Apollo81

2. 3H Michaels, overcalls natural, double is a strong notrump+, 3NT to play but based on a minor with a heart stopper.

These responses are insane. I have absolute nuts++ for my overcall in this auction. I would have cuebid 4♥ looking for slam, not 3NT. Since partner has given me another chance I will make the bid I should have made on the previous round.

Declarer held AKJxx AQx Kx xxx and dummy held x K109x QJ10xx KQx. A club produces the best result (630 or set depending on how declarer plays it). I led a heart at the table because I wanted to make the field lead against a weak team. Unfortunately, the other table wrongsided 3NT and received the club lead.

The problem, I believe, needs one thing clarified -- what is 3♣? If 3♣ is natural, then hearts seems to be the fourth suit. However, if 3♣ is NMF, bid with 5♠ but not 4♥, then Opener seems to have a diamond-heart two-suiter, making clubs the fourth suit. In the real world you dont get these kinds of things clarified always cause opps either dont know what theyre doing or are having a misunderstanding or something I can tell you that I wasn't sure about 3♣ and on table feel I was assuming a 4 card heart suit was coming down.

I guess I should add that I was virtually certain that North had 4 hearts on table feel, if anyone is wondering.

♠ 10942 ♥ 8753 ♦ A65 ♣ J9 1♦-1♠ 2♦-3♣ 3♥-3NT Your opponents are AVG- for the field, which is an A/X BAM.

You might give the vulnerability, however. And dealer perhaps :) I gave the dealer. I left the vulnerability off purposefully too.

♠Kxx ♥x ♦Q ♣KQ1098765 RHO opens 1♦. The form of scoring is deliberately left off. If your answer is different at IMP (teams), MP (pairs), or BAM please qualify it.

I strongly disagree with anyone who thinks that this is a mixed raise.

North doesn't have a doubt redouble. North has a 4♣ bid.

Programmer, lawyer, stock trader, and pro poker player are, IMO, the best choices from this list.

You can see that the best line is to win the ♠A, draw trumps, cash the ♣K and ♣AQ pitching two diamonds. You will lose a spade for sure, but you won't lose any other tricks. This gives up on making seven, but it guarantees the contract. This is also IMO the right play at MPs.

One possible correct auction for this hand would be: 1NT-2♦ 3♥-3♠ 4♣-5♣ 6♥-pass

I think this is an automatic 1♥ call.

Partner should not have either minor suit ace for this 4♥ bid. If I trust partner to have this bid then I pass. Else I bid RKC (if I can't trust him to respond accurately to cuebids, what's the point of cuebidding again?)

I would use a 4-card limit raise if one was available. It's not clear whether 2NT as described means "limit+" or not. If so, I bid 2NT, else I bid 2♣.

You really didn't have to list 1NT, 3♥, and 3NT as options in this poll.

what about: - new suits NF - 2NT: one of ----signoff in 3♣ ----forcing with a new suit ----inv or cog with 2 or fewer support - 3♣: 3+ support, inv+, responses: ----3♦: bad hand ----3♥: medium; usually a min with distribution ----3♠: good hand ----3NT: AKQ ----following up with 3NT is to play opposite a good suit - 3♠: 6+GF if a jump after a JO you could play this system too - make the cuebid a forcing bid in clubs

Coming from a strong club context, I prefer 14-16 for two main reasons. 1. If I open 1♦ and the opps interfere, I prefer to have no extras so I can pass (unless forced) with a clear conscience. 2. Most opponents defend 14-16 as a strong notrump. Many do not play penalty doubles, and many play very wide ranging overcalls. Thus the 14-16 opener can occasionally talk the opponents out of a game. This seems to happen a lot less frequently playing 15-17. The one other NT range I would recommend is 10-12, but only 1/2W at MPs in a strong club context.

Lawyers are undoubtedly better at exploiting their opponents' weaknesses.

4NT should be RKC in this auction. With a bad hand, responder can bid 5♦ instead. There's no other way to ask for keycards.

I think your partner should have bid 4♥ on the first hand and that 3 then 4 shows a bit better than this. I would assign the blame to him/her on that one.

See problem 1 http://www.districtsix.org/WBL/Sol/2007/Sol0703.aspx

Right, of course AKJTxx Axx xx xx would be fine, but most 6322 12s would not be (ie someone posted earlier KQJ9xx KJ QTx xx, this would not be good enough). Since this IJO sounder than I am used to I am changing my answer from "need better methods" to North made a slight error in judgement.

OK if it's THAT sound then I blame North 100% for this particular hand. I was thinking intermediate meant more like 11+ to 15 not 13+ to 16- You're saying a 6322 12 count isn't good enough, right?