MFA

Automatic 4♠. There is play opposite ♠KJxxx and slam is too unlikely.

3♠, 4♠ in a Friday night rubber B) . I don't like 1♠. We have so many tricks on our own that we'll desperately want to bid again (over 4♥ for instance). The slow route will only make life easier for the bad guys.

I prefer to underlead Q > K >> J > A. I tend to be very active. Underleading aces is for specific situations only. Axxx with (balanced?) strength in dummy and a fair chance of partner having a doubleton, for instance. In general I hate laying down aces. Maybe I hate that just too much ... :) I much prefer to lead from a king than from a jack. Leading from a jack tends to require 2 honours with partner to be right. But curiously, I will almost always resolve a QT guess against a mediocre opponent by playing for him to have lead from the J rather than from the K, so perhaps it's just me. B)

I played like this with a previous partner. Made it much easier to find the correct defence on several hands when splitting high/low in 2nd hand. This is what I play.

Your method looks correct. I believe that you need H:1 here (only 1 way to have J10 doubleton :)), which would give only 700 instead of 4900. We both may have made some more mistakes which would explain the difference in our results. The H:7 was deliberate, allowing for any ♥Jx lead. Of course questionable, but since we don't know about bidding etc., I felt it was better to include it.

If a heart 4-3 looks fine and a diamond 4-3 or spade 5-2 does not, I could easily bid 2♥ on 3. 2♠ only with a good suit.

It takes some counting to determine the best line. A: Mike's line. Works with 3433, 3343, 3253 in west. *. B: OP's line. Works with 3532, 3442, 3352, 3631, 3541, 3451, 3730, 3640, 3550. *) If west has 6 diamonds, we will notice and switch to plan B, which will now clearly be best. So it's a matter of counting. West has "shown" ♥JT (or Jx) & ♦Q so far. The ♥3 in east is irrelevant, it's just a small heart in our eyes, and we know that he does have small hearts. 3433. H:15 (ways to have JTxx), D:21, C: 20. Total: 6300 3343. H:6, D:35, C:20. Total: 4200 3253: H:7, D:35 C:20. Total: 4900. Plan A: 15400. 3532. H:20, D:21, C:15. Total: 6300. 3442. H:15, D:35, C:15. Total: 7875. 3352. H:6, D:35, C:15. Total: 3150. 3631. H:15, D:21, C:6. Total: 1890. 3541. H:20, D:35, C:6. Total: 4200. 3451. H:15, D:35, C:6. Total: 3150. 3730. H:6, D:21, C:1. Total: 126. 3640. H:15, D:35, C:1. Total: 525. 3550. H:20, D:35, C:1. Total: 700. Plan B: 27916. If I haven't made a mistake underway, it's not close. The partial elimination is much better.

I can't see any way home, if east doesn't have ♠AQ doubleton. Given this, I have several possible lines. Draw trumps for instance and play diamonds. He will have to lead a club for me eventually.

Bidding 3NT on (balanced) 6 or 7 card suits has much more going for it than some random 5332. You need some fast tricks, and with 5332 it tends to go too slow for declarer, if the defense finds the weakest spot. Playing 3NT as natural certainly has merit. Personally I do that only if the opponents have bid something, so that there are stopper issues and ruffs to help the decision (and, perhaps, so that slam is more unlikely). Else I play 3NT as a slamtry w/o splinters (shown on 4-lvl). Below 3M bids are game invitational hands - best description. When there is only one in-between bid possible, it's a catch all INV.

The modern style is very wide range overcalls. So this auction is routine ( :P ), invitational of course!

We just have to bid. Partner knows that we might be light here.

I'd pass. It's not like I'm licking my lips or anything, but I feel quite strongly that pass is the percentage action here.

@ SoTired Blaming your partner is IMO the worst possible way to react to a defeat.

3♣ is 5-4, but 3♣+4♣ should then show 6-6? I don't buy that. I think 4♣ should be natural, but not this control-rich hand. Perhaps A, KQ10xxx, -,QJxxxx or something. The actual hand could then bid 3♣+4♣.

Why not just try to forge an agreement about 3NT instead? If you insist: 4♣.

Ah, yes, the tempo paranoia. I strongly disagree with these regulations. Any decent player can learn to signal in tempo (and accept making some mistakes in the process). This you'll have to get used to with ANY signal.

2♠. My methods are that a direct bid shows a weak hand with direction, when responder's action is forcing on the 1NT opener. This hand is ok for me. Pass would not promise values, it could be a balanced 0-count. After opener's escape, take-out doubles and in principle forcing passes to 2♥. This means that responder is allowed to pass out a worthless hand, but responder's pass in a sequence like 1NT - x - xx - p 2♣ - p - 2♦ - p! is forcing.

I do, and it's exactly correct for GCC. http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/play/convchart2005.pdf "Dual message carding strategies are not approved except on each defender's first discard". Wow ... OMG ... well, you're obviously right! Can anybody tell me the logic behind this lunacy?

