skjaeran

I'd have given the actual agreement if that were known. And then it wouldn't have been an interesting problem anymore. :lol:

3♥. The potential of this hand exceeds the point count.

Most people I know have a balancing 1N range of about 11-15, and X then 1N is 16-18, and balancing 2N is about 19-21. Maybe this is a regional thing. I'm used to balancing 1NT with 11-14, x..1NT 15-18 and a balancing 2NT 19-21.

I think this is close. Agree with those saying that in the long run, bidding would be the winner. But only if you're able to pick the winning bid often enough. But there are three possible bids, and very often one of them will be good and two bad, sometimes both 4NT and 5♦ will be good. And pass will very often be the 2nd best call. I'm voting for pass.

I'm passing more often in 4th seat than most I know, and my impression is that I'm winning on those decisions. But this is an opener for me. 1♣ is clear.

Why aggressive only? I'd give east a wide range, from aggressive up to a more than minimum opener.

Obvious 3♥, far too good to pass, and not nearly enough for anything stronger.

Easy pass with my methods. Playing 2NT as both minors, I'd open 2NT. 4NT is far out IMO.

Pass, fail to see this as a problem. If this hand were ours, partner wouldn't be passing.

I'd just bid game. It might be a slight overbid, but so be it. Where I play, I'd expect the majority of the field to bid game.

This occured in the Norwegian Premier League this weekend. [hv=d=s&v=b&n=s74hkj432daq96c84&w=sakj9865h985dk5c7&e=sq3haqt76d3cak632&s=st2hdjt8742cqjt95]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Bidding by EW: 1♠ - 2 2♠ - 3♣ 3♠ - 4NT 6♥ - 6♠ Eplanations by east to north: 4NT=RKCBW, 6♥=2KC + ♥ void Explanations by west to south: 4NT=quantitative, 6♥=natural South didn't double, since he expected north to hold enough hearts to know about the void, holding no side suit trick. North, knowing west was void in hearts, led a club. The contract made. How would you rule?

OK I give it a try :lol: ♠xx ♥Kxxxx ♦Kx ♣Qxxx .. off a heart and a trump in 5♦. Do you bid over 2♣ with this? Maybe, the minor suit honors look pretty good. Yes, I'm bidding over 2♣ with this, definitely. 2♣ over 1♥ is wtp, IMO.

We would start: 1♦ (1♥) x (1♠) 4+♠ x support (3♠)) After that it depends. I guess opps will bid clubs, and we'd infere our 3-3 ♥ fit, and stay out of game. But who knows.

On that idea, I prefer to have some opening bid show 5-4/5-5 in the blacks and play transfers over 1♠-1NT.

If you mean that 4♣ over 3♣ is NF, I disagree. None commented on that except you this far. I don't like having to go through 4th suit here. Anyway, I don't think the hand is worth 4♣, facing a possible 5413. So write me down for 3♦.

Agree with several posters on ♦A. I very seldom lead aces vs slams, but this one really looks right at MP. Harder choice at IMPs, I'd probably lead a club then.

2NT, inv+ w/support.

Obvious double IMO.

Congrats!!

Unless he missorted his hand, he either had QT or T. With none of these holdings did he have anything at all to think about, and declarer knows that.

I prefer 2NT on both hands.

When fixed, stay fixed. Pass

Playing weak jump shifts, 2♥ is very obvious. If you play xyz, 2♣-2♦-2♥, showing an invite is possible. Failing that, it's a closer decision. I prefer 2♥ then.

2NT for me. I can show or ask about shortness later.

I play 3NT like the OP. Agree with others that it should not contain such a prime hand that slam is an option. And no Axx/Axxx. 4♠ would be natural for me, showing 5-6 and not a slammish hand. I'm passing 3NT.