MFA

Double, but not ideal with the soft values.

Pass. I hope to be able to bid clubs later so that partner knows I have a bad hand with both minors.

You are surely asking the right question, how to distinguish between a doubleton and the ♣Q. There is no easy answer. We need to estimate what partner will think is the most likely set, based on our cards, dummy and the bidding. It's a very tough judgement call. We usually have to play low and hope partner works it out if either kind of defense is needed. So it's tempting to try to reduce the problem and give up on, say, the underlead option, and let a small card show a doubleton: But that is fooling oneself, because how does partner know which option you just gave up? If dummy had ♠KQJT9 and ♣xx, surely a small club should now show ♣Q, etc. It is the exact same judgement call that I have, just neatly disguised as the premises of the problem. By playing 4-2 you are betting big on partner is agreeing with your premises (that small would be doubleton, not ♣Q) in a very tough situation. If he doesn't, he might underlead. I'm more lucky, since I discourage and thus avoid the judgement call when it is irrelevant. Partner knows now that I can't stand a club operation. Had it been a situation where it were critical to decieve partner initially, your plan would have been much better. But it's not. Partner is fine on his own here with my honest signal.

Why? I don't see it. For me it seems that it only increases the odds that he will try to underlead the clubs to get a heart through to his king. This is a live possibility, since we only need ♣Q + 1 trick to set the contract that way. I don't use soft middle card signals in obscure situations such as this one. Either I play a high spot or I play a low spot. The middle ones are reserved for highly enlightened situations.

♣8. I think it's clear to discourage. Not only do I neither have ♣Q for an underlead, nor ♣xx for a trump promotion - which it should show is a judgement call. But what can reasonably go wrong if I discourage in clubs? If partner decides to play me for the ♥A in addition to his king, he will cash a second club first. Upon seeing my ♣2 on the second round, he should change track. If he doesn't have precisely the ♥K, it is clear for him to cash a second club and then shift to hearts.

I assume that 4♦ was a slam try opposite the weak type or I would definitely have no problem. The diamond ace might face a void. So I double in spite of the 2 key cards.

5♥. I will take the possible slaughter like a man. Reasonable confident that 5♥ will be a long term winner. Even though if OleBerg is posting, he must have bid and it must have been wrong. :)

I voted only north because I really hate 3NT. North is giving up the board every time he finds partner with a small singleton or void of hearts. T9xx could be a fair gamble for notrumps, but one cannot jump all the way from 1♥ to 3NT without at least one stopper. I wouldn't have passed 3NT with south's cards either. But that is a much smaller mistake, I think.

Thanks for the answers. We had a discussion on a national discussion board, where there was a huge vote in favour of 1♦. But everybody hates 2♣ there with anything resembling a two-suiter, so I wanted to test the opinion elsewhere. I think that 2♣ is best.

If they promise to stay off the club suit and you read the layout (who has the ♠K), 3NT can be made: ♦A Lose spade to east Duck heart Win ♥K Duck diamond to west Win ♦K Lose spade to east Win ♥A Cash the spade for the double squeeze.

Unfortunately, the rules are not like that. Alerts and explanations from partner are UI, even if they are correct and according to the system. This is a problem when one has misbid in situations like this.

A AQT7 KQJ8543 A

Thanks, nice link!

Your situation is analogous to that after a bluff. You must try to tell partner that you want to play 4♥ in spite of their opening bid. There will most likely be no later score corrections, because this was just a misbid. Calling the director anyway in a friendly matter after the play is a good idea to clarify things.

Are you sure that this method is correct? I have never heard before about a situation, where you don't establish a table result before any imps or mps are calculated. The table result might be X for NS and Y for EW. Or 60% X and 40% Y. Etc. But it is a table result as such.

Pass. Surprised to see the votes. Certainly prefer X to 3♥, but both are overbids.

[hv=n=sq9xxhaxxd532catx&w=sktxxhdqt874cj9xx&e=sjxhqjt9xxdjcq8xx&s=saxxhkxxxdak96ckx]399|300|[/hv] ♦A ♠A ♠ to 9, J ♥Q, all duck ♥9 to K ♠ to K ♦Q, where you unblock the 9! Remember to say oops :D ♦ to K ♥ to A ♠Q, doublesqueeze. B) :P :lol:

14p against 12-14, 13p against mini. Or a goodish hand. I think that fairly aggressive doubles of weakNTs pay off. First subsequent double is takeout. Lebensohl from the weak hand. Doubles of all their stayman or transfers are the same as a pen. double of 1NT.

I would pass.

Can we get that bidding template, please BBF? So annoying to try to decipher these sequences. 5. 2NT, I play this as scrambling. But that is in a weak NT context. If 2NT would not be scramble, then I bid 3♣. 6. This is a tough problem. With ♦Kx 4♦ seems quite pushy, but it's my choice. I can easliy live with 3♠. If the auction turns competitive, it will most likely be RHO bashing a number of diamonds and then remain silent. If so, we will not have established the double fit before we get the final guess.

Pass but I hate it. Will almost always run with a void, but I'll make an exception with this one.

4♣. I'm not going past 4♠ myself.

3♦. I think it is absolutely terrible to pass because of ♠KQxx. We usually have a 10-card fit, but at least 9.

Pass for sure. Partner should take us to 3♥ if it is right. They could easily be on a 7-card fit and we might be so as well. I disagree. There are plenty of boards where we have no business at the 3-level over the enemies' 2♠. It should be fine to sell.

Can we get that bidding template, please BBF? So annoying to try to decipher these sequences. 7. Pass, partner is 4-4 or 4-5 8. ♦J. With my ♠xx, dummy could easily have a good spade suit that I don't want to establish (or seen run immediately).