skjaeran

1NT for me too. Right on values and shape. Prefer a stopper, but there are hands with no perfect bid.

Ruff and play ♥Q.

Happy birthday, Mike!

Drinking every night does not in itself make you an alcoholic. But that might lead to becoming an alcoholic some time in the future. Whether that will happen or not, and how long it takes is a function of how much you drink and your genes. My father is an alcoholic. I never thought he'd stop drinking. But now he's been sober for 20 years, after going to a clinic 21 years ago, and staying there for a year. I (and my sister) spent a week there early on, as part of the program. When I left, I understood that statistically, having an alcoholic father, the chance I'd become one myself was 25-30%. So I decided to stop drinking, and I've never taken that habit up again. Jimmy is perfectly right, as long as you've got no trouble stopping, you're not an alcoholic.

Happy birthday, Noble!

I consider 4♦ to be automatic. Not strong enough to act again over a sign off from partner.

The first sequence would just be patterning out for me, with a minimum opener (11-15). The shape would be 4-0-5-4 or maybe 4-1-5-3 for me, I open 1♣ with 4-4/4-5 in the minors. The second sequence would be invitational with 4-0-4-5.

I'd have doubled last time. Now I've got an easy 4♣ cuebid, showing a good high card raise to 4♠ without showing or denying a club control. I'm too good for a simple raise here, even though partner just balanced, we could easily make slam here.

3♠ splinter. Followed by 4♦ cue if I'm able to.

Strongly prefer 3♠ to be forcing. 4m should be a cuebid for spades, IMO.

The north hand isn't even close to a vulnerable overcall. Facing a reasonable overcall, south has a clear GF. It's not hard to find a normal hand for north were slam is very good, you might in fact have a grand. Whatever happened after the overcall, north is 100% to blame.

I was thinking 5♠, showing the void and inviting a grand. But partner will never be able to bid a grand off ♥AK. The bidding indicates bad breaks. I won't commit myself to a grand where I need partner's clubs to be tight. So to me it's a choice between 5NT (pick a slam) and 6♦. I'll go for 6♦.

With a clear minimum and no certain 8-card fit, and opps maybe playing in a 7-card fit, why would I ever think of anything but pass?

You might have a problem finding out whether partner holds the ♥K that way. I, for one, would like to be able to pinpoint the ♥K before deciding the level (and strain).

If you disclose your partnership tendencies, thus giving the opps both your explicit and implicit agreements, everything is fine, yes. Provided these implicit agreements are legal in the event you're playing. An implicit agreement isn't a psyche, by definition.

Each NBO pay a fee to the WBF for every member. The amount pr member decrease with increasing number of members. And there's a minimum fee.

The slots in the BB are generally allotted to the zones due to their number of members, with large zones (EBL and ACBL) being heavily underrepresented, and small zones (South America, Central America and Africa) being overrepresented. South America, I believe, normally has 2 slots. Brazil having an extra slot as home team. PABF is 50% larger than South Pacific, thus has 3 slots compared to their 2.

I think all of us advocating a 2NT rebid intends it to show an 18-19 NT. That's my evaluation of the hand.

Yes, sure you can. Just read the law and understand it, and you'll see that's the case. But that's not the crux of it. The point is that if you have been in the situation before, and know partner's tendencies, you have to disclose themit. If not, you don't disclose your partnership understandings; explicit or implicit; which your opponents are entitled to.

Agree with others that the correct rebid over 1♠ is 2NT. I'm used to playing the 2♦ rebid as in principle forcing, as the OP said (90% forcing). That means there are hands that might pass 2♦. The south hand here is borderline, but IMO just too strong to pass out 2♦. I'd give false preference to 2♥. Then partner is able to bid on with some stronger hands (2♠/2NT), getting us to 3NT, or with 5-5 and a light invite rebid 3♦. The downside of rebidding 2♥ is playing in a 5-1 fit instead of a 4-3 fit when partner is minimum. (But even that might on occasion turn out to be good for us.)

Strange way to interpret the word deviation. And it's definitely not the correct interpretation regarding bridge laws. In the sequence 1♥ (x) 1♠, if your agreement is that 1♠ shows 4+♠s and 6+ hcp, bidding 1♠ on hands with less than four spades is a deviation from your agreements. If you in the sequence above bid 1♠ with some frequency on say 1-2 spades and a heart fit, you very soon have an implicit understanding that 1♠ is either natural or short spades and a heart fit. And you need to disclose this. If this is an illegal method, you're can't make this bid any more.

Gratulerer med dagen, unge mann! (Happy birthday, young man!)

Declarer obviously have all the tricks, as long as he keeps a trump in hand as communication back to hand for the last two club trick. Just as obviously, declarer didn't realize this, and was about to pull all his trumps (he already had put them on the table before he discovered his problem). Believing he's got tricks to spare. As a TD I'd hold him to his play of all the trumps. Thus, I'd award him 13 tricks if spades broke 3-3, else just 11 tricks.

I wouldn't play the strong jump shift.... But, doing that, this surely must be the hand for it.

That's what used to be expert standard in the US, not so all over the world. I don't think it's standard in the US today, but I might be mistaken. I played an modern version of Culbertson's 4-5NT convention about 20 years ago. Since then I've always used 4NT as Roman Keycard BW in a cuebid sequence, as a sign off after a minor suit slam try (no cuebids) and else as quantitative.