skjaeran

Over the double, north should cuebid 2♦ and then bid 3♣ over south's 2♥. Should show this kind of hand - opening strenght, balanced, no ♦ stopper. South then should be able to count 11 tricks in a club contract.

Our auction would be: 1♠ - 2♥ 3♦ - 3♥ 4♠ - 4NT 6♣ - 6♠ 2♥=weak 3c raise (3-7) or 2/1 w/♥ 4♠=distributional, not too strong in hcp 6♣=2KC+void 6♠=7 on ♦-finesse - partner would not jump to 4♠ with ♦AKQxx

I guess there's no hand you'd bid 4N with :) Asking for aces probably...... :P Seriously - 4NT seems obvious (5NT is probably one too many initially).

This hand is far too strong to open a 15-17NT. The suit is to bad for a jump rebid IMO. I prefer rebidding 2NT, or even 2♦ - the latter might lead to missing game on occasion. South had an obvious raise to 3♦ IMO (even being a light opener).

That one is easy. Just treat them as POW, according to the Geneva Convention. How can the leaders of a democracy even think of anything else?

I side, sortof, with the 4♠ bidder. 2♠ had to be impossible 2♠ showing strong club support. What I don't understand is why not 4♠ over 2[sl] or 3♠ over 2♣. But still, responder clearly unambigiously can not have spades. Agree - even for a moment thinking it's remotely possible for partner to have ♠'s here is weird....

Mostly agree with this. Put me down for 2♠. But double is out for me - it show 5♥'s and ♦ tolerance in my methods. If I got an 18 count and this bidding, I'd check if I got my hand from the correct deck before making any bid. B)

Partnerwork hard? How come you think this is hard? It's not hard at all, very simple in fact. I've played both standard count and udca, and this has never been any problem to handle at all. Switching to udca after playing standard count for 10+ years never was any trouble. I don't know where the discarding issue came up. I never said anythin about discarding in my first post here. Discarding, as you say, you might not give count at all in the suit (attitude/suit preference/discard elsewhere). The basic reason for giving original count is that it's easy to distinguish between a 3-card and a 4-card suit. Look at K942 and K94. You win the first trick with the king and then returns what? I return the 2 form the first holding and the 9 from the second. Giving present count I'd have to return the 4 from both holdings. Seems stupid to me (putting it mildly). And playing the highest from a present two-card holding might be a needed unblock.

I'm dealt ♥A86542, win the 1st ♥ with the ace and switch. When I later give count in the suit, I play the 2. Originally I held 6 cards in the suit, giving count from an even number I play the lowest. If I'm discarding, and this is my first discard, I play attitude - thus I'll discard the 6 (or 8). B)

This topic reminds me of a funny story. Hans-Olof Hallén (swedish int. TD) played in a pairs tournament a long time ago with a new partner. They had agreed on methods to some extent, but some areas were uncovered. Then this novel sequence came up: 1♠ (Hallén) - 4♥ (new partner). Of course that wasn't discussed. Halleén didn't have a clue from their agreements. So, looking down at his own void, he decided partner probably had some hearts, and passed. Playing in the 0-0 fit didn't do them any good - except for a hilarious story. :)

Non-discussed: Natural preemp Discussed: Ditto :) Exclusion is bid via 2NT (or some other forcing raise).

5% fit the description.... the other 90%..... - what happened to the last 5% needed to add up to a full 100%? :)

Partner very seldom has a game in his own hand even if he bids a FG Roman jump. There's a lot of hands where he's got to stretch, lacking a weaker descriptive bid. So, even if I've got a great fit with regard to suit lenghts, I probably won't add a single trick except for ruffs. Which might be enough for slam once in a while, but probably won't be enough to make game more often. I'll bid a pedestrian 5♦ - as almost everyone else here.

Partner would have covered the ♦9 with Q8, so it looks like declarer have Q9 or Q94. Partner's passive trump lead often implies holdings in the side suits unnatractive for lead - probably ♣A and ♥J. A ♣ switch seems obvious. If declarer holds a small singleton, we have to cash the setting trick now.

Well known to whom and where? I think I still have to meet a pair playing udca and upside down current count. It's standard over here to play current count when playing standard, and original count when playing udca. The reason for this should be obvious. :)

I very seldom lead from Axxx, but this looks like a hand for that. Agree with Phil's analysis.

Obvious 3NT IMO. Sure, it might not work out well for us, but I can't stand passing with this.

This discussion would be even more interesting if the sequence was: (1m) 1♥ (p) 1♠ As I'd "never" double with 4-5 in the majors, but instead overcall 1♥, it's obvious for me to bid 1♠ on a 4 card suit as advancer. I play it as 4+ and F1. I bid the same way over a 1♦ overcall (if that's natural - which it's not at the moment in my methods - we use transfer overcalls over 1♣), but here playing 1M as 5+ has more going for it. Still, I prefer 4+ and F1. And I can often bid 1M on a lousy 4-bagger here if no other bid looks much better.

Here's how we bid after 1M-2NT GF raise: 3♣ = any minimum (up to bad 14) 3♦ = 14+, some singleton 3♥ = 15-17"NT" (5422/6322) 3♠ = 14-16, some void => 3NT = relay => 4♣=♣, 4♦=♦, 4M=OM 3NT = 18-19NT 4m = 17+, void 4M = 17+, void in OM After 3♣, 3♦ is a relay: 3♥ = 11-12 BAL 3♠ = some singleton => 3NT = relay => 4♣=♣, 4♦=♦, 4M=OM 3NT = 13-14 BAL 4m = void 4M = void OM After 3♦, 3♥ is a relay: 3♠ = singleton ♣ 3NT = singleton ♦ 4m = lowest cue, singleton OM 4M = singleton OM, no sidesuit control After 3♥, 3♠ is a relay: 3NT = 6322 => 4♣ relay => 4♦=3♣, 4♥=3♦, 4♠=3OM 4♣ = 2524 4♦ = 2542 4M = (54)22

Nothing to be ashamed of when it comes to defensive tricks here. Clear double. Partner will pass for penalties at least 90% of the time.

Agree with Ben that the south hand isn't worth a 3♦ jump rebid. I guess I'd bid like this: 1♦ - 1♥ 2♦ - 2♠ 3♦ - 4♦ 4♥ - 4♠ 4NT - 5♥ 6♦

1♥ 11 times of 10. :P

Either a tactical 5♠ or 5♥ - a strong raise. Depending on who I'm playing with and against.

How would you interpret a double in this sequence: 1NT (2♥) 2NT 3♥ p (p) x?

I'd play the jack, not the ace. We stand a better chance to pick up declarer's spades this way, when I win the 2nd round of the suit and play the 7 through. Having won the ace I'd return the seven, contrary to what's standard here. I hope partner will recognize this. Leading the jack might make it impossible for partner to return a spade without giving up a trick.