skjaeran

Two of dummy's small trumps will go under your ace and queen. If you cash the ♣A and ruff a club, dummy will be down to KJ9 in trumps and 5 red cards. You've got 5 tricks by now and will score KJ9 of trumps whatever happens from now.

Using standard count I give present count. Using ud carding I give original count (or standard present count if you want ;) ). Playing in a new or pick-up partnership this is one of the few things I'd insist on playing. I've never come across a partner who didn't agree though, so there's never been a problem.

I bid 3♣, but I don't think this is near as clear as most posters. LHO's pass over 2♦ strongly implies that they don't have a real fit. I'd not be very surprised if partner showed up with 44M. Passing is still a bit extreme, though, and I'd go with the big majority and rebid 3♣. 2NT is definitely out, that looks more like 6-4.

2♠ shows a distributional hand with good suits, but not reverse strenght IMO. It shows a hand that wants to compete, but not enough defence to stand a penalty pass by partner. The actual hand is pretty much what I'd expect. It could of course be 5xx6 and a tad weaker. The posted problem hand should be very fitting - the ♠Q and ♣J are huge cards. And the ♦K rates to be working; if partner is 64 he strongly rates to be 4-1-2-6. So I think I would try 4♣ at the table. (Of course I might be influenced by seeing the actual hand.)

Take away the ♠J and ♣Q and I'd still open 3♦. Partner won't expect more than that (in fact I could have KQTxxx and out), so if it goes pass 3NT I'd be quite confident he'd make game (overtrick(s) probably).

This is close for me, but the hand is just not good enough for a 2♣ overcall in my style.

Agree. But I'd be shamefully delighted discovering the blocking suit if I somehow stumbled to 3NT. ;)

I'm used to playing 4m as leaping Michaels and the direct cue as a strong (solid) 1-suiter, ostensibly asking for a stopper, but you're not always going to pass 3NT from partner. That is, you could have higher aspirations than just game.

Huh - did you notice that we're talking about vs a potentially canape opening? The 1♥ opening could most probably be something like Txxx KJx AKJxx x, to give but one example. Surely you can see why you'd like to be able to make a natural 1♠ overcall over such a hand. Nobody advocated playing 1♠ as a natural overcall over a 5+♠ 1♥ opening. Don't get me wrong, playing 1♠ as a t/o does make perfect sense too. ;)

I agree with Josh that suit preference is the called for signal when dummy hits with ♥KT974. It's far from clear what the ♦2 calls for though, since partner could have 862, 82, 62 or 2. But since I can see more diamonds than clubs, including the J and T, I'd be a little surprised if declarer's suit wasn't clubs. A ♠ switch won't set this contract anyway, so that's out. Thus I'd go for a ♦ switch and lead the 7 (attitude) to trick 2.

Deleted double post.

To me this is close between pass and 3NT. I think the odd against making 4♠ is too high for me to raise. But I think there are more layouts where our number of tricks is highest in NT than where we score more tricks playing a ♠ contract. In addition the number of tricks in ♠ and NT might be equal (and 9). So I'll opt for 3NT.

Just out of curiosity to clarify, are you not bidding game on all the hands with 5 trumps? You're bloody right - I was making a too quick reply. :P A and b I'd just raise directly to game, not bid 2♠. I can't do that on f, since a raise to game denies 2 KC. I'd bid 2♠ followed by 4♥, unless partner makes a move towards slam. I'd do the same with hand c; I think it's got too much potential to just blast to game.

Ditto. Me too. The vulnerability isn't given, but I don't think we'll get rich defending anyway.

This is a clearcut pass to me. 4♥ won't take away any space for opps, we don't want to save at these colours, and of course a pass by LHO is forcing here; LHO already invited game and RHO bid a new suit at the 4-level, which must at least be encouraging. Opps won't stop at the 4-level now, more probably they're heading for slam.

Completely agree. If we can beat 3♦ we should collect a reasonable score.

Agree. I don't have to like it, but that's what I'd bid. It's veeery close to pass though.

I'd not splinter with any of these hands. A splinter would show just a little stronger hands than the best of these and a void. With my regular partner I'd bid 2♠, showing some minisplinter. Hand c is close to, but not quite worth a GF.

I'd bid 4♠ now - a good raise to 5♣. If partner has Roland's example hand: x KQx Axx KJxxxx he'll most probably bid slam. And that's not much better than my minimum 2♣ overcalls. With x Qxx Axx KJTxxx partner will bid 5♣.

I'd not open this hand 2♣. Our bidding would be: P - 1♥ 2♦ - 2♠ 3♣ - 5♦ 5♠ - 7♥ 2♦=3c Drury 2♠="nat" GF 3♣=values 5♦=EKB

Why should responder raise 3♥ to 4♥ instead of making a cuebid in ♣'s, after which 5♦ WOULD be EKB.

Why would you want to balance with a jump overcall?? (It's possible you meant the opening to be 1♠, but you've typed 1♣.) To me the alternatives would be 1♦ and 1NT. I prefer 1NT.

3♠ is GF to me. Partner showed a good hand with 6+ diamonds. I'm not bidding again to try to improve the contract. I use wjs here, so I can't have a "weak" hand with 6c♠, but even playing something else (whatever that might be), I'd stick to 3♠ being GF.

Your partners hand was a maximum for a 2NT overcall in my mehtods (15-18). I play system on here, so would bid 3♦ with your hand. Your hand has such playing strenght that I'd raise partner to game, if he just accepted the transfer. (Btw he need something extraordinary to do anything but accept the transfer.)

Nice cake - I could see the image now.