skjaeran

This makes no sense to me at all. We already DIDN'T bid 3♣ to play last round, so how could it be to play now that the only other thing we have learned is that partner has short clubs? I would take 3♣ as sort of a bluhmer, showing a great fitting maximum with nothing wasted. Say Kxx Kx Axx xxxxx. I'd have bid 3♣ in the previous round. I assumed that the reason 2♥ was bid was that 3♣ would have been invitational (it wouldn't be in my methods). Thus we couldn't bid 3♣ to play until now. Kxx Kx Axx xxxxx could bid 3♠ now, and let partner chose game. We could play 3NT, 4♥ or even 4♠ (if partner happened to be 4540). If 3♣ would be to play over 2♦, that's what should have been bid.

This hand is too weak, in terms of playability, to suggest slam, and a 4-level splinter has to carry some mild slam interest. 4441 hands generally play at less than their apparent value unless we have a 9 card fit somewhere, and we rate not to have one here. The stiff opposite partner's suit is not as valuable, for slam purposes as it would be elsewhere. So I'd just bid 4♠ on this hand. BTW, in response to earlier posts, I have no trouble with the notion that the 1♠ promises 9+ black cards, and I find it very useful to have this information. Thus, if we held Jx KQxxx Jxx 10xx, we could safely bid 2♣ here without fear that partner held some weak notrump with 4=3=3=3 shape. And it also makes constructive bidding more accurate: I can 'count' on 5 clubs for tricks in notrump if I have a fit, and I can count on shape for suit bidding etc. Thus, here, knowledge of at least 5 clubs would actually increase my liking of my hand, since there is a prospect of establishing the long club for a trick... an element missing if he could be 4432 or 4333.. but not enough to make me slammish with this hand anyway. The increasingly common middle ground of 1♠ promising at least 4♣s is intriguing and I may be rethinking my approach as I look to see what kind of difference it makes... I suppose we will just agree to disagree. The splinter should be a game force without extra values that is suitable for slam if we fit well, and that is exactly what we hold. I concede the singleton is less valuable in clubs than in another suit more often than not, but I think that misses the point. That is why we play splinters altogether, because partner will know for sure how well we fit a lot better than we will by just generalizing. It is also key that we show slam suitable cards on the way to game, where if we just jumped to game partner would be forced to worry that our values are slower. Your post at least makes it clear you are in the sane vast majority who knows what 4♣ means, not that I would have doubted it :P 100% agree with Josh.

I'll bid 3♣. This must be to play. I've got 4-5 tricks in this contract vs partner's singleton. It's probably the best partscore we can play in.

17-20ish. Depends on structure.

Ditto.

To me this is clearly a penalty double, in theory. Why should I want to make a weak t/o here? Opps haven't found a fit. We'll probably have misfitting hands. I agree with Ben that I'll be having a weak t/o in this postition far more often than a penalty double. But I'd very seldom be very keen to enter the auction with the weak t/o. With the penalty double OTOH, I'd be very unhappy to have to pass. But I'm not against playing it two-way. Partner will be able to tell which hand type I've got. So if i REALLY want to bid with a weak t/o, I'd double. That's not gonna happen very often, though.

Mine is similar. The only difference is that 1♠=4♠ 4+♥. This makes it easier in competition, after 1♠ responder can rebid 2♥ with 5 (or 6).

I guess we're talking IMP's here. At MP this is a very hard decision. I'm not sure of what I'd have done at the table. Probably passed. At IMP's it's still a tough decision, but not as tough as in MP, by far. I'd bid 5♠. My guess is that we're one down here, and they one down in 5♦. But you can easily construct layouts where both contracts make. Bidding wins if at least one contract make, and is not a big loser if both fail by one trick. Cheap insurance.

I've never had a partner who'd misinterpret 4♣ here - that's a splinter in my environment, period. B)

I often open light in 3rd seat, but when I do I open a suit I want partner to lead. Here I've no reason to lead direct any suit. So a 1-level opening is out. I don't play weak 2♦ NV, so that's no option for me. Pass

6♣=ace or king 6♦=queen 6♥=none, but extra lenght 6♠=nothing That's the standard responses to the grand slam force where I play.

Can't see much other useful meaning for 4NT other than quantitative. Completely agree. 4NT should be quantitative here. If you wanted to BW, you'd just make a forcing raise first, then 4NT.

I would bid 3NT over 2♥. Seriously, there's a lot if minimum openers where 3NT is laydown or odds on. This hand is too heavy for an invite.

Being a light opener, raising to game is a slight overbid. But I'd not invite at IMP's anyway. I'll show my ♣ singleton on the way, so 4♣'s is my bid.

If KQxxxx is your minimum suit strenght requirement for a 3m reply, I agree 100%. When I play 2♣-3m as natural, my minimum is KJTxxx, so I'd have to go through a KC and trump Q ask before bidding 7NT.

Well, I work at the Norwegian Bridge Federation's headquarters. Surely I don't play bridge at work, but it's understandable that I on some instances could have need to follow our national teams in international championships. ;)

Neither could I, but that doesn't make pass a logical alternative for the actual player. You have to poll his peers, and neither Justin nor I, or probably anyone else posting here are a peer of the actual player, who mike called inexperienced. It's quite possible that any player of his caliber would go on over 4♠ - that's impossible for us to tell. I'd have bid 3♥ over 1♠ - 4♥ would never cross my mind, since that shows a void (and a different hand all in all). So I'm already lost one round of bidding previous. ;)

Absolutely agree. This is no bidding problem. If this hand isn't suited for 3♠ as a stopper ask, you'll never find a suited hand.

A year ago we changed to VPN at work. After that I couldn't use the BBO software locally. After some time I contacted the IT support people, and got it fixed. They opened up the firewall for the BBO software - no problem after that.

That's not correct. That procedure is used in Norway and maybe a few other jurisdictions - Sweden is not among them. The common procedure in Europe is the same as in ACBL.

Not just some, most in fact. But that's because "everybody" here play 1M-1NT-2NT as conventional GF. 1♠-1NT-3♥ also show 5-5 then.

If asked, I'll generally show my hand. Exceptions might be made if: - The player asking is really a jerk. - Opps are playing slowly and we might be in time trouble. My previous reply was just for making clear the "legal" side of the issue. And as Ben said - you'll always get to see the hand if you need to.

With partner unable to give a sign of life over 1♥, I can see no reason to bid now, even if my hand is far better than minimum. In my mehtods partner could have bid 1♠ to show a balanced 7-10 w/o a ♥ stopper or ♣'s and the same range (and deny 4c♠). So all signs indicate that this is not our hand.

So would I if the play went fast. When declarer tanked for 3 minutes, I'd spend the time preparing for the most reasonable continuations. I'd still duck this, thinking like Apollo.

Just to make sure all possible leads are covered, I'll go for a trump. :P As Justin said, anything might be right (except a ♠). I'll try to avoid ruffs in dummy and hope to score late ♠ trick(s). 2nd choice: ♦