MFA

Easy pass whatever forcing or not. ♥9x & ♦5xx don't quite look like defensive tricks to me. RHO has announced at least 6-5.

3♦ was a clear misbid imo. 4♦ preemptive instead, perhaps even 5♦, if 1♦ shows 4. As usual it becomes a problem to respect partner's later decisions when one fails to show the nature of the supporting hand.

That would not be my interpretation of the rules. I think "anchor suit" is referring to any specific of the two suits being at least of five cards. 2♦ = 5+♦, 4+♥: OK 2♦ = 4+♦, 5+♥: Also OK, since ♥ is here an anchor suit of five cards length 2♦ = at least 5/4 in the reds either way: Not OK, no anchor suit of five cards.

I would say that 4♦ from opener would confirm a spade control but is unclear about a diamond control. As a default cuebidding principle.

http://www.cavendishinvitational.com/index...id=16&Itemid=39 I agree they seem rather fuzzy. Now, I'm not lucky enough to be in the entry list, but if I were to play this event with my regular partner it seems that we might as well insta-pulp all our precision notes and write Bridge World Standard with a big, fat marker on the convention card and pretend we'd never met before. Sad, ours is a completely constructive system and I don't understand why such paranoic regulations are necessary. Let me just add to the confusion. 10: Hmm. So no special leads in partner's suits, no rusinow against gambling 3NT (but that convention is perhaps not allowed in the first place), no leading K from AK on the 5+ level, etc etc. Or have I misunderstood? 14: Ugh, this is a killer. I wouldn't dare to play just about anything nonstandard with these catch-all regulations. 14: I wonder what that covers. I guess that normal preempts are not included, but what is? Preemptive raises? Very light overcalling style on the 1-lvl? Aggressive DONT?

During our recent national teams championship finals the never-ending discussion of overcalling style arose once again. It seems that Danish top players have very different styles when it comes to this. Try a few. 1) ♠AQ95, ♥5, ♦JT5432, ♣92 All vul. Pass from partner, 1♣ from RHO, you? 2) ♠-, ♥98543, ♦AKJT4, ♣KT9 All vul. Pass from partner, 1♦ from RHO, you? 3) ♠J6543, ♥JT, ♦-, ♣KJT543 Vul vs not. You pass, 1♥ from LHO, pass, 3♣ (4card limit raise) from RHO, you?

I saw a poor vugraph gladiator being treated to this by his partner: ♠T842 ♥9753 ♦984 ♣52 (1♠) - X - (pass) - 2♥ (pass) - 2♠! - (pass) - 3♥ (pass) - 4♣!! - (pass) - 4♥ (pass) - 4♠!!! - (pass) - 5♥ Did he handle it the right way? I mean, are 3♥, 4♥ & 5♥ the correct choices? What hand type can one expect from partner?

Seems to be quite a different style of bidding than what I'm used to. I would have bid 3♠ in north. I bid 2♠ on all hands with a spade fit, and with very nice controls in the right places I don't want to be a bean counter ("only 14 hcp"). Opposite 2♠ I don't see how south realistically can try for slam. Opposite a slam try from south, north's decision with ♠AK & ♥AK in partner's suits is not the hardest one I've ever seen... But ok, perhaps the point of this problem is how north forces to slam and caters best to a grand in the process.

One reason non-experts are non-experts is that they have a propensity to make bad bids. You cannot improve your game that way. Bid like an expert... if you are not one, then you will make enough bad bids as it is....don't intentionally add to your burden. There is a reason the consensus of the expert opinion on this thread is heavily in favour of 1♣... their combined experience suggests that this is the most effective opening tactic. If it works for them, it should work for you. Well put.

I don't see why everything has to be so speculative. Double spade finesse is my first and only thought.

5♦. I support with support.

Clear pass of course. I have a sneaking suspicion that the reason for this post is that partner had real diamond support along with some spades and was trying to cater to landing in 4♠. If so he should probably have raised diamonds instead of doubling.

No, because east gets squoze in the reds for 10 tricks if declarer is Axx AJxx Jxxx AK. East can't be squeezed in the reds when South has no entry. Only if he shifts to a heart. edit: I see that above ;) The point of the heart return is to close the issue right there. If he doesn't commit to a heart finesse with AJ there is no play at all for the 9th trick.

AJxxx is especially unlikely :lol:

Everything is ok until east cashes the last diamond. Just play a heart at this point. If declarer has AJ he will get the problem right there. Cashing out is correct only if declarer's hearts are AJTx or AJxxx and he is about to finesse. Very unlikely.

In my partnerships, the K in 2nd position from KQJ is default. Split high from 3, split low from 2.

I assume we are waiting for the TD to come before the lead.

3NT is 3NT :P

what's the matter with you? skipped medication? :lol: Right, remember those pills :) Well, I'm not convinced that the distributional raise plays the same as the strong notrump raise. The distributional value is much less when one holds only three trumps, and the difference in high card strength is a full ace (11-13 vs 15-17). 3NT is also a likely best spot, and that is much easier to investigate if we know what our raises are showing.

A possible way to investigate is to blackwood 4NT and then bid 5NT to show all the aces plus the queen of spades. That would make partner comfortable bidding 7 on a lot of hands with a source of tricks.

1NT seems best to me. In this context of methods, defining 2♦ as a strong three-card raise seems like a good idea to me. This hand type comes up often. In our precision club system we play 1♦-(1♥)-1♠ as showing five, and opener's rebid of 2♥ and 2♠ is respectively a good and a bad 3card raise. If RHO bids 2♥ then X is the good raise. We play similarly on the 3-level (3♥ good, 3♠ bad). Some might not want to always go to the 3-lvl with 4card support, but for us 1♦ is never balanced, so we have no problem at all with that.

I would win T1.

Your partner's 1♠ might be among the most clear-cut overcalls ever made since the invention of the game bonus. Seriously, what is it for a strange kind of bidding "style" you are advocating?

Surely a direct 4♠ over 3♦. The auction is jammed and we have to guess. It's clear to insist on spades with this hand, and if partner doesn't have the values to make 4♠, it's just too bad. In the actual sequence, partner's double of 4♦ is for penalties.

Default for me is an inv+ raise of one of partner's suits. If he has a minimum, he returns to the nearest of them, with extras he does something else.