MFA

I have been considering something like this: X=T/O. 2NT= lebensohl sign-off ♣/♦/♥. 2NT+any strong action = GF with clubs. 3♣= ♦ inv or better. 3♦= ♥ inv or better. 3♥, 3♠ various GF hands.

1♠ is clearcut, and I would pass now. The basic plan is to take enough tricks outside spades.

I would bid 2♥. I'm used to a style where opener tends to rebid 2♦ with 6-4.

I play exclusion above game level and jumps only. I think they come up relatively often.

1) pass. I would have negative doubled 1♥, btw. 2) 1♠. 3) 14 cards. Remove a heart and I bid 4♠.

If RHO has Kxxxx hearts and LHO has (as expected) the SK, there is a double squeeze. There is. But only because trumps are 2-2 and if you are careful!!

This lead is suspicious with xx in diamonds, west could easily have the ♥K. It looks normal to try to combine chances in hearts and clubs, ♦KQ, ♣KA and then if necessary a heart finesse. This is what I would do after a trump lead, so I'll stick to it and avoid the big :lol: :lol: :lol: if west has been clever with the lead.

Incredible to me that so many are willing to signoff in 3♠. I thought this was a 4♠/cuebid-raise to 4♠ decision. I'm "just" bidding 4♠, since my values are very soft and I need a perfecto for slam (Kxxxxx, x, Ax, Axxx).

I play along the same lines. (3♣) X (3♦) X is penalty for me (Gerben doesn't mention the sequence). (3♣) 3♦. All those I play as 'Michaels. Here it would be both majors, not forcing above 3M. Special against Namyats: X of 4mi is a shape take-out of their major, but could be light depending on vulnerability. The point is to get across the hand type and perhaps even induce a sacrifice, while still being able to sell to 4M undoubled. X of 4mi, X of 4M from partner: penalty (note we have shown shape, so no need to run) X of 4mi, and again later X of 4M: Shape take-out with significant extras. P of 4mi, and then later X of 4M: Full-strength takeout, but a more balanced hand type (strong notrump for instance). This scheme exploits the big weakness of Namyats (the slow arrival to 4M) very nicely imo.

Agree 100% It's ok to play penalty doubles behind the bidder. We do that even with our 12-14 notrumps! In front of the bidder it surely should be takeout.

3NT is an overbid, 3♦ better.

A reasonable shot if you like to live in the fast lane.

I would just pass. But 3NT or 3♦ could easily be right.

Quite insane. We have no reason to believe that we have somewhere near the combined values required. Partner couldn't act with a likely spade shortage.

I agree with fred's analysis. This is a restricted choice situation, since the presence of the 9 in dummy effectively prevents the opponents falsecarding options. Yes, it's different but very complicated. Now east has the option of falsecarding with the T from Txx on the second round, and west has the option of falsecarding with the J from Jx on the first round. So we'll need to evaluate our opponents' tendency to falsecard.

I think it's a blind lead, Ken. If we know the spade distrubution and want to calculate odds about the heart distribution, then all the minor cards are 'equals'. In a sense, it's just random that we call the 13 diamonds a suit and the 13 clubs a suit. Imagine a different game with 5 suits. Spades, hearts, diamonds, club 2-9, club honours. In this game with 5 suits, we would have a different hand pattern with odd/even parity hands. But surely your problem with the heart distribution is the same. The solution of this problem cannot depend on how we arbitrarily have defined the concept "suit". In other words, the complexity of this problem only allow us to focus on three types of cards: 1 - cards that we can place for sure (here: spades) 2 - cards that we cannot place (here: the minors) 3 - cards that we want to make calculations about (here: hearts) Splitting up category 2 is not giving us any extra information.

2NT gameforcing is 100% standard among 'experts' where I come from (Denmark), except for a few who might have agreed Lebensohl.

Actually, a 4♠ call should show a weak two suiter, I think. Yes, it should probably show that. But I would be very eager to leave 4♥X as an option. 590<<1100, you know :huh:.

Given the lunacy to play this as a take-out double, I'm very far from convinced that it should show a 40(54) type. This distribution has the lowest possible playing strength of all the hands that are void of hearts. If we are puritanical about our 1♠ overcalls, requiring a suit for the bid and all that sort of silly stuff, then this delayed double really should show 5 spades. Is 4♠ the winning bid? Or 4NT? (partner is 5062) :blink: How do you like my game? :huh: Very interesting sir, indeed, but personally I prefer bridge. :)

Obvious 4♠ first round. Given the auction, I try 5♠. Since 4♦ puts us on the 4-level, it should focus on the 5-level decision, and although I don't have a fitting diamond honour, this looks like a double fit and perhaps a lot of tricks.

I'm used to "school 3", 2♦ Michaels and 2♥ natural. This means, obviously, that one has to pass the actual hand and hope to back in with 2♦ later. This then shows a normal strength overcall in diamonds.

Hi Ole How? It's a big problem to investigate the spade control, as I see it.

Where do you get that from? A single hand has 22+ hcp roughly 0,42% of the time according to the Encyclopedia. 0.33% of the time there are two or more hands in the deal that have 22+ HCP. Huh? ;)

Where do you get that from? A single hand has 22+ hcp roughly 0,42% of the time according to the Encyclopedia. Say you plan to open all 6322/6331, 7-10hcp, 6 clubs, with 2♣, the frequency of that hand type is 1/4 * 9,09% * 35,7% = 0,81% based on the numbers in the encyclopedia. You may disagree with the definition, but that is just details. It seems to me that we are talking something like 2:1 here, not 40:1. For me it's not close. I'm positive that I would throw away much much more points on the strong hands without a strong 2♣ than I would be able to earn by a weak 2♣. It's not like a weak two is a magical recipe that ensures us a good board ;).

I don't like the preemptive idea for these reasons: 1) We'll need a pretty extreme hand to make the bid, or we will fear that they might not compete with 4♠ over a 4♥-call. For all we know, partner might hold four spades. So there goes the frequency argument. 2) The value of bidding a direct 5♥ instead of 4♥->5♥ is very, very marginal in this sequence, if existing at all. 3) Having a natural strong 5♥ available is actually quite nice. I think that 5♥ should be strong without a spade control. Whether it should be forcing or not opposite a spade control is not so clear.