skjaeran

1. 1♥ - wtp? 2. 4♥? Never ever. 3. Most probably pass vs passed partner with this hand, else overcall.

Then I understand why you advice people to stay out of lotteries... :(

4♣ is just too much with this hand IMO, 5♣ is ridiculous, 2♣ is a huge overbid. I'll go 3♣, the alternative being pass.

Artur is certainly a player I'd expect to switch ♥Q from AQx, QJ9, QJx Q9x and Qxx. So this is about guessing and table feeling.

To me the west hand is a clear opener, but that's not the main point here. The east hand is a just as clear 3rd seat opener. I prefer 1♥ (or maybe 2♥ if it shows a 2-suiter). Having missed the first two hurdles, passing this out with the east hand would never enter my mind. That's the biggest and decisive error.

Playing transfer advances this is an easy 2♥. :) Oh, I don't (why??)! Then I'll bid 2♠. :P

I strongly agree with the sequence in the OP - well bid. Btw, in a KO teams match tonight I held J9xxx x KQxx Kxx Partner opened 1♥ and rebid 2♣ over my 1♠. I gave preference to 2♥ and partner then came back with (the hoped for) 2♠. At red and 21 down at half time I just jumped to game. Partner had AKx KQxxx J QJTx. When nothing nice happened in trumps I went down though. :)

I'd never ever vote for a republican. From over here I can't say I know the candidates enough, but I guess I'd prefer Hillary with Obama as VP.

1. 1♦ - 1♥ 1NT - 2♣ 2♠ - 3♥ 3♠ - 3NT 4♣ - 4NT 5♠ - 5NT 6♦ - 7♥ 1NT=5332 18-19, 2♣=asking, 2♠=2353, cuebids, serious 3NT, RKCB, GS inv, ♦K, 13 winners. 2. 1♣ - 1♦ 1♥ - 2♦ 3NT - 4♣ 4♦ - 4NT 5♠ - 5NT 6♣ - 6♥ 1♦=trf, 2♦=GF, 3NT=18-19 3♥, 4♣=cue agreeing ♥. When north can't bid anything but 6♣ and pass there can't be a grand.

30,000 inhabitants? 16.3 million is more like it. :)

What do you expect partner to do over 3♥ with 4252 junk?

I'd not be bidding with such a balanced hand. If they make 4♠ (they most probably do) we rate to go down too many. And if they don't make 4♠ we're still not making 5♥.

Nice for the Romanians though.

Yeah, you're right. I can't open 1♠ in my NBO either. I'll have to pass then. :P

Me too. Weak twos on 6-5 is a no-no IMO.

Partner is making a slam invite. On the negative side: I'm close to minimum in high card strenght. My trumps are poor. On the positive side: I've got 5 controls. I've got a decent side suit. I've got i kicker in partners suit. All in all I've got a better than minimum hand and will cooperate in slam exploration. Now it's down to agreements how to do that. Some would go on describing shape (3♣), some would cuebid (3♦) and some would show concentration of strength (3♦).

You're misrepresenting the case here. The TD indeed ruled in favour of Ken and the oppponents appealed. The AC turned the TD's decision and gave the opponents one trick back. And why do you try to make it look like Ken instructed the TD how to rule? The TD, as Ken told us about the case, "interviewed" all players, made a decision as to facts and then made his ruling according to Law. It looks like the AC ruled based on the same facts as the TD, but made a different judgement when it comes to the number of tricks Ken should be awarded.

I guess you're talking about american experts here. I doubt the majority view is the same in Europe, but I might be wrong.

Double should show a strong hand with clubs or a t/o with short spades. This hand doesn't really qualify as either - you're to weak for the strong interpretation and far from ideal shape for a t/o double where 1444/0454 or something like that is perfect. You're not too happy (to put it mildly) when partner bids 3♦ (or maybe 2NT lebenshohl followed by 3♦). And you really hate it if opps double you in 3♦.

With a total of 22 hcp and two 5-card suits? Some, but not too many. :P We were 20 IMPs down at half time but had possibly picked up those when this hand came up. But you never know what kind of card teammates will have. Opps bid the game at the ohter table btw (but went -3).

I'd have made a natural 2♣ overcall if methods permitted (they do with my favourite partner). A 1♥ overcall would be possible for some, though I'd prefer a betters suit to make that with four. As it is I'm passing.

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=sa8xht8xdakt8xc8x&s=s97xxhak6dxckt7xx]133|200|Scoring: IMP N S 1♦ 1♠ 2♠ 2NT 3♥ 3NT[/hv] 2NT was asking; 3♥ showed a balanced 3-card raise. West lead ♣2 (3rd/5th) to Q and K. I returned a club, west winning with the 9 and east following low. West thus marked with AJ92 originally. West then swithced to the ♥2 (3rd/5th). Opponents use no attitude leads or encouraging/discouraging signals. They can relied upon to show true count 99% of the time - the lead on this hand is one of the few positions where they'll "lie". (They'll follow with a low card from Jx, part of the time from Tx and almost always from 9x - just to give you a picture.) How do you play to win the contract? (There's no way for opps to beat you anymore.) I'll most probably be offline the coming week, moving into a new appartment. I'll probably not give the full hand for some days.

You sure about that 2nd part?.... :D :)

If you make the same kind of psyche several times over just a few sessions of time this is no longer a psyche. If partner doesn't alert these bids and explain the normal meaning and adding that partner is known to psyche this bid under "x" conditions, this is no psyche but an undisclosed partnership understanding. If you frequently psyche in different situations, you need to dislose the tendency to frequently psyche - probably as a pre-alert. However, there's no law to disallow frequent psyching in general. But you need to disclose properly.

My experience is that when you have to make a choice of this kind it pays off to assume declarer made a mistake, unless you're playing against a very strong player. I've often been assuming that opponents doesn't make these mistakes and haven't been able to capitalize.