skjaeran

After 1♠ raised to 2♠ by partner I'd just bid game. But if I decided to invite, I think advancer has an automatic accept. He's close to minimum, but the 4th trump is great.

I'd bid my suit on both occasions. A little more reluctantly holding ♣'s, but I'm still bidding.

Curious, what do you do with5S4+H hands? Peter Depends on strenght. But most of the time we rebid 2♦, transfer. The "problem" hand for the method is 5♠-4♣ (we open minimum 5-5 black 1♣) since 2♣ is transfer to ♦'s. You could use a 2-level opening to show 11-15 with 5♠4♣ (we don't). Or just live with having to pass 1NT with 11-14 and 5-4 in the black suits. (I didn't see Ken's reply.)

Curious, what do you do with5S4+H hands? Peter Depends on strenght. But most of the time we rebid 2♦, transfer. The "problem" hand for the method is 5♠-4♣ (we open minimum 5-5 black 1♣) since 2♣ is transfer to ♦'s. You could use a 2-level opening to show 11-15 with 5♠4♣ (we don't). Or just live with having to pass 1NT with 11-14 and 5-4 in the black suits.

Why oldschool?? I'd not pass either. I agree with Uwe that going plus might happen more often when passing, but passing and going minus (-710) will hurt a lot. Bidding and going -100 doesn't hurt as much (we do lose 7 IMPs compared to +200). I don't expect to beat 4♣ more than one, it will make more often than many believe and we'll also go plus declaring on quite a few hands. All in all I guess bidding is winning.

Partner's jump to 4♠ won't hurt you. You'll then have enough for 6NT at least. I'd double on this, using lebensohl. If I made a direct 3NT call that would show a long solid minor, ♥ stopper and an outside card (ace preferrably), a hand where I'd hope to take 9 tricks as soon as I gained the lead.

You've analyzed this absolutely correct with regards to the chances for lots of ♣ tricks, and also when it comes to what suit you need to attack to set the contract. Take another look at your and dummy's ♣ spots and see if there's a chance for you to help partner even more than just give suit preference for ♥'s. How do you think you can beat this if partner holds ♥KJTx and the ♦K, which leaves declarer with AJx Axx xxx Axxx (13 hcp).

I'd play the ♦4, which normally is encouraging in my methods. A thinking partner would see that it's got to be suit preference for ♣'s on this occasion, nothing else make sense IMO. And partner would then switch to a low ♣ holding ♦Kx and a high holding singleton ♦K (attitude). If partner switches to a high ♣ I'll win the king and return the ♦T, suit preference for ♥'s.

It's not unusual to open 3♠ on KJxxxxx x Kx xxx or something like that. But I'll still go along with this plan to endplay east with ♦Kx. If this fails (west holds the ♦K) we can still play west for ♥Tx.

At a cursory glance it seems like an interesting system. I see that you say "highly unusual methods", which to me is a little strange. That's a class of systems in the WBF system policy (and in many NBO's) that means that the system would be disallowed in most tournaments (probably above even super-chart in ACBL). And very few would raise an eyebrow if you sat down playing this system here in Norway. And you could play it everywhere.

With my regular partner (or a few other playing the same method) I open 1♠ and rebid 2♥, showing a very good 2♠ rebid. We use 3♠ as slammish here. Playing with others I open 1♠ and rebid 3♠ for the same reasons Justin gave in the post above.

This is illegal. Law 74C: Relevant part highlighted by me.

This is a clear 1st/2nd seat opening to me, partner will never hold this hand when i make a 3rd seat opening.

This hand is IMO an opening in 1st and 2nd seat also. But it's still a 8-loser sub-minimum hand, and I'd not consider any other response than 2♥. I need something exeptional from partner to make game, and he'll most probably take another call with such a hand.

If I haven't miscounted, you are the 15th poster Frances (including the opening poster of course). :lol:

You mean, pass by North is right over 1♦, but North should now consider bidding 2♥ (on a 4-card suit) over 1NT, when he already had his chance to speak his mind on round one? "Hey partner, I'm not good enough to make a one level overcall, but I am good enough to overcall at the 2-level !" ?? :lol: That can't be right, can it ? Bidding 2♥ with the north hand over 1NT would indeed be completely crazy, but that surely isn't what vuroth had in mind. He's asking if north might consider balancing with 2♥ in the pass-out seat over 2♦. That's very agressive, but far from insane. I don't think many would do it at IMPs, but know many who would at least consider it at MP.

