skjaeran

Double - nice posts Justin (and Mike).

1. Double 2. 3♠ 3. Double and pass

Ask Helgemo-Helness or Brogeland-Sælensminde. I'm believe they both play this sequence as forcing. (I know they play 1♣-1♦-1M/N-2♣ as slammish.)

1. 2♣, wtp :) 2. 1♥, wtp :blink:

Clear pass. I thought the redoubles in the BB final taught somebody the futility of some of these doubles... :)

A=clear double B=double, but more dubious C=pass

Partner couldn't act over 2♦ and opps haven't found a fit. No reason to act now.

Pass. I'm not comfortable pulling this, neither to 4♦ nor 4♠. 4♦ is surely forcing, and I don't think Ï can underwrite forcing to 4♠/5+♦. We can easily have 4 top losers in a ♠ contract and 3 in a ♦ contract and have 9 quick tricks in NT. Nothing is certain, but I think we stand a better chance in 3NT than the alternatives.

Agree.

Yeah Ken, I know how we'd all play. :P It was a rhetoric question, but an example to show that you might not have 5-leves sequrity. B)

With a passed partner who can't find a Drury response I'd not double here. Heck, I've got nothing in the suits opps have bid. And partner stayed silent over 3♦.

I'd have redoubled initially, and probaply had less problems later (not always). With my IRL partners I'd get to game here (playing 8-11 weak twos). But I'm not sure how. 3♦ might preempt 3NT when that is our best game and 4♥ is unilateral. 3♦ is most flexible. I'd rebid 4♥ over both 3♥ and 4♦. Partner should have a good chance at making the right decision ofter the latter development. This in practise gives up on 3NT, but you can't have it all. With other players I might possibly just make an invite by raising 2♥ to 3.

No bid. (Btw, pass isn't a bid... :rolleyes: ).

It can't be too bad, but give partner ♠A or ♠KQ - that might be impossible for some though.

If 3♣ is a natural call it doesn't make sense to me that is could be a sign-off. But suppose it could be. Then the 3♥ bid has to show 3-card support and game interest even opposite a s/o. In this scenario 4♣ should be a stop signal: We play here. I can't imagine playing like this though. Assuming 3♣ is invitational, 3♥ is accepting and showing 3-card support. In this scenario I can't find any meaning for 4♣ at all. The possible bids should be 3NT, 4♥ and 5♣. Assuming 3♣ is gameforcing, 3♥ must show 3-card support and suggest playing in hearts. In this scenario 4♣ say "We should play in ♣s, not ♥'s" and of course is forcing.

Ehh, isn't Winston speaking of two different cases here - one new and one some two years ago?

You seem to suggest passing. That would be a big view - how big depens on what is a minimum hand for partner here. Playing very constructive weak twos (8-11) passing would be a really big view for me, one I'd not be comfortable with. And it does happen that I take the low road. Playing a less constructive wk2 passing would be an option.

I'd pass. Partner is still there.

Qx KJTxxx xxx Kx How do you play this after ♦A and another diamond?

Playing more or less "standard" methods 4♣ would be a cuebid agreeing ♥'s to me. (3♣ would be some kind of check-back or whatever you'd call it.)

By whom?

Reminds me of a hand a few years ago in final of the Pennant comeptition. AKQTxxx Kx Ax Ax Bidding at our table: 1H (P) 3H (3NT) Unfortunately this bid did not occur to uour teammate who bid 4S. The opps defended well to defeat this. with opener dropping K of C from Kx when the C Ace was played at trick 3 after the D K was led and a D continued. Btw I like 3NT on this hand, but would probably bid 3S. Me too.

Looks an obvious pass to me. No reason to believe bidding is superior to passing, and I can stand any lead from partner, which in fact improves the odds for a plus score defending.

I might have bid 1♠ with that suit and a different hand type (♣ length). With this hand redouble seems clear to me. I'd expect to set 3♥ looking at the north hand only. At MP I'd consider this an obvious double. At IMPs I think it's more doubtful, but I still think I'd double. On a trump lead it looks like 2 down.

What about 3NT?