skjaeran

I'd rebid 2♠ and then jump to 4♠. North should probably raise to 5♠, and south should accept with this trump suit.

13-15 3334/3343 or something like that. ♠K.

Fully agree with Mike and Ken. And I don't understand why north didn't make a game try either. We should absolutely be in 4♥ here.

Yes, I think they have read/thought about combo previously. If you are fast enough to figure this all out at table I don't want to play against you :P. Not all of them. You can give Helgemo almost any suit combination and he'll come up with the correct solution in just a couple of seconds.

Agree with Mike and Han, I'd rebid 2♠ with the north hand. And I'm quite sure I'd miss this slam.

I was watching this too. Passing in 1st seat was a big surprise. But some insist on a very sound opening style. I disagree with the splinter, though I think Zia was very pessimistic to rebid 4♠. But I'd strongly prefer a 2♦ cuebid by Welland first, and 5♥ over Zia's presumed jump to 4♠.

Certainly not a minor suit. I can't help partner in ♦'s, and ♣ will often give away a trick. And I'll need ♣'s as an entry. At IMPs I have an almost automatic ♥ lead - that's the best shot at setting the contract. At MP I'm more inclined to lead a low ♠. But it's close.

That really depends on the situation - how many cards dummy hold in the suit, how many cards partner can be expected to have etc - and, not to forget, if we're defending a suit or no trump contract.

I interpret 4♠ differently (se Han's post above), but wouldn't dream of pushing on. I hope (believe) partner can make 4♠.

For me 2♥ would be NF, non-invitational, so I'd not make a 2♥ call with this hand. That said, I fully agree with the 2♠ bid - anything else is nonsense to me. Over 2♠ south has a clear 4♠, the only alternative being an invitational 3♠. IMO north bid very sensibly all the way here - pinpointing his 2326 distribution and uncertainty about what contract to play. 5♠ is way out - partner has shown a minimum opening.

You not only have a right to an explanation of an auction you might have forgotten, you are, if a defender, required to request one over asking about a specific bid. Read the law I quoted again. You do not need to go stepwise through the auction to explain it. "Declarer has shown six or more spades, some 16-18 points, and first round control of clubs. Dummy showed..." well, you could say what dummy showed, but since dummy is sitting there where everybody can see it, I don't see the point, at least as long as he has what he showed. If Declarer bid Blackwood after a cue bid from partner, a comment to the effect that he (declarer) might have been concerned about a lack of controls in that suit (because he didn't bid BW earlier) might be appropriate. Or not. I should think that would be general bridge knowledge. I am aware of Law 41C. And of Law 41B, which says in part that both defenders and declarer retain the right to request explanations throughout the play period, each at his own turn to play. The procedure for such requests is as defined in Law 20F2, which says that defenders should ask for an explanation of the auction. This is plainly ridiculous. Even common sense will tell you that this can not be true. You can't seriously believe that if you've forgotten the auction and haven't got a clue to what suit you should guard, you can ask for an explanation of the auction and have the right to be told that declarer has for example shown a 4-card ♣-suit. If you really believe so, I advice you to get your hand on a copy of "Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge" by Grattan Endicott and Bent Keith Hansen. In paragraph 20.4.(v) they state explicitely: I've put in the text in italics and made the relevant text bold. I've played at high level for a long time and directed at high level nearly 20 years. You're the first one I've come across who holds this belief.

Having Drury on my CC, I'd have an easy pass over a 2♠ raise. Since that doesn't seem to be on, I'd squeeze out a game try with this hand, but I'd rather bid 2NT (general game try) than 3♣. Over 2NT I'd raise to game with the north hand, with a doubleton and this strong ♦-holding.

I never saw this before, but maybe it is historically related to the Vienna point count: A=6 K=4 Q=2 J=1 The Vienna count point is 7-5-3-1 for A-K-Q-J respectively.

After your first turn to play you're not allowed to ask for a review of the auction, true. But an explanation of the auction is not a review, and Law 20F2, which does govern explanations, says So "thereafter you can only ask questions about specific calls" turns out not to be the case. The rationale behind allowing declarer to ask questions about specific calls is, I believe, that there can be no UI for his side in the play. The defenders are another story, which is why they're still supposed to ask about the whole auction. You've got no right to an explanation of an auction you might have forgotten though. To get an explanation during the play period, you need to go stepwise through the auction. See also Law 41C - you're entitled to be informed as to what the contract is and whether, but not by whom, it was doubled or redoubled.

Against a married couple in the district pairs 20+ years ago, the husband for some unknown reason stopped in 5♥'s after BW. Partner made some lead. Declarer won in hand and advanced the ♥Q. Partner showed out, but he finessed to my......singleton king! Making only one overtrick.

http://home.no.net/raptor/sys_it.htm

That's not even close to a 4♠ bid. You don't preempt over a preempt. He should have bid 3♠. Well the bidder probably had more than that, else how was 5♠ making. He never said 5♠ made - 5♦x did make.

I play this with my regular partner. Over 1♣ - (1♦) we play: double show 4+♥'s, denies 4-4/4-5+ in the majors (but can have 5-6+) 1♥ show 4+♠'s 1♠ show 4♠'s and 4+♥'s Over 1m - (1♥): double = 4+♠'s 1♠ = <4♠'s Support doubles is used by opener if responder showed 4+ in one major.

You've got to bid 5♣, now. I'd most probably have bid 4♣ previous round.

100% agree.

That's not even close to a 4♠ bid. You don't preempt over a preempt. He should have bid 3♠.

This is an obvious 1♣ opening to me, not 1♦ - that promises an unbalaced hand im my methods. In practise I'd pass if you removed the ♣J, but the hand would still be stronger than some 11-counts I routinely open. Aces and kings are underevaluated in the Work point count, but I still don't open balanced 10-counts (unless you add some good interiors).

Agree with your bidding.

With my regular partner I'd start with 2♥ - transfer, and take it from there. If partner just accepts (denying a fit and other descriptive rebids), it's close between 3♦ and 3♠. I'd probably rebid 3♦, our known 9+ fit. This is mildly invitational, and partner should have some chance to evaluate.

Have a great day, Noble!