skjaeran

I admit I didn't have a slam in mind at all myself either, but I did bid 3♣ followed by 4♥ after partners 3NT. After that partner asked for keycards and bid 6♥. His hand: x QJT87x AKx Axx He received a spade lead. Trumps were 4-1 with singleton 9. After a black suit show up squeeze he made the contract (♣Q was onside). Other table bid 4♥. I believe most of the 14 tables got to game only - I heard about one pair bidding slam in another match.

1100??? How can you dream about 1100 after that bidding? Surely it's not hard to understand that RHO has a huge 2-suiter (huge in length). I'd probably have doubled too, hoping for +500. Of course you do know that your side is cold for 4♠ on this bidding. :D

Drury is also one of my favourite conventions. Not just because that caters for light 3rd seat openings, but motsly becuase you can invite game and still play at the 2-level. I prefer 2-way Drury (upside-down 2-way reverse Drury). I haven't got a clue to why many hate this convention. To me it's always been a very useful convention.

2♥ show no values at all. I guess it is the above that was my main question, what does the 2♥ bid (by a passed hand) here mean when there has been a XX after the t/o X (also by a passed hand)? I agree North (me) rightly deserves most of the blame (this was really not a good day overall for my bridge bidding and play). But is 2♥ freely bid over the XX really not showing extra shape? I must admit I was surprised to see 4333 with 4 hearts to the QT given the free bid over the XX. 2♥ only shows preference. And it can't guarantee more than 4. It would be stupid to pass with 3424, since you'd have no idea whether partner has 4441/3451/4351 or whatever after pass, pass 2♦. It was unlucky to find partner with 3433, but not sensational IMO. And even if he had 5 he would obviously be balanced or minimum since he bid 2♥ and not 3♥. Thus bidding over 3NT was terrible anyway.

Hehe, even if 5.5♠ was available it would be an overbid IMO. :ph34r:

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=saxxxxhaxdqxckj9x]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] 1♥ - 1♠ 2♥ - ?

If you excanged the ♦J with the king I'd (just) double. I'd double in the balancing position with the jack.

Double would to me (and should) be penalty. The hand isn't strong enough to double. So this is a clear pass.

2♥ show no values at all. It's just preference. I think south maybe should pass 2♣ instead of bidding 2♥ since north could be 3-5 in the reds, but this isn't clear at all. However, bidding 4♥ on three small opposite a partner who showed no interest at all is insane to me. North 100+% of the blame, south absolutely innocent.

I'd not expect anything LESS than the actual north hand for the FP after 6♥, so I'd defenitely bid 7♣ now as south.

At IMPs this is an easy 6♣ bid to me. I don't really expect opps to make 5♠ or us to make 6♣ more than 30-40% of the time. But that's more than enough to make 6♣ a big long time winner at IMPs. And I can stand those 3-5 IMPs I lose when I'm wrong.

Whether 4♥ or a direct 5♥ is best depends on partners weak 2♦ opening style. If the style is conservative, 4♥ should be adequate. If your style is more freegoing, there's definitely a case for 5♥, provided this is natural of course.

Yeah, but the garbage 2♦ allows partner to pass with a ♦ suit, which he is far more apt to do vs the weak hand with a 5-card suit than vs the constructive hand with a 6-bagger. Btw, I can't remember having been doubled after the garbage 2♦. (I can remember opps doubling 2♦ several times, but not us declaring a doubled contract.) It's more important for partner to know your suit when you have the constructive hand. It's easier to preempt when you know about the fit immideately and bidding constructively is also easier. And besides, when you have a concealed 5-card suit it's more frequent that opps will bid "your" suit than if it's a 6-card suit. This has happened several times to me.

Playing standard methods with no special gadgets this is an obvious 2♥. 4th suit GF. Need more information from partner to evaluate slam prospects. Will support ♠s next.

I strongly agree with this. However, in the letter to Beye LHO called for the TD directly after the slow pass. That's ridiculous IMO.

Wouldn't you get a whole lot more mileage out of 2♦ by simply eliminating the 28-30 hand so partner can pass the 2♦ bid if he wants? Well I guess he still can if he has at least 13 B) Sure we could. But partner can still pass - how often do you think we have that 28-30 hand? :P But I agree, it's a remnant from early Multi days where you had to have (a) strong version(s).

I play Puppet Stayman, not regular Stayman. For me 3NT or 4M would be sign off (of course). A new suit below 4M would be a cuebid agreeing the bid major as trumps. A jump in a new suit would be Exclusion BW. 4NT would be quantitative.

There's several versions of this. Most frequent is constructive weak 2 major openings and some kind of Weak (or Garbage) Multi, with or without strong alternative(s). I've seen several dividing lines between the "strong" and weak version. Some play the constructive weak 2 as 6-10, some 8-11 and I've even seen 9-12. All these show a 6-bagger. The weaker version normally is weaker in hcp and/or shorter. With one partner I play the Garbage Multi only non-vulnerable. We play 2M=8-11 and a 6-card suit (7-bagger occasionally) and 2♦ as a very weak hand (0-7 hcp and normally a 5-card major - we define the hand as too weak to invite game vs a 15-17NT) OR a 28-30NT. This means that we have hands that fall between 2♦ and 2M.

Sure Han, but I'll definitely apply that for hands I can't show handily by a natural bid. B)

YEs, we could have so much less. How much less than Q9653 85 A3 KJT8 could you really have Mike?

Why ♦Q and not ace? Would seem stupid to lose to the bare ♦K wouldn't it? It would seem even stupider to lose 2♠, 1♥, the ♦K and a club :unsure: I'll start with the ♦Q too. Yeah, sorry. I overlooked the fact that dummy has no entry. So this is a very complicated hand.

I know some will double instead of overcaling 1♠ with this west hand, though I haven't got a clue why. To me this hand is "far" from strong enough for that. Overcalling and rebidding (if not too high) is adequate with this hand. Agree that west should double 6♣. The example hand where it is making is ridiculous, north would never jump to 5♣ with that hand. And even if that happened, no remotely sane person would even think about raising with the south hand - not even the one who raised with the actual hand.

Why on earth would LHO call TD directly after the slow pass??? You call TD after an infraction or supposed infraction. Here nothing at all looking like an infraction occured. I could understand calling the TD directly after the slow passers PARTNER took some action, though that's not standard procedure where I play - I believe it is in the ACBL. Normally I'd ask opps (after action by slow passers partner) if they agreed to the out of tempo pass. If they agree on this I call TD after the hand IF I think this action could be constrained by UI. If they don't agree to the BIT I'd call TD right away. As a TD being called in such a way as suggested in the letter I might come down on the caller. I might only instruct him to call me at the proper time, and explaining when that time is. But, depending on how I interpret the circumstances at the table, he could receive a warning.

I'm normally an agressive opening leader, certainly vs slams. But a ♣ seems very dangerous with an 18-19NT or something like that in dummy. I'd either lead a ♦ to set up a trick or the ♠A to try for a ruff with partner. Not sure what I'd chose at the table and before seing the complete layout.

Agree. Btw, I'd have rebid 2NT instead of 2♠ (unless that's conventional or something).