MFA

Does anybody play 5♥ as "I don't know" in this specific sequence? Maybe it's worth it to try to cater to this annoying and frequent trump problem - also for exploring grand slams (probably not relevant here though). Agree with showing the queen.

I agree with your thinking but for me this is not a 'normal maximum'. Shape, aces and secondary spades give it big potential. I would be very nervous at any position and vulnerability, but at favourable where our average strength is quite low, it's just too far off for me for a weak two.

Opening 2♠ at favourable is unacceptable in my normal style. I would upgrade to 1♠ in a strong club context but pass otherwise.

Hmm. We win also with ♣3-3 and a stiff ♠H. Or righty having double club and three spades or HH in spades. Or lefty having double club and HH in spades. That's not 'horrible'.

1) I might want to inquire, if 2♣ could be any balanced hand, including 4 card spades, 5 card diamonds, 4 card hearts. I would probably try ♦A. Dummy most likely has a doubleton (when choosing 4H) but where? If 2♣ can't be bid with the above unusual holdings, then it rates to be in spades and I therefore like my chances of finding declarer with 3-3 (or 4-3) in diamonds while a spade lead seems futile. 2) ♥

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=s74haq75dk6caq832&w=saj6532ht6d84ck75&e=s8hkj98daqjt53cjt&s=skqt9h432d972c964]399|300|Scoring: IMP Pass - (2♠) - X - (pass) Pass[/hv] Ok-ok, maybe the hand was more curious than it was difficult. I wanted to see if somebody would 'chicken out' in here. A few did. 2♠ is maybe a favourite to make, but still it must be best to pass imo. A somewhat unusual situation. 2♠X was the final contract at 4 out of 12 tables, but declarer only went down at our table. Does anyone have a guess as to what might have happened at the other three tables in 2♠X where declarer took 8 tricks? Here it went ♦K to the ace. ♠ to Q and ace. ♠ to the 9. ♣ through. 2 club tricks, 1 heart trick and there was no trump coup at the end.

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=skqt9h432d972c964]133|100|Scoring: IMP Pass - (2♠) - X - (pass) ??[/hv] 2♠ shows 7-10. They have a fertilizer available for the really crappy hands.

Here, I think the standard expert treatment is 'NF reverse', which could be somewhat weaker than a normal reverse. With a gameforcing hand one has to start with 2♠. This is btw also the treatment suggested by Marty Bergen in 'Better Bidding with Bergen' - the first time I read about this sequence, I think.

Exactly.

Right, and the bidding matters also. 1NT-3NT is different from 2NT-3NT for instance, since the odds of finding declarer with A+K are much different. I think leading low should be default but that one should judge from time to time when holding these 2-card sequences. I have observed that I tend to lead an honour a little more often than most good players in these situations, but I think I have been reasonably successful doing so, and I only do it when I think the situation specifically justifies it.

Yes, but why do you think that E/W would have gone down in 3NT? They made 9 tricks. What part of the defense would have been easier against 3NT?

Sorry, but would somebody please explain to me why it would be possible to adjust the score in this case? And if it is indeed possible, why only for E/W? I mean, there was no issue about the card play, and E/W made nine tricks. So if anything, using UI actually hurt them since they would have got 400 in 3NT. Why should we overrule the card play? South made a gross error (blackout) but such is life. If E/W had made only 8 tricks for 120, then I see a case, not now.

lol, what the ***** is going on. :(

Marginal, sure. But we have three aces and good middle cards in clubs. And our shape is fine for double, since we a only one diamond card away from the perfect 3136. Three aces is also fine for defence, but we have two very small hearts so it could be a quite 'pure' deal with a lot of tricks. Also we have a dreadful lead, so we are not going to set them as often as DeepFinesse would. Are we going to cash aces? Or lead a trump and see our ruffs disappear? Double has a lot going for it. But I consider it marginal.

2♣ then double. I fail to see why it should be clear to sell out to 2♥ with this hand. Seems too soft imo.

Hi Ole We play: X= take-out of hearts 2♥= michaels anything else as over a 2♥ opening. 2♦-X-2♥-X is penalty.

OK, so what would a double of the 2S bid show? Surely support? Surely interest in defending and that you might want to double them. That's the classic meaning but not the only possible treatment. I have sworn to support doubles after 1M-(2M) for some time. It gives us increased precision when we have a fit, and I think frequency makes this treatment better.

4♠ but this is really a marginal bid.

Prefer 3♣. Even if we have a 5-4 spade fit, we do have a double to our right and our spades are weak. 3♣ pays off if partner is able to bid 5♣ profitably. Second choice is obv 1♠ - don't understand pass.

4♠, quite strong feelings.

Justin raises what I THINK is the critical point: In order to beat "Pass Out" we need to guaruntee ourselves a positive score. We aren't trying to jam the opponent's auction or make a reasonable pre-sac against their 4m partial. We need to go positive to beat "Pass" I think that's too academic when we can say with almost 100% certainty, that "all pass" will be the result at 0 of the other tables. So that can't really be the score to beat.

2♣ then 3♠ to set spades then 4NT RKC then 6♣. Asks for 3rd round club control as I play it.

[hv=d=n&v=b&n=sxxhkqxxxxdjckxxx&w=skqxxxhxdkxxct98x&e=sajtxxhatxdt98xxc&s=sxhjxxdaqxxcaqjxx]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] I tried the ridiculous double which was not a big success. After a heart lead, two rounds of trumps and a small diamond up, I was still in dream land and decided to play for a very unlikely position and declarer having butchered the hand (5-3-1-4 with ♣K). So I rose ♦A and deservedly conceded an extra 200: -1190. Bidding 5♥ is likely to result in playing 5♠X though. Perhaps one should just pass here. Surprisingly many of the tables had copied our auction.

Ok. I tried X and 3NT over 3♠. I think partner usually only has three spades for 3♠, and if he is 4-1-2-6 and min, he should remove 3NT anyway. I have no intention of trying a 4-3 with such a bad spade suit. Also I consider 3NT in this sequence to be a mild suggestion only. Anything but 3♠ from partner takes us above 3NT. If he has something like QJx, x, Jxx, AQJxxx he can perhaps bid 4♣ over 3NT, since passing would play us for a stopper + the club filler + 2 toptricks on the side, a bit much for a mild suggestion. But perhaps I'm just dreaming. At the other table there was a significant huddle before 3♠, and south then felt obliged to raise to 4♠, which was an unlucky contract with spades 1-5. I thought that south was just being a little masochistic there, but this thread seems to prove me wrong, so wp. Partner had ♠AQx, ♥x, ♦xxxx, ♣AJTxx. I'm used to X instead of 2♣ but that's another discussion.

Sure, 2NT. Not particularly worried about their running spades. If partner has values + singleton spade, he rates to have four hearts so we can play 4♥.