skjaeran

a. 1♠. Need to bid my major first, else the best scoring game of slam might be missed. A fit jump shows 5c♠, so that's out. b. I'm too strong for a simple raise to 3♦. I'd bid 3♣ FSF, and get to a possibly light game. c). I'd make a forcing raise to 4♦. We're close to slam here. 3NT isn't tempting, even though it might be the best spot at MP.

4♥ by opener over 4♣'s is surely an obvious offer to play. But it's not so clear that 4♥ by responder after a 4♦ cuebid by opener should be an offer to play. No doubt, it makes sense to play it that way, but it makes just as much sense to play it as a cuebid. Each partnership must decide for themselves.

I'd probably even refuse to make a support double vs passed partner on this.... Hard to understand what this "expert" thought he was doing, I must say!

I'd respond 1NT (10-12) in my regular methods (T-Walsh variation) - so no problem at all. The hand is a little light for 2NT IMO, and notrump probably plays best from partner's side. Playing (standard) Walsh, I'd probably bid 1♦, and without Walsh at all, I'd most probably bid 1NT.

It seems all agree on opening this hand 2♣. Maybe that's because this is in the B/I forum - I surely opened 2♣ in my early days... I don't - I'd open this 1♥ any day. Not that it helps a lot on this layout - I can't say that we'd be able to locate Kxxxx of ♣'s. It would be easy to get to show ♥ support and the 3 kings. But in a RKCB sequence, north wouldn't be able to show the ♣Q, only ask for 3rd round control. So we'd most probably be stuck in 6♥, unless one made an "inspired" call.

I might open 1♠ with 4-4 M in 3rd seat with AKJx Kxxx. I don't know if that's your style. Playing my style, I'd make a negative double, to be able to locate the 5-4 ♥ fit instead of playing in a possible 4-3 ♠ fit, although I'd be sure the trump is strong enough. If that's not the style in use, I'd bid 3♠. We'd probably play better with the opening lead going through me than partner. Partner raises to game with the appropriate hand (14 good and unbalanced).

The 2♣+ response structure to minors in my methods are: Over 1♣: 2♣: nat GF 2♦: TRF, 6+♥ WJS (3-7+) or SJS (16+) 2♥: Same with ♠'s 2♠: 8+ - 12- 5+♣'s no 4cM, unbalanced/semibalanced 2NT: nat inv Over 1♦: 2♣: nat 2/1 2♦: nat GF 2M: wjs 2NT: nat inv 3♣: 8+ - 12- 5+♦'s no 4cM, unbalanced/semibalanced I've toyed with the idea to change the structure over 1♦, and use the 1♣ structure there too. Then 2♣'s wld be 2-way, either 2/1 with ♣'s or GF support. But since we don't play pure 2/1 (rebid=inv), there's a problem with the inv ♣ hands over 1♦. This might be solved by 1♦-3♣=nat inv with less than 3 ♦'s and 1♦-2♣-2x-3♣ show inv with 6♣'s and 3♦'s.

Seriously, 5♣ would be Exclusion if I played with a regular partner. I've never met a pickup partner who I wasn't confident would interpret 3♠ as a splinter. Then again, I seldom sit down and play with complete strangers.;) Playing with a regular partner 3♠ would show a void. I'd respond 2♣, natural GF (not quasi GF as Ben suggested).

I'd for sure end up in 7♠ and go down on this layout. Looks like west used 1430 and east 0314 BW, but maybe some other wheel fell off.... BTW, I'd never raise to 4♠ with the west hand. 2♠ is GF to me, and the west hand is too strong for a jump to game. I'd raise to 3♠, and start a cuebidding sequence. East would bid 3NT (serious).

I commonly play a balancing 1NT to be 11-14. Thus x plus 1NT for me. Some experts play 15-18 both live and balancing, and have an easy 1NT here. I don't advocate that treatment. A balancing 1NT over 1M to be (12)13-16 seems OK to me.

3♥ for me. ♠K is of dubious value. So 3♥ is more apt to be a slight overbid than an underbid.

