Apollo81

6NT The hearts need to be played for 0 losers to make a grand, which won't happen a significant % of the time. When we go down in grand we will lose to all the 6-level tables. In 6NT we are beating most of the 6-level tables (which are in hearts due to the lack of the asking bid we had used) regardless of whether the hearts go our way.

agree

Playing otherwise standard methods I would nearly always bid the major if 4-6, and usually bid the major if 4-7.

I would bid 3♥ because I am sure partner will not pass it, and I may get some good information out of partner via his next call.

If partner's suit was diamonds (and my minors were swapped) I would bid a natural and forcing 3♠. Here I think that bid should show better spades since we can bid 3♦ (which is what I'd do).

It means that one of the first three calls was a psyche.

3. 3♣, when we have expected 9 trumps we compete 3 over 2 4. Pass, we might even be getting doubled in 2s

Does anyone know when the last time this was tried? Why wasn't it successful? I don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong with the idea. How could this be made successful in the future? If this was accomplished, it would probably bring a lot of younger people into the game. It seems to me that the key elements to make this work are: 1. make everyone play the same, simple bidding system, probably Standard Amer. with just Stayman, Jacoby Transfers, Blackwood, and some conventional doubles 2. record in advance and cut out the boring hands (like I think they do in poker) 3. get good commentators I'm sure this topic has come up before; most years during the holidays I'm asked about bridge by non-bridge players, and invariably the questions I get are "can you win money" and "is it on TV"

I would play precision at equal colors because I think it is a fundamentally better system, and the chance of getting a bad board from strong club interference is much less than if the opponents were favorable. I'd stay away from vulnerable weak notrumps -- in my experience they generate lower scores on average than strong notrumps; I don't think notrump range matters much if non-vulnerable.

3♦ wtp, when you have 9 or 10 trumps you at least bid 3 over 2.

4♣, partner has promised absolutely nothing yet on this auction -- I won't go past 4♠ on my own.

I would normally bid with this shape, but there are so few offensive prospects in this hand that I'll pass. On a good day partner does have a club stack.

5. 3♣, couldn't 2NT here be natural? 6. 4♦

The best system in the real world is not necessarily the same one that should be played given infinite practice time. It's impossible to disentangle bidding systems from human existence.

All Vul, IMPs ♠AQJx ♥x ♦QJ9xxx ♣xx (2♥)-p-(3♥)-? If you're a passer, what's the minimum change to make a different call?

4♠ for now, probably doubling them if they bid.

♠A4 ♥QJT6 ♦Q875 ♣T82 Favorable, IMPs 1♣*-(1♥)-p-(p)-X-(all pass) * strong/artificial

3♣ seems clear to me, as most other calls preclude us from playing in one of the two possible suits.

(2)

I like 2♠ initially, but I do think it's dangerous. The strong clubbers will have a much harder time with that then they will with 1♠.

I think West should raise to 5♠.

4 is the only reasonable club bid.

Because partner would not make a bid that is likely to be passed with a forcing hand, but partner might have no option but to make such a bid with a non-forcing hand. I admit that this logic doesn't work for every conceivable auction, but it does work for this one. The only path to playing in 3♣ here for opener is to bid 3♣. There are other paths to game contracts.

I'd bid 1♠ (oink) though I think pass and then doubling hearts at any believable level is fine too.

Penalty, because we will nearly always compete in clubs if we compete, and playing penalty doubles here is pretty much the only way to punish the opponents if they step out of line. Agree that this auction is pretty unlikely to occur, ever.