skjaeran

This is a clear 2♥ overcall IMO. Agree with Roland though that the weaker hand with longer suit is even a better overcall. With responder's hand I think 2♠ is obvious at any form of scoring.

Playing Drury and Minisplinters, I'd open this 1♠. 2♠ is also quite OK by me - I don't mix up my 3rd seat 2-level openings normally.

Agree with Ken about the 4-card ending, but so does everybody, I guess. I'd like to know west's number of spades, since that might influence my choice in the end game.

We double with a sound balanced/semibalanced opening. If minimum we tend to have at least 3-3 in the majors, can be less if stronger. We play lebensohl after the double. Later doubles by both hands are for penalties. Overcalls are natural, 2NT is natural but minor oriented (often 2-2(54)). What happens most frequently after an Ekren is that we double them, lead trumps and score more than we'd score in a game. The usual exception to this is thatthey have a good fit. Then advancer will have to take a decision at the 4-level (if it's our hand), and that's not always the easiest thing to get right.

Agree.

Your RHO bid diamonds, voluntarily, FOUR times up to 5D at equal vul. And you think the ace may blow a trick in that suit ??? Do you really think RHO's bids are reliable? We all know RHO's bids can't be reliable. But there can be no doubt he loves his diamonds. :lol:

Agree. I'd never pass this hand.

This is an automatic pass, wtp? Agree with Justin - I don't pass with 765432. A65432 I might pass though, but that's not absolutely clear.

4♥. 2nd choice 2♥.

This looks like such an obvious 3♣ to me that I can't say I can see the problem. Sure I'm heavy, but what reasonable alternative is there? I don't think I'd spend more than half the stop pause to decide this one at the table.

Using standard count, the 9 would be ambigous, since it could be from AJ9 or AJ9x. The jack is unambigous (need to be AJ9x) probably, since you'd overtake with AJ tight. So that should work, I agree.

[hv=d=e&v=n&n=sq42hakqdt854c865&e=st93hj9daj97ckjt3]266|200|Scoring: MP P 3♠ P 4♠ all pass[/hv] Your partner lead the ♦K. You're agreement is to give attitude, not count here. How do you plan the defence? More info in hidden text.

I can. :) Vs this openings (and vs a natural 1♣) i play: 2♣=natural 2♦=wjo in a major 2♥=weak Michaels 2♠=strong Michaels I know 2♦ is a BSC vs a natural 1♣, but I play in a SO where BSCs are allowed.

Looks like a simple raise to me. Switch the ♠J to the ♣ suit, and it's an automatic 2♣ if not playing Drury (I confess I can't remember when i didn't play Drury - I think there was a time I didn't but it's so long ago...).

I'd have no qualms opening 1♠ with that hand.

Take notes people. A Swede, a Norwegian and a Dane agreeing. That is not everyday stuff! :) Roland Take notes?? It's obviously a sign of the end of the world, I don't think notes will help. :P

This isn't correct - the 2+♣ 1♣ opening doesn't meet the criteria set down for a HUM system. The opening doesn't show shortage or length in the ♣ suit. It shows a balanced hand or a natural ♣ opener. That the opening CAN contain a doubleton ♣ isn't synonymous with SHOWING short ♣'s. The quoted rule defines an opening showing completely different hand types with regard to the lenght in one specified suit, either 2- or 3-suited hands with shortness in the spesified suit or hands with lenght in the suit. A system where the 1♣ opening is either natural or balanced should be classified as artificial (red).

This isn't correct - the 2+♣ 1♣ opening doesn't meet the criteria set down for a HUM system. The opening doesn't show shortage or length in the ♣ suit. It shows a balanced hand or a natural ♣ opener. That the opening CAN contain a doubleton ♣ isn't synonymous with SHOWING short ♣'s. The quoted rule defines an opening showing completely different hand types with regard to the lenght in one specified suit, either 2- or 3-suited hands with shortness in the spesified suit or hands with lenght in the suit.

So will I. Me too.

I'll go for the trump ace too. Try to avoid ♠ ruffs in dummy, if that's the issue. I don't think it's probable that cashing the ace will cost anything at all if there's no ruffs to take in dummy. With all my side suit stoppers it's hard to believe there's any tempo issue on this hand.

Ditto.

4♣. Agree with Ulf and Roland here.

Partner's 4♣ suggest to me that he'll have enough in ♥'s to contract for slam - IF he's got the ♥A. So I'll just keycard now. Missing the ace I'll drop in 5♥, else I bid slam.

5♥. Agree with Adam's post.

I disagree with several poster here. I think that partner may well have a hand that was going to 6C no matter what. This is his best way to find out if the grand is worthwhile. Cue-bidding at the 5-level instead of 4NT really cramps things and we are more or less forced to cooperate when he wants us to evaluate our hand on a more general basis. So 5D for me. With a hand with real grandslam interest, I might have bid RKC instead of 4S. There is still room for partner now. With a hand that was going to slam anyway, he'll bid 7 now. If he bids anything else, I sign off in 6. Sure partner can go on after 5C with a hand that was going to slam anyway but then we lost the chance to show a diamond control and we may not have come to this conclusion 'in tempo' leaving partner high and dry over 5C. I agree with this.