skjaeran

I totally agree with all who rebids 3♦ as responder when this is forcing. It's important to get across to partner that you've got an excellent suit.

I'd transfer to ♥'s. If partner superaccepts I bid game. If not, I continue with 2♠, showing 4-5 and an invite (playing Smolen). I'd do the same with this hand playing IMPs.

The ♦6 tells nothing here. I might have been leading from a doubleton, so partner gives attitude to tell me who's got the king - he didn't know that would be known to me one moment later. The ♦K is almost surely not a singleton, if so, declarer would most probably have discarded ♣'s before playing trumps. To beat this, partner need to have the ♠A or the♣K (or trump ace, but I strongly doubt that - RHO probably wouldn't raise to game on an empty suit and partner would have raised and pushed a ♣ through) or have a singleton ♦. I expect most people to give suit preference in the trump suit in this situation, but I can't read partner's card here. It could be from x4 or 43. The ♠A won't go away on ordinary layouts, so I don't have to try to cash that now. The 2nd ♣ trick will go away (on dummy's ♠ and ♦), however. So I'll lay down the ♣A now. If partner encourage, I'll continue a ♣ to his king, if not I'll try to give him a ♦ ruff. I have to do it now. Declarer will lay down the trump ace as soon as he get's on lead (I've got the nine, so there's no 2nd finesse coming) playing for my partner to hold a doubleton honour or me to have KQ tight, and go on cashing ♦'s and ♠'s.

Playing 2/1 light, where rebidding the 2/1 suit is invite only, we'd start: 1♠ - 2♦ 2♠ - 2NT (GF) 3♦ (6♠3♦) Thereafter we should have no problem reaching 6♦.

I'd lead the ♥8 - 2nd from a bad holding.

Nice one, Han! Your own? Nice meeting you in Oslo, btw.

I agree with you on that Arend. So If my suit allowed it, I'd make a standard sequence lead, expecting them to go down if partner did in fact have a pure penalty double (where he'd expect to beat them whatever I lead).

Low ♥.

Deleted

IMO it's a borderline decision, 4♥ or 4♠. ♥A, good trumps and a ♣ suit with some potential swings it to 4♥ for me.

I play it as a weak preempt. Of course I'm only half mad at red. (Not all would agree on the "half" part.LOL)

If you start as Justin and I suggested; ruff and low ♣ and east split the honours you win, draw trump AQ, ruff a ♦, cash ♥K and claim ten tricks, conceding a ♣ and two ♠'s. So to create a problem, east need to duck the low ♣ at trick two. You win the 9, but now seems to be stuck with no winning options (I've not looked very hard at this problem). I guess some made the conract after east erronously (double dummy that is) split his ♣ honours.

Seems reasonable to me.

My parnter would have shown 5+♦s and 4(+)♠s, so surely it would be stupid to bid 2NT without a stopper (or lenght) in ♣s. Playing the xyz convention I'd rebid 2♣ to invite game. Over partner's 2♦ I'd rebid 2♠, alternatively I could rebid 2♥, but if partner holds a singleton, this would be bad. Over 2♠ partner might rebid 3♥, showing 4-3-5-1 (or 4-3-6-0), and I've got an easy raise to game.

♥A. I have to admit I might on a rare occasion try a low ♥ too. :)

Huh - did he really pass?? That would be an automatic raise to 4♥ for me. As for your rebid, I'd never consider 3♣. It's close between 3♥ and 4♥ - I'd probably rebid 3♥ at the table.

Seems like a more or less automatic (but close to minimum) 1♥ overcall to me. I wasn't in the forums in 2004, but would have made the same reply then.

Opening 4♥ and doubling 4♠ is saying that you've got a great hand for your opening bid (in 3rd seat a 4♥ opening is really wide-range, both in strenght and distribution) and some defence. Partner is asked to judge his hand and either convert or take out in 5♥. It's a 2-way shot. That's most probably how I'd bid this hand in 3rd seat.

Agree with Josh here. With two voids you'll not be passed out at the 1- or 2-level. So go slowly.

Yeah. I can see why 4♦ in the OP could be non-forcing, even if I'm of the opinion that is't forcing. But I couldn't imagine playing 4♣ as non-forcing.

Previously I always played any FSF except 1♠ as GF. Recently I've been playing xyz in all regular partnerships, and thus play 2♣ as a puppet to 2♦, either to sign off there or to make an invite. 2♦ is an artificial GF. In pick-up partnerships I play xyz if (s)he is used to playing it, else FSF=GF.

Absolutely agree with the double, can't see that a ♦ reverse could be better. Now I think I'll just ask for keycards and get to 6 or 7 depending on partner's replies.

It's a long way to 9 tricks in 3NT if I win the ♦Q. So that's not an alternative to me. I'll sit for this, even if I guess it's against the LAW.

I'll go for 2NT. Over 3♦ I'll rebid 3NT. Over 3♣/♠ I'll bid 4♥.

If partner has Axx♥, K♦, then we can set, but only if we return a club. Ditto if partner had Kxx♥ I think I'm in over my head on this discussion, but I don't quite see why we absolutely need partner to have A♠ Please remember this is MP, not IMPs. It's not a given that our goal is to set the contract. Our goal is to maximize our tricks; if we get three tricks and the majority only two, we've got a great score. Our best chance to maximize our tricks is to continue ♣A and another ♣.