skjaeran

I strongly dislike the 3♣ bid. This is an easy 2♣ rebid IMO. And 4♦ comes in the same category, 3♠ is far better now - you have a superb holding in the suit after this sequence.

I'm passing here - easily. Nothing intelligent alternative. A double would show a penalty pass of 1♠ with something in hearts too. RHO obviously made a very light overcall, and is afraid of getting overboard. They probably have if I pass this. Of cource we might have a ♦ partial, but we can often score more defending 2♥ undoubled.

He isn't asking if you would do it, he is asking what you would think it means if a random partner does it :) After all if partner did that you wouldn't say "I would never do this!" and then leave the table, I hope ;) Fair enough. No random partner ever did this to me, nor do I expect any to do it either. Nevertheless, if that should indeed happen I'd expect it to be natural, and most probably 6-5.

I can't imaging perpetrating that sequence. Neither lead directing nor natural seems possible to me. I'd never introduce a 4 card suit here and I don't think I'll ever open a 6-5 weak 2. If I wanted to open such a hand it would be at the 1- or 3-level.

You don't need to see the benefit of unblocking from the start. Unblocking should be routine - then you can later decide where you want your last entry. It's just the same as routine ruffs at trick two and keeping the lowest trump for an entry or endplay (the latter is rare though). Learn these habits, and once in a while you'll profit.

I'm very happy to raise with 3 in this sequence. However, parnter would normally bid 1♠ on Jxxx or worse. To play well in a 4-3 you normally need some strenght in trumps, playing in an empty suit is normally not a good thing. So like Justin and Josh I'd normally (not always) rebid 1NT here. Another issue is that you've got better methods in the continuation after rebidding 1NT. The downside is that you might wrongside the final contract. Rebidding 2♥ is not an alternative. That shows 6, and KQT9x isn't a 6-bagger.

On hand1 3♣ is GF for me. It should be possible to reach 6♣ or 6♠. On hand2 I agree with Justin. I've played 2♥ as NF in this sequence for ages, with 2♦ as a conventional forcing bid. With my most regular partner we do in fact play transfers here. Little practice with that this far, so I can't tell you how good it is.

vs my own and some others light openings this is close between an invite and a GF. Normally I'd just raise to 3NT. Of course playing with just a little more solid openings (good 11 and upwards) this is an absolute no-branier 3NT. It happens that we go down, but then so does normally the rest of the field too (or the other table if it's a teams match).

♦I play different defences to 1NT with several regular partners and pick-ups. One thing is the same; double is penalty/values. The most basic defence I play is Landy: 2♣=both majors, 2NT strong 2-suiter - nearly GF, rest natural - preempts at 3-level. With some I play Multi-Landy; 2♣=both majors, 2♦=one major, 2M=M+m (4-5+ with some, 5-4+ with some), rest as above. In my most regular partnership we play Amundsen; 2♣=♦ or both M, 2♦=♥ or ♠+m (4-5+), 2♥=♥+m (4-5+), 2♠=nat, rest as above. In one partnership we also play DONT in two positions, else Amundsen.

I don't use Turbo, only RKCB. 1984-1991 I played with different partners Italian style cuebids and a modified version of Culbertson's 4-5NT convention, no Blackwood. Basically, making x cuebids promised x keycards, 4NT showed 3 keycards and 5NT guaranteed that the partnership posessed all 5 keycards and the trump queen. (There were modifications for strong/weak hands of course.)

Retro? Most Scandinavians bid like that. Most of them don't use 2/1, though.

He is not retro unless he opens 1♠ and rebids 2♥ :P Yeah, that seems to be from Culbertson's time or thereabouts. Indeed retro!

You might decide to play for him to have ATxxx Axx xx Jxx then. Cash ♦AK and ♥Qxx ending in hand (hopefully you remembered unblocking dummys hearts from the start) and endplay west with the last spade.

You need to keep your math straight. A movement from 3% to 9% is an increase in 6 percentage points , but at the same time a 200% increase. If you start out with 3 apples and suddenly have got 9 apples, the increase is 200%. It's obviously just the same if we are comparing %'s instead of apples.

Huh? That's how I (and most other Norwegians) play.

If Leaping Michaels isn't on our card I'd bid 3♠ Michaels here. I'd liked to have some intermediates in my suits, but it's not a perfect world. I'll make do with what I've got.

Cuebidding style is both a geographical and an age issue. I don't think you'll find any player in Norway cuebidding aces first. If you go 30+ years back in time you might possibly have found some from that school. I never learned anything other than Italian style cuebids nearly 35 years ago, and can't remember seeing aces first at all when I started playing tournaments 30 years ago.

Huh? If you're going to play in hearts all the time, but are looking for a slam only if partner's got some support, you'd bid like this. If you're still looking for a slam in hearts over 3NT you bid 4♣. I'm in absolute agreement with Frances here.

I don't like the 3NT bid - too weak hearts for that. Consequently, I also disagree with 4♦. As to the play; I'm odds on to go down, but with friendly minors and a good guess (if needed) in trumps I'm home.

I prefer system on after a 1NT overcall, both after a direct overcall (15-18) and after a balancing 1NT (11-14); that is garbage stayman and 4-way transfers, 3-level splinters.

I'd open 4♠ too.

Completely disagree, Fluffy made a much better point. Oh, such subjective nonsense... :P

Makes a lot of sense to me. Except that with several partners, I have different meanings for a 3NT opening bid other than the traditional Gambling NT. It isn't such a great convention, but on hand like these it hits gold. 3♠ as a solid minor is superior in itself, but I hate transfer preempts - I don't think I've ever come across any worse convention. And it's hard to use 3♠ as a solid minor without them. So, in the bin it goes. Strangely enough, being a fan of lots of conventions and treatments, I've always stuck with the gambling 3NT in every single partnership to date (and that's quite a few). The main reason is probably that I dislike Namyats.

Well, I can tell you nobody would stop in 2♥ in a tournament around here holding that hand.

Couldn't agree more, I think passing is a huge error with thsi hand. Ditto. Passing is way beyond me.