josh on this. Me too.

It doesn't amaze me. IF playing sjs I'd not jump to 2♠ on this hand with such a powerful side suit. As most people play sjs you can't have a side suit (some allow support for the opening suit though). Jumping to 2♠ would deny us the chance to find 6♣ (or 7♣), which might easily be the be top spot. A new suit by opener after a jump doesn't show a suit, only honour consentration, and denies Qx or better support, HHxxx in the opening suit and stoppers in both side suits, as I'm used to play this (I can't remember when I actually played sjs though, it's a looong time ago).

So am I. (Of course double shows a big hand.)

That hand isn't even close to what I'd expect from a partner bidding2♣...3♣. An aceless, 4-loser hand.... I'd puke all over him. :D

I open 1NT more often than most. But this hand is very suit oriented; a strong 5-card suit, lots of controls and a slow side suit. All calls for a suit opening. 1♠=100, 1NT=70 After 1♠-1NT I play 2NT as a conventional GF, so that's out on this hand. I also play transfers here, so I'd rebid 2♣. Playing with a non-regular partner I rebid 2♦.

Unless partner scores a trump trick (with Qxx) you need two red tricks to beat this. Since you can assume partner would lead a red ace from AK in one suit, he won't have that. If partner has an ace and a king in the red suits you need to switch to the king suit at trick 2 to set up this trick in time (cashing another ♣ set's up a discard, hitting the wrong suit gives declarer time to set up a ♣ trick himself). That's a 50-50 guess. The additional chance is that partner might hold ♦AQ. That makes a ♦ switch better than a ♥ switch - and the correct defence. (And it's not double dummy.)

Playing in an environment where 4 card majors is a popular method I can tell you this is rubbish. You need negative doubles just as much as when playing 5cM. And I diagree with his opinion on negative doubles above the 2-level. It's just a myth that you can't penalize opponents playing negative doubles - we all know how to do it. :P Btw, who is Dan Romm? I've never heard of him.

Equal Level Conversion is a principle where if you make a take out double of, a major and partner bids ♣'s your ♦ rebid at the same level doesn't promise extra strenght. (It's not normal to extend this to bidding the unbid major - that does promise extra strenght.) ECL allows you to double 1♠ holding ♠x ♥KJTx ♦AQJxxx ♣Qx. If partner responds 2♣ you can bid 2♦, showing a normal t/o with a long ♦ suit. Thus you can safely enter the bidding assured that you'll find your 4-4 ♥ fit when it does exist, and else play in your ♦ suit without partner going bananas, expecting lots of extras.

Make it a great day, Arend!

Agree with all others voting for two raises; 4♣ and 6♣.

Hard to see another line coming closer than half as good as this one.

I wouldn't consider double here, for me it promises 4 spades. If pd has 4S and more than minmum he will bid 4S. Obviously you have a different agreement. Peter What would 3♠ mean to you then (over 3♣ p p)?

A 'random' pick up partner in my environment would take it as stop ask without any discussion. What I should expect elsewhere I don't know. Playing with a high level partner I'd expect stopper ask and leaping Michaels to be standard.

The opening hand isn't worth a reverse or a jump rebid, so 3♦ was technically the worst bid. When that's said and done, that bid didn't destroy the auction. North's 4♣ rebid was nonsense, a forcing 3♠ bid in stead should lead to an easy auction to 6♠. North probably wasn't sure this was in fact a forcing bid, and chose 4♣ in stead. After that nobody seems to have a clue.

Obvious 4♠. Show my hand.

No. Normally I'd not dare to pass. As I said I'd bid 3♣. But I don't think it's as obvious as the big majority here seem to believe. The actual outcome when rebidding 3♣ was unlucky, but not sensational IMO. At the table, if I got some kind of tell from LHO I might pass though, but that would be a very low-percentage occurence.

I play 2M as 8-11. Facing that I'd make a move towards game with the north hand red at IMPs, and bid 2NT. We show singletons; over 3♦ north would happily jump to 4♥.