MFA

Are you also planning to raise 3♠ to 4♠? What hand and shape are you expecting partner to have for that bid?

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=sk853hat9dkqtck72]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] (1♥) - 2♣ - (3♥) - ?? 3♥ is preemptive and could be absolute rubbish. Do we have a plan?

Pass would not be forcing for me, and it's safe to assume that my partner thinks the same. And I wouldn't want pass to be forcing. We have not had a strong sequence but just bashed game. On the other hand the opponents are under huge pressure. Imo it's not reasonable to establish a forcing pass on the basis that their auction is unconvincing. We are the ones who pushed them into a guessing game, where they might have had to pass strong or interesting hands on their first round. This sequence could easily cover hands where they have 10, 11 or 12 tricks in spades, no problem. But a nonforcing pass is a possible bid. This sequence is perhaps one where partner really could take another bid if it looks right, even when he is not forced?!

[hv=d=n&v=b&s=s8hj85daq54caqj75]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] 2♥ - (pass) - 4♥ - (pass) pass - (4♠) - ?? Not a regular partner. He is a strong player and very aggressive in general, but we've agreed to be reasonably straight about our weak twos.

W has illegally misled N. But I would probably rule 'no damage' since it doesn't seem like NS would have got a better result after a balancing double. 3♣ would most likely fail, and I don't want to rule 100% 3♥-2 since it would be very strange to bid again as east in spite of his claim. For me it would have had to be a weighted score between 3♣-1 and 3♥-2. So NS seem better off with +50 in 2♥. I would warn west that his actions were in conflict of the laws, and that it was pure luck that NS weren't damaged. I would warn east that competing with 3♥ if a 3♣-bid in south had come back to him would almost certainly have been an illegal bid after his partner's tank.

A possible treatment is to differenciate between 3♥ and 4m in the first round as 'good' vs 'bad' Michaels. I would love to be able to bid 3♥ or 4♦ favourable over 2♥ with this hand (whichever would the 'bad' Michaels). With normal agreements, I have to pass twice and hope for the best.

I would give him 12 tricks since he should be allowed to take the 'marked' finesse.

Pls start bidding :) 2♣ over 1NT X of 2♣ then 3♦ to show a good diamond overcall, 2♦ is acceptable but conservative 2♥ over 2♦ 4♥ in the third (unlikely) scenario B)

I think many are worrying way too much about what will happen at the other tables. As usual. I think this 'theme' is grossly overrated as a match point strategy. We don't know and all that speculating is using up our energy for the real decision: what bid will rate to give us the best bridge result in the long run. For me this is an obvious pass. So it must have worked out terribly in practice when this hand has made it to the forums.

Call the director. You should do that anytime there is a potential problem with your side's alerts or explanations. Especially if you are unsure of what to say. The exception is that if partner has explained or alerted wrongly you should wait until after the bidding (if your side got the contract) or after the play (if your side was defending), so you don't illegally inform him about his misunderstanding.

Definitely 4♠. Right for tactical reasons - let them misjudge. Right because we want to play in spades to control the tap.

The Viking club produces some funny ones for us. We had this sequence recently but there have been others also I don't remember now. 1♣-1♦ 1♥-1♠ 1NT-2♣ 2♦-2♥ 2♠-pass Responder has shown a shapely invitational hand with long spades opposite opener's 19-21NT.

South's hesitation shows values that makes competing in north much more attractive and safe. Even if those values are alround (that is: also defensive) they will still be useful in 3♦ to avoid a disaster. It's very unlikely that south was considering a pure penalty double of 2♥. The score should have been corrected to 2♥ imo.

2♥. Overcalling 2♥ over 1♠ is a different species than a 2m overcall because we are now aiming for a 4♥ contract. So the flat shape is not nearly as terrible. It's close between 2♥ and 1NT, but I want a second spade card to bid 1NT here, just give me the T and we may be talking. I need 'outs' if we get to 3NT instead of 4♥ on a 5-3, and for 3NT to be better, it would be nice with a second spade stopper. Don't understand pass.

Hmm Canapé overcalls? No supporting partner? No signals in the defense? My head would ache if I had to play many boards like this :)

South can't double with this. North should pull to 5N, over which south should bid 6♥ (not 6♣, disagree with jdonn - too pessimistic to try to cater to specifically ♣+♠ when partner could have all sorts of 2- or 3-suiters with various lengths). I'll mark it: 65% to south.

6N is freaking insane, but both players had already given the horse too much hay at that time.

1. 2N 2. X. Pass is also ok. 3. X. I'm confident that this is a BIG winner in the long run. Sometimes partner has xxx, xx, Ax, Kxxxxx where conceding 140 with a slam on will not be great. I have to explore my possible fits. 4. 3♠. Perhaps we will get a chance to show hearts on the second round.

Not a problem yet. 1♠.

Our general approach is to stick with the default meaning and do as well as possible with that. We don't like a free wheeling style, where a card means what we would like it to mean in the situation. So we would discourage if we wanted a shift. But pls play lav discards, so superior!

This set of agreements is specifically for this sequence. It grew out of a discussion about support doubles after responder has shown five spades. If 1♥ is raised to 2♥, opener's double would be the good three-card raise.

'Some unreadable pip', I suppose this just means the middle one of the three small ones we are missing!? Declarer can't have ♣KQJ then since partner would not play middle from three. Partner is marked with some strength (can't we be told how much, please?). Therefore I will not give declarer a second club trick but instead try to get partner in to lead through the ♣KQx. I will shift to spades at trick 3 and continue spades (J) even if partner pitches a small spade on his second discard. With standard signals, partner would not discard his 5th heart first from ♠Qxxx, ♥KTxxx I hope.

In our usual strong club context I have these agreements with partner: 2♥= Good with 3 spades 2♠= Bad with 3 spades 3♥= Good with 4 spades 3♠= Bad with 4 spades (X = take-out of hearts) (2NT = 5-5 minors) (3♣ = both minors, longer clubs) So for us it's an easy 3♠.

The problem boils down to a simple LA evaluation. There is clearly UI that points towards bidding 2♥ - so is passing 2♦X a logical alternative? Law 16. Under these conditions: ... I would say no. Nobody would actually pass 2♦ here without discussion. (Assume screens so we don't know about partner's alerting or not. That's the proper reference for evaluating the LAs.)

This is all backwards. I, who supported the idea of opening 2♠ with this, specifically pointed out that it has to be in our agreed range. If we have agreed that 2♠ could be this hand then my partner won't suddenly hope for a perfecto and hang me.