skjaeran

I guess the sequence is: 1NT - (2♦) - 4NT If so, 4NT is natural and quantitative (NF, inv) to me. Just like if there was no overcall.

I don't know why north thought he should take another bid over 4♠ at all. Pass seems clear to me.

I totally agree.

Depends upon context, and who I'm playing with. With several former partners we used trump echo - hi/lo to show 3(+) trumps and an ability to ruff. These days I mostly play suit preference, but count if we're playing a power defence shortening declarer. So partner will know when to pull trumps and claim.

This should be a non-brainer for a competent TD - it's not difficult at all. He still got it completely wrong. :angry: It's really surprising that an experienced player wouldn't know (or care?) to do the correct thing here. I'd be very hard on south as a TD and on both south and the TD as an AC.

It's standard in Norway, also in Sweden and Denmark as far as I know. From what I see here and elsewhere, it's non-standard in most (the rest?) of the world.

1♦.

3♠ 24/7.

Playing 3NT as serious, 4♦ seems like an obvious (cue)bid to me. 3♥ shows a singleton and inv+.

Agree.

I would open this 1♦, especially if I can later GF and show 3M-6♦. I have no big problem with 2♣ though. But prefer 1♦.

With anyone but my regular partner 2NT would be invitational, thus I raise to 3NT. With my regular 2NT shows 13+ (15-17 3343/3334 would bid a direct 3NT), with him I'd raise to 4NT.

Agree it's not perfect. But this is an automatic 2NT for me.

This is an auto-splinter to me, setting spades. Normally 6331, possibly 7330 or 6241 with bad diamonds. Auto-splinters could be on singletons for me, whereas all direct splinters showing support for partners opening suit shows voids.

I'd cue 3♠ now. 4♣ would 100% deny a spade control for me. If partner bypasses 3NT (which would be serious for me), I'd pass 4♥ or sign off over 4♦.

Would have opened.

I'd expect partner to be short in clubs, as he would double or bid NT with a balanced hand. I'll bid 3♥.

1) Pass, no reason to go all in here. 2) 4♠ looks obvious.

Without a different agreement I'd expect 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♣ - 4♣ to show a distributional invite with 5-card support. That's how it's played in Norway.

You're kidding now Mike, aren't you? Overcalling 1NT on this would be______. (I don't really know what to put in there.) Overcalling 1♥ is even worse.

Well, nobody here gave a sequence ending in anything but 3NT or 4♥ as far as I can tell... Where did the 4or 5♣ enter? I agree that those opening 1♦ won't as easily get the feard diamond lead. Those of us opening this 1♣ will almost certainly receive that lead though.

3♠. We can still have 4♠, or both sides can make 3M. Even if both sides go one down, that's still only a 3 IMP loss.

I agree with this.

This is a clear 2♣ rebid. Nothing else make sense to me. 1NT is ridiculous, and we're not strong enoug for 3♣ or 3♦. Strongly prefer 2♣ showing 9+ cards in two suits over 2♦ showing 6+ cards (maybe even only 5+) in one suit.

Only proves that you don't read other posts befor posting. :)