I started with a nice hand, but it's value has fallen dramatically. LHOs 1♠ overcall means my ♠'s value are near nil. ♥Axx is a bad holding after RHOs 2♥ bid. The ♣K probably pulls it's full weight, since partner rates to have his values in the minors. The opponents seems to have found no fit yet, which means we'll have losers in the majors, and I can't expect to ruff many ♠'s in dummy, since RHO might overruff, until I've pulled trumps. I'll pass for now and see what happens. At the moment it seems best to defend.

The soapbox does give one the ability to claim the higher ground, but I believe that you are making two errors here and missing one huge point here. First, you seem to be assuning that partner needs a lesson, because he presumably makes psychic bids enough to be able to smell them and field them. As it turns out, this psychic was the only psychic ever made in this partnership. No history. No precedent. Completely out of left field. So, no punishment needs to be issued, unless your view on psychics is way more conservative than you suggest. No need to get hostile with your incorrect assumptions. Second, you seem also to assume that you are improperly fielding a psychic if the only way to spot it is to know partner. As you yourself noted, this is a "baby psychic," which means one that anyone might predict, including the opponents. It is my opinion, perhaps not shared, that partner is entitled to smell a rat if the auction suggests a rat. Acting on that blatantly might not be called for, but why would pure tactics be an impediment? Is it unethical to select between plausible alternatives, selecting one that happens to have tactical benefits if partner had made a psychic call, simply because you believe that a psychic might be contextually more likely, albeit remotely? The third thing that you are missing is the "one huge point." This is a club game where the hands are stacked by the playing director. Everyone paying attention should have noticed that every hand this evening is leading to a five-level decision. Partner trying to pick of spades early is much more likely than in usually conditions. Sure, this is an ethical problem tossed into an unreasonable scenario (which is why this was the first and only psychoic of the partnership). However, the strained situation caused me to wonder whether Opener, in a real game, would be unethical for making a slam try in such a way that he would bid hearts at some point, allowing partner to pass if he had made a psychic. Ken, if you read my first post you can see that I've got nothing against psyches at all. And if this partnership have no psyching history at all, there can never be a problem. And I'd bid whatever seemed natural to me at the table in your position. I'd not be expecting a psyche here at all, and unless something strange happened in the bidding I'd be clueless about a possible psyche. I can't see that I'd ever be making a slam move by rebidding my empty ♥'s at any point, but see no problem whatsoever if you did either. However, if I was playing against you and your partner, knowing nothing about his psyching tendencies or your history as a partnership, I'd be very sceptical if you at some point bid 6♥ with this hand catching your partner's psyche. If you then told me in a friendly and seemingly honest way that you've never seen your partner make this psyche before, I might believe you. But not knowing you or your partner it's hard to say how I'd react. Of course, the setup and all would most probably make me just shrug my shoulders and pick up the next board. :lol:

No, the south hand is still not worth more than 2♠.

I did not bid 4♠ in this auction, but you are onto something... If partner is prone to psyching 1♠ here, I'd NOT pass 5♣x (nor just raise to 4♠ previous), I'd probably bid 6♠ to try to teach him not to continue this silly psyche. (I've got nothing against psyching, quite the contrary, but this baby-psyche is just completely silly.) Ah, but can't you combine your options? Is there a way, with this hand, to "invite the grand" by bidding hearts at some point? This might include, for instance, bidding 5♥ and then bidding on if partner signs off, cuebidding again? As it was, there was a psychic, and perhaps a poor one in theory. However, 5♥ is cold, and 6♥ makes on the actual layout with anything but a diamond lead, and even that lead only fails because the spade hook fails. So, the "strange and unexpected problem" on this particular hand was whether a person should consider making the passable call that caters to a high-possibility psychic as the slam move or game try or lead-director. Whether this is an ethical problem, or whether this might simply be legitimate tactical thinking. If I was "afraid" of a psyche I wouldn't make a passable call. Not so much on ethical grounds (which is important too though), but rather to teach partner a lesson. I strongly dislike partner having psyching tendencies where a psyche is frequent enough as to be anticipated. And I'll avoid "fielding" these if at all possible.

The first should be a support double. If you don't like them it shows extra strenght and more often than not the unbid suit. The second should show extra strenght. I seldom use pure penalty doubles when opponents have supported. Doubles then "always" is of the competitive kind, showing extras or maximum, often some defence and ask partner to do the right thing. Leaving in the double is the best decision 20-35% of the time I guess.

Some would overcall 1♥ with the north hand (I might), some would make a t/o double with the north hand (I wouldn't). Failing that, I think 2♥ by south over 2♦ is obvious.

Count me in too.

I'd start with 2♣, show my ♥'s and get to 7♥ (or 7NT if partner's got an ace) unless partner seems to be very short. If partner is able to show a very long ♠ or ♦ suit, I'd consider a grand in his suit.

With AKQJ AKQJTxxxx v v you'd not be interested in partner's preference, would you?