MFA

That seems like a reasonable suggestion initially, but how often do you really buy the contract for 2 of a minor? Maybe preempting the opponents a little more by bidding 2♠ for light takeout of hearts (for example) causes the opponents enough trouble that it's worth the risk? Yes, that was it. It's not so much about buying the contract in 2m, it's about surviving the bad layouts for our action, and also about being able to penalize the opponents from time to time. Although I love transfer principles, this is not the situation for it IMO. I don't see that we will gain very often here, since we so rarely will hold a 2-bids hand.

5♣, wtp?

I think 4♣ is fine, but 6♥ looks like a missclick :).

I find it very superior to play X of 3♦ as takeout of hearts. If X shows diamonds, south has an easy double of 4♥ on the second round. (Hopefully ;) ) no partner will lead a doubleton club with a singleton trump when we have X'ed 3♦ to show diamonds. So south has a good shot on working out the position in the defense.

I would bid like han. 5NT should surely be a choice of slams rather than a grand try. Even though X+6♦ indicates some flexibility, I'll doubt that partner will correct this to spades often enough.

X + 4♥ shows a 4card suit, or perhaps something like 2344 on a very sunny day. Whether or not to take this route depends on if I can stand a 4-3. Here I will try a direct 4♥, since I have a reasonable suit and the minor alternatives don't look too promising.

See this forum topic for Ingberman thoughts: http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=18177 Thank you.

It may be most efficient to use the second double this way. But I guess that it is possible to treat it as penalties and for responder to bid 2S on game invite + hands with diamond support. So it's not quite the case that you can't progress the hand at all without this agreement. Well, we are forced to start with a negative double with 4 ♥s, aren't we? No ??

4♥. See no reason to goof around. Never heard the word "ingberman" before. If you have some magic gadget, please enlighten me. Not all convention names are used globally.

It may be most efficient to use the second double this way. But I guess that it is possible to treat it as penalties and for responder to bid 2S on game invite + hands with diamond support. So it's not quite the case that you can't progress the hand at all without this agreement. Well, we are forced to start with a negative double with 4 ♥s, aren't we?

That depends on how often he thinks you'll save in 3NT. Hehe... Nah, he knows he is in danger of being X'ed. Look how triggerhappy the crowd is even with ♠Kx onside.

It seems to me that this interpretation of partner's X of 3♠ is somewhat sought. In modern bridge, X is not penalty. What else can partner do but double with a balanced hand with ♠xx and ♦QJx?! Or even QJxx?! Well, surely we don't want him to bypass 3NT!

Double 2NT. Or pass.

4♣ should be choice of games without a clear direction. 5242 for instance. Not 5 diamonds, since we can just bid 4♦ forcing with that.

3♣, but just barely. I have an easy 3♥ over 3♦ as I play it. Perhaps I'm overbidding, but 2♣ and then 3♦ over 2♦ is very soft.

3NT and pass. In 1), a good south would have at least a vague hope of making 3♠ when he bids it vul vs not. Since he can't have much strength, he is very likely to have some shape, perhaps 6♠'s & 4♣'s. My ♠Kx onside is not going to paralyze him - passing is way too scary here.

Don't insult my regular system, please :) The Viking club is fine for MPs, because it's an aggressive system with 10-15 openings, and the competitive and invitational sequences are very strong to cope with the light openings (not hanging partner, but getting in there). It has some flaws in uncontested partscore auctions (1M a.p. or after 2♣ precision), but this is not really a MP problem. I wouldn't dream of changing the system for MP events. All in all I feel these discussions often result in big overthinks. The bidding situation in which I would like to play different methods at IMPs/MPs is a relatively rare bird. The difference is usually a matter of judgement instead, and even that is frequently overthought also IMO.

Which chances are these? Unless there is some kind of two-loser vice (vise?) available, I can't see way to score a diamond trick that doesn't involve leading one to the king. If you're going to do that, it's much safer to do it at trick 3. My plan is to cash clubs, ending in dummy. They will have to discard. At that point I can judge to lead a diamond right away or to cash the majors and then lead a diamond. I think it's quite likely that west will work out to continue diamonds, if he has the A and gets in early. With the clubs in dummy, my ♦ to the K will look very stealish, especially if west happens to have AQx.

I don't like either of these wild tries. Especially not the latter, since we have good chances to score the ♦K later. Are you playing alot against horrible opposition?

Pass, wtp?

Agree with the majority. Finesse RHO if spades are 2-4 Play for drop if spades are 1-5 Finesse LHO if spades are 0-6.

Isn't it bad to start showing suits when you should have a normal 1n-2n-3n sequence? 4NT for me.

My own: 1♥-1♠, 2♠-3♣, 4♠-4NT 3♣ is a trialbid with 5 spades. If p signs off in 3♠, I'll try one more time with 4♣. 6 (1♥-1♠, 2♠-4NT) is not unreasonable. I can't see myself start in any other way than 1♥-1♠, 2♠ since a direct 2♠ would be WJS.

Glad to see that my 4♠ was just right. +420, next board please :).

[hv=d=s&n=skjxxhat3dk92caxx&s=saqtxxhq942da83cx]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] 1♠ - 2NT 3♣ (any min)- 3♦ (=?) 3♥ (♣ single) - 3♠ (limited slamtry) 4♦ (cue) - 4♥ (cue) 4NT - 5♣ 6♠ Lead ♣Q. Trumps are 2-2.