Apollo81

One possible ACBL improvement: "could be short" should apply to all scenarios (and only those) where the announcable bid is basically natural but could be a 2-card suit: examples: a. 4432 1♣opener b. classic Precision 1♦ opener c. 3325 1♣-1♦ d. 3442 1♠-2♣ e. 4342 1♥-2♣ Currently only a. and b. are announcable; the others are alertable. In addition, Precision variants where 1♦ might be shorter than two cards are also announcable as "could be short" since they are non-forcing. An alternative rule to cover this sort of opening might be to require "could be short as ___" instead of the generic announcement.

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=s987hakt83dkj92c8&w=shdc&e=shdc&s=sak5h76dt54caqj53]399|300|Scoring: MP Auction (NC): 1♥-2♣* 2♥-2NT** 3NT-pass * Reverse Drury ** natural game force, denies 5+♦[/hv] trick 1: ♠Q, 7, J, ?? plan the play opponents are using standard american honor leads

This is actually quite a good point and completely true. The given hand isn't close to a 1NT opener for this reason and in my view on playing strength. KQx KQx Q KJxxxx is a better opportunity to open an offshape 1NT

I would bid 4♣, and I don't see why 5♦ can't be natural here.

I think the real problem with passing here is that partner is almost surely going to pass due to his heart length and probable balancedish hand. SOMEONE has to take action when the partnership's game or slam values are split.

1. 2♥, avoids embarassment when partner is (34)15 with strong clubs and extras, may be right even if partner is 3316. 2. 4♠. I think this will be 500 most of the time, but there's still the chance that the opps bid 5♥ and go down (especially against weak opps like the post says) 3. auto-3♥ 4. Three (and a half) spades.

for all curious parties: partner's hand was AKx Qxxx Qxxxx x

Yes.

Agree, 6♦ seems like a much wiser goal than 6NT.

If you win the second diamond in hand then you cannot run diamonds if someone started with 4.

♠ K83 ♥ A1064 ♦ Q4 ♣ KJ87 ♠ --- ♥ K832 ♦ KJ862 ♣ AQ65 all white, IMPs 1NT*-3♥** 4♥-pass * 12-14 ** spade splinter opponents playing standard carding trick 1: ♦A,4,5,6 trick 2: ♦3,Q,7,2 Plan the play.

Unfav IMPs ♠Qxx ♥KJ10x ♦Ax ♣Q9xx no opposing bidding 1♦*-1♥ 2♥**-3♣*** ?? * Precision, 14-16 1NT opening, style is to open about 1/2 of balanced 11s ** balanced 11-13 or possibly a very min 13(45) hand *** short-suit game try The hand below would not have raised to 2♥, we have another bid for that. AQxx KJ10x x Q9xx

I'd just pass. This is probably the wrong double dummy action. It sounds like: - partner's hand may open 2♠ at other tables - failing that, LHO's hand may raise to 5♦ at other tables on the first round In both cases defending 5♦ undoubled seems normalish.

♠ xxx ♥ AKJ10x ♦ KQ98x ♣ --- ♠ xx ♥ xx ♦ xx ♣ K10xxxxx This hand occurred recently. None vulnerable, South made a (terrible) jump overcall to 3♣ over my 1♠ opening, and North failed to run to 3♥ or redouble for rescue. (which in this case would have saved them)

3♠ was not a good bid. This hand isn't even close to what I'd expect.

2♠, 3♥ I would bid 4♥ at any other vulnerability on the second hand.

IMO, (2x)-p-(p)-2NT is 15-18ish, which is slightly (maybe 1 point) weaker than a direct 2NT over the weak two. Remember that partner will strain to double or overcall if short in the opponents' suit, so the odds are good that he does not have a good hand. Therefore, if you have a normal 14 count and can't double or overcall, the odds favor passing.

Responder made 2 auto bids and opener passed a forcing bid. Nuff said.

I'd say 4135 ish with strong diamonds.

I would expect a significant majority of expert level players to treat this as SOS.

Male lion.

2♥ is obviously not forcing since responder has already limited his hand.

I 100% agree with Josh here.

lol

wdp seriously, did he think his ♦A was a small one or something? or did he seriously think that 4♥ is a preemptive bid in this position