This is still a 1♠ overcall to me. Yeah, I know I put the limit for double then bid a suit higher than most people. Me too. I think that's accurate. To me it seems that even advanced american players will double on 5431 and 13 hcp, whereas that's an obvious overcall in Norway. With 4531 and 13 hcp I'd overcall 1♥ over 1♣. Partner will bid 1♠ on a 4c suit. We might play in a 4-3 ♠ fit on occasion - that's the same as when bidding constructively, but we'll never play in a 4-3 fit and miss a 5-3 fit.

I suppose there is something that prevents us from bidding spades over 1♦ or 1♥? Can you tell me what it is? Or even 2♠ over RHO's expected 2♣? 1♠ over 1♥? Or even 2♠ after 1♥ then 2♣? Really, try and come up with a better argument than this..... Strong hand bids first, then doubles later? On a 5-4-3-1? News to me. Now if it was 6-3-3-1, maybe. But never 5-4-3-1. I don't care what Robson/Segal suggests....it is not mainstream bidding. Mainstream bidding? That just depends on where on the globe you're playing. I'd not expect many norwegian players to make a t/o double on these 5431 hands after they've advanced from the beginner stage. I'll admit that some would double with a good 17 count (I'd not), but never with less.

At IMP's? Surely not. If you can make 6NT you most probably can make 7♣ too. If partner's ♠'s are not solid, you need a ruff to come to 12 tricks. If partner has AKQxx x xx AKQxx 7♣ is great, but 6NT is still far from secure.

You might try Clone. It's based on a 2-way 1♣ (8-11 BAL or 17+), 9-16 hcp openings 1♦/♥/♠/2♣ and a 14-16 NT.

A virulent virus indeed. :rolleyes:

I don't think it's correct to pass with any of those two hands. So both is to blame. Since north's decision is the decisive one, I'll apportion 55% to him/her. South should have bid 3♠, which north would raise (via 4♥ probably) and north should have balanced, probably with 3NT, but double is also possible.

36. I've little sympathy for west's double. The double fit has been revealed. There's no reason to expect more than one down in 4♣, so no reason at all to double at IMP's. When that is said, east's got an obvious pull to 4♥. 38. This double is worse. You've made three bids opposite silent partner, and committed yourself to 3♠. Why you should double now, with 2.5 tricks on defense is really beyond me. Again partner had a clearcut pull to 4♥. Not intending to be rash, if someone get that feeling. I know this is in the B/I forum.

You don't give the auction, so I can't tell if there's just one unbid suit. It looks like the lead is from a five- or sixbagger (although what ♥ east returns at trick two isn't clear). From the look of things, we'd have received a ♥ from any holding. Thus there's not much to decuce from the lead itself. West would have lead the ♥5 both from Axx5x and Jxx5x. Seen the ♥ suit in isolation, the ten is the correct card. But even if that's right, west might switch to a ♠ after winning the ace. Then I'd need the ♠A onside as well. So it's best to go up with the queen all in all.

4♦ would be a cubid agreeing ♠'s for me and 5♣ would be exclusion. I'd probably bid 4♦.

This should be takeout. Takeout for what? Opps have bid three suits. Which one of these is it you're short in, and do you really want to be able to play in one of the other suits opps have bid? Opps haven't found a fit yet. A t/o double would very often lead to us going for a zip number. IMO this double should show a "strong" hand with good diamonds. It might show clubs too (ie a penalty double of openers minors) or 4c ♠'s (the unbid suit), thus giving us somewhere to play if partner is unable to convert it. That's a question of how you agree to play this double in your partnership.

I'd more than mildly surprised if my partner didn't have a big minor two suiter when bidding 4NT here. :)

This isn't a 2♣ overcall for me. Certainly not vs a passed partner. The suit isn't good enough. Put in the 9 of ♣ so it's a 6c suit, and 2♣ is fine. I've read Sabines book (a great one!) and her views on overcalling 2♣ over 1♦. It's true that it can create problems for opps, but I still don't think it's a winning style.

I play support doubles here, so would double to show 3c ♥ support. Without it, I'd bid 2♥ or 3♣, most probably 2♥. If the hand was just a little bit stronger, I'd bid 3♣, since I could come back with 3♥, if opps competed to 3♦.

If 3♣ would be to play last round, I agree that it can't be to play now - no problem with that.