skjaeran

Too bad - he was a really great player.

I'd have opened this hand. Now I'll just bid 3♠.

I agree with all that south really can't pass 4♠ with this hand. He need to go on and bid a slam. But seriously, I'd never rebid 4♠ with the north hand - a 4♥ cuebid is absolutely obvious to me.

I'd open this hand 1♠ too. But partner's got no reason to jump to the grand. There's not much to the play - either you're very lucky and make the silly contract or you deservedly go down. :)

1. Strongly disagree with 2♥ - this hand is closer to 4♥. I'd bid 3♥. 2. Agree 3. I'll pass and take the blame if it makes (unless partner's double is insane).

1. Passing 2♣??? NEVER!! 2. I should say abstain, but I'll give 3NT a try.

This is Josephine for sure - I don't understand why americans calls it Grand Slam Force (true - the bid is forcing, but it just invites a grand...).

I'll take the rare opportunity to completely agree with Mike :) me too.. lol And me. B)

Obvious 1♣. 3♥ seems clear too.

Agree with this.

Very close between double and 4♦ - not sure what I'd chose at the table.

That's putting it mildly. I've seen a quote by a World Class player saying he'd love to be able to play 3 consecutive boards without making a single error.

Only the part of Norway lying north of the arctic circle has sun at midnight. That's just some 35-40% of the lenght of the country and 25% of the land area. Less than 10% of our population live in there. I was raised just a kilometer or two south of the arctic circle. We didn't have the midnight sun (due to mountains) but it was still almost light as day all night at summer time.

Double post - those things happen when you're chatting on messenger and posting simultaneously! :P

I'd most probably make a 1NT overcall on this hand. And I'd overcall 2♣ long before I'd double.

Hustling is indeed the word Han. :P

I agree there's a case for south raising 5♠ to 6. But I think south is just too strong for a 4♠ overcall and has to double initially, eventhough that's not perfect either. That's why people preempt - preempts work!

Obvious 2NT last round. I'll double now.

Agree.

I think this was a perfectly reasonable auction. IMO west isn't strong enough to rebid 2NT, but that's a style issue - I prefer a weak opening style and would never consider 2NT with the west hand. East admittedly has 16 hcp and is thus close to bidding on. However there's no fillers in his hand and it's hard to evaluate the singleton ♣K. Bidding is possible, but I can't fault passing.

Two things here - although I know many are adamantly opposed to the idea, I still like a Walsh sequence of 2S here to be a game force; however, adding xyz to Walsh obviates the need to use 2S as forcing, so now I prefer that approach. When I played Walsh the raise to 2♠ showed a GF unbalanced hand; 4♠ and 5+♦, while 2♦ followed by a ♠ raise showed a balanced hand. I play Walsh with two new partners now, but with little system discussion so far. We haven't touched this topic yet. :rolleyes:

♠K should be obvious now.

Maybe half a dozen? I don't know. Enough that I was able to figure out that it may be good to do it at some point without a void. This is a bit of a gamble as partner will have to guess a lead. He will have some information to go on, but I'd rather just make sure I get the right lead. Probably this should depend on the exact auction/hand, sometimes it might be clear for partner which lead to make, other times it will not be clear. You are right that your partners are under no obligation to disclose anything if you make this bid if it has never come up for you. That wasn't really the point. I simply said that *I* do not feel comfortable doing this more than once because the fact that I have done it establishes an illicit agreement (yes, once is enough given the relative infrequency of the action). Obviously when I did this I did not feel unethical as I had never done it before and my partner had no idea. That partner now has seen me do it, and most of my other partners have heard about it, because, well, I like to brag lol. If you want my partners to still say "lead directing" without mentioning anything else, I would say that is not in the spirit of full disclosure. If you think the fact that this bid might be a bluff is general bridge knowledge, I would give that a hearty LOL. I agree with Justin here. This bluff isn't part of "General bridge knowledge". You've got to have been there to think of this bluff or know a hand where someone pulled this one to be able to do such a thing. I had a hand in a teams match a couple of years ago where I could have pulled this stunt. I had xx KQJTx Q AKxxx and opened 1♥. It went 1♠ 4♥ 6♠ and it was my turn. I knew RHO held good ♠ support and a long ♦ suit now. Misjudging the situation, I thought he was void in hearts and doubled for a ♣ lead, hoping partner would pick the right minor suit. He did, but alas RHO had the "obvious" hand with 4360 - inferring his partners ♥ void. They made an overtrick. At the other table the first round of bidding went the same, then my hand bid 7♣ and our teammates bid 7♠, earning us 8 IMPs. But afterwards I thought about the situation and realized that the winning bid with my hand would be 7♦. So I've never pulled this stunt, but I'm ready next time. Since my partner know about my reasoning, if asked in such a situation later he should explain my bid as lead directing - psyche possible.

I'd take out to 4♣, but that's close. In need of a top I'd try a pass. Since I could easily be 3334/2434/3424 on this bidding partner rates to have 5-card support for his 3-level bid. I think the odds for them making 3♦ is just to high to chance passing if I'm content with an average result on the board.

No Han. I believe 6NT would be to play with wasted values in ♥s, KQx/AJT or something like that.