Apollo81

Pick an ace randomly and lead it.

Natural!! 4♠ could be a 5 card suit. We must have a way to play in 5♣ when responder has 7 solid and a stiff or void in spades.

I'd RKC too.

If we are setting it we should still double it if we're not going to compete.

I'm doing both. Notice that the range of this bid is the lower half of 1♦'s range.

I think I would probably lead a club, which I think is the most aggressive lead. A diamond seems less risky but there is also less to gain. A spade is IMO the most passive lead, and may well be right, but since it's IMPs I would hope to hit something like QJx or Qxx in partner's hand in clubs, which is probably our best hope to set.

If I were going to adopt something like this, I would tweak it a little to the following: 2M to play 2OM Kokish like ask for lowest suit where you'd accept a game try 2NT nat, inv 3m 4+, GF 3♥ 5+, inv A 2♠ response to the 2OM-ask would show a bad hand, partner could re-ask via 2NT if he wants. The only downside to the above that I can see is that there's no obvious way to force the "agreed" major. The ask would probably have to implicitly agree the suit (although perhaps not preventing the partnership from playing in 3NT).

If 2♦ instead promised 4-card support then I would use Kokish game tries, which I believe to be a nice balance between concealing declarer's hand, getting the information needed to decide on game, and low memory load. However, here I certainly think there needs to be a natural 2NT bid. I'm not sure what else is needed, but I prefer schemes that have low memory load.

I'm not sure catering to opener holding 43xx shape after 1♦-1♥-2♦ is necessary. Opener could just bid 1♠ over the heart response and then correct to 2♥.

You can assume the partnership plays reverse flannery responses to 1♦ if you'd like, when giving your method.

Balanced 12-13 or unbalanced 11-13-. Doesn't promise diamonds.

huh? they have at least an 8 card fit and can easily have more. I doubt partner will double if they have a 9-card or better fit.

Suppose you're playing Precision and played 1♦-1M-2♦ as a 3-card, 11-13 HCP raise of responder's major. What methods would you play after this?

I'd pass, not having interest in competing and expecting them to have a decent shot to make 2♥X. Good problem.

What I didn't tell you was that this was given to the email panel with the added condition, "partner failed to alert 3♣." If I were given this problem (with or without the failure to alert) I would bid an automatic 4♠. I don't see any reason to pass 3NT, nor do I think 3NT is some sort of slam try without an agreement. Thus I wouldn't bid 4♣ either. I didn't think this was much of a problem. However, read this response by another member of the panel (who is a good player): ------ All you can assume from the failure to alert is that partner might have been unsure, and that 3N could be protecting. All of the cautious bids (4♠, Pass, Q-bids) just help partner protect, by letting you get out at the game level. If you protect, you deserve to be ruled against. If you Q-bid, and pass 4♠, some committees might let you slide. If you bid 4♠, there should be a procedural penalty. 4♠ is what you should bid with Jxxx QJx QJx Qxx. 4♠ means "Yuck." If you Pass 3N, in a misguided attempt to be ethical, you get to keep your bad score. Opener must have a doubleton, and you must have some weak suit... You could always say that you were worried openers doubleton was opposite your weak suit... Hence you could always argue for bidding. What then is the point of bothering with a natural 3N in the first place? This is called a "self serving" argument, and committees tend to frown on them. However, passing 3N with this hand is over compensating. Passing 3N is not a logical alternative. You are unlikely to be ruled against, since passing 3N was not suggested by the failure to alert, but if partner had alerted, can you honestly say you would pass? Not likely. [name removed]'s poll showed this, with only one masochistic passer. I chose to interpret 3N as a slam try, since natural is just silly with a 5-4 fit, and since slam try is not one of the things suggested by the unauthorized information. Once you interpret it this way, you have a 7.5 loser hand (limit raise is 8 and opener is 7), anything less than slam is protecting partner. Remember, you showed less than a limit raise (9 losers) with 3C. Give partner AKxxxx xx Ax AQX, a 17 count, and you have 13 top tricks. Does partner have to be control rich to make a slam try opposite a constructive raise? I would think so. Bid keycard and if not off 2 keys, or 1 and trump queen, then bid slam. Scores 4N = 100 4C = 80 (perhaps the best "bridge" bid, but protecting vs misunderstanding lowers the score in my book). Lets you avoid slam opposite AKQxxx Kx xx AQx. 4H = 70 (similar to 4C, just not a good bid. Does not leave room for partner to Q-bid, and implies lack of controls in the minors) Pass = 50 (masochist, but you win if they make a bad lead) 6S = 50 (not good bridge, but points for attempt at ethics similar to masochistic pass of 3N). 4S = 0 (procedural penalty - You are too strong) --- I'm interested in comments on the above.

ditto

This is from an email poll conducted by one of the players in my area to which I was a respondent. As this post is in advanced/expert-class bridge, you can assume partner is advanced/expert class. IMPs/none vul ♠xxxx ♥A10 ♦xx ♣KJ1098 (p)-p-(p)-1♠ (p)-3♣*-(p)-3NT (p)-? *Bergen constructive raise ------------------------------ The following two points should go without saying, but I will post them anyway: 1. There is no partnership agreement about the 3NT bid 2. No one cares what methods you play or what you think about the 3c bid; we only care about what you would do (and possibly why) at this juncture.

Preempts work. I'm sure I would replicate this auction.

grand

The only way I can see to get there is: (3♣)-Dbl-(p)-3♥ (p)-4♠-(p)-? North can probably find another bid here. I would not bid 5♠ over 3♣ with South's hand. Too many times you will just be down 1 when partner doesn't have anything useful.

I agree with all the 3♠ bidders. I don't see how the singleton ♦K is (effectievly) any different from Kx on this particular auction. As an aside, I also think a splinter here shows better than 2-3 HCP.

R/R IMPs 2♣-(p)-2♦*-(p) 2♠-(p)-? *artificial, game forcing ♠Jxxx ♥Jxxx ♦K ♣Qxxx

I think both players took reasonable actions and reached a reasonable contract.

well duh, you never mentioned that there was a hesitation in your OP

Person A forwards an email to person B, with the text "FYI" and then the body of the forwarded email. The forward was sent only to person B. Are there any negative connotations associated with this?