So overcome them. IMO these mistakes should NEVER happen if you are a serious player. They should not be hard to cut out, just play slower and maintain your focus. Online these mistakes will happen if you're not taking it too seriously which is fine, but again if you are taking it seriously it should not happen. This is SO important! Never is the right word here. As an aspiring bridge player, I read Hamman's book, and this is one of two lessons I will never forget. Don't blow up the easy ones, just don't. Is ok to go astray in a hard problem, but the easy ones... (The second lesson: Move on to the next board) When I lose, I tend to evaluate my own performance. Take a hard look, did you do ok? Board by board. Sometimes the answer is yes, sometimes no. But in a sense I need to know to be able to move on to the next tournament (or session).

I doubt very much that this interpretation is correct, although I don't know anything about specifically the ACBL rules. Normally, only encrypted signals are restricted. For instance, suppose you have a big fit on defense and play standard signals from the hand with the ten of this suit and upside-down from hands without this specific ten. Then only the defense can know what is going on. This is generally prohibited. With your system everything is open to the opponents. I suggest you ask some authority to clear this up.

Suit preference discards ("lavinthal"). It's a huge upside that you can give a statement about a key side suit without having to throw from it.

Double. Get it over with. OK, 2♥ might not be a pretty contract, but this I can live with. 1NT has many ways to lose: - We are too strong - We don't have a spade stopper - We have wrongsided NT - We have wrongsided ♥ - It will be hard to get to a minor suit contract. 2♣ (or 2♦) is not for me. We are toast, if partner doesn't have fit there. But pass is especially bad. This is basically giving up on game, just for avoiding a silly partscore contract? Non ci capisco niente!

It IS (general) bridge knowledge, LOL if you wish. :) This doesn't mean that everybody knows about it. :unsure: There are 3 categories in play here. Agreements. Discussions and partnership experience. Understandings. Jdonn's stayman falls under this. Things you know from analogies or from knowledge about your partner (perhaps you are from the same bridge community?). (General) Bridge knowledge. All the individual stuff, you've read or just know. Common knowledge or not. Examples: A 2♥ overcall could be much more frisky after 1♦-2♦ than after 1♠-2♦. Voids, bad intermediates and side controls are flaws when you preempt. What kind of tactical bids that might work and what kind that have virtually no chance at all. Agreements and Understandings should be declared, Bridge knowledge shouldn't. Bridge knowledge could, however, "promote" to agreements through partnership practice. skaren: Well, this puts it in my first OR third category, doesn't it? jlall: Of course, agree 100%. First or second category, depending on whom you are playing with. jlall: It does - your system is now that 7♦ might not be a void. No problem, partner says so (and includes your history), and you can bid 7♦ as often as you like! (my primary point of the my post) skaren: It's not logical to explain something as a possible psych - they are per definition unexpectable. So what you really are doing is saying that your system is that 7♦ might not be a void. This was my secondary point of my first post. 7♦ "lead directing" is the system, and "void" is the logical conclusion. But as we have learned from Justin's board, it's not the only logical conclusion. So in a scenario with no partnership agreement/experience/understanding, might we not be better off sticking to "lead directing" and let all four players judge the likelyhood of a void, based on their individual, general bridge knowledge? In a sense, my superior agenda is to avoid at all cost calling something "a bluff" if I in any way have seen it coming. Either through agreements, understandings OR general bridge knowledge.

If you really think this is the right explanation, you do not understand (or don't care about) the spirit of full disclosure. I won't even go into whether your definition is legally correct since I don't know, but I certainly feel like it would be dirty and against the spirit of full disclosure (which is the most important principle in bridge). The opponents certainly deserve to know what I might say I want a diamond lead with. Your answers are disappointing, since you don't seem to (be able to?) differentiate between partnership understandings/agreements and general knowledge about bridge. You see, this "phonie void" thing has never come up in my 8years partnership, not even in a post mortem discussion or anything. (To the very best of my recollection). And our style is certainly not to go out of our ways to make inspired bids. So, what do you want me to declare? That I once read a bridge book, in which this happened? That my partner could have read about similar things, since he is a good player? Well, I don't know anything about what he has read. No. The point is that I know nothing more than had I played with Geir Helgemo for the first time ever. Namely that in this situation a good player might have other reasons than a void to make a lead directing bid. I thought of 4, but perhaps there are more. "It's lead directing" is IMO a better way to handle it than "it shows a void ... ooops, he was bluffing". Because my bridge knowledge tells me that partner might not have a void for this bid - with a reasonable likelyhood. Not just that MY p might not, ANY good p might not. Saying "void" implies that this is the extent of my bridge knowledge, and this is much less fair to the opponents, weak or strong, than the general "lead directing". It's not that I in general want to wriggle out of giving proper explanations. Not at all. It just seems to me that you (and jdonn?) are grossly underestimating the readiness to make a non-void 7♦ in this situation, and thus are better off not just saying "void" to the opps. 2 questions to stress this point: 1) How many times have you actually made a legitimate bid with a void on the 7-level? Or even seen it been done? Then compare to the "bluffs"... 2) Why would you not just want to wait and DOUBLE 7♠ instead, if you had a void? I don't want to drag this on forever, but your post was rather insulting about my ethical standards, so I had to answer. :D (Also this whole situation about 7♦ void/not void is very much on-topic).

Just thought of a similar situation from my own partnership. :) A long time ago, my partner doubled 4NT RKC. The opps asked, and I told them that I didn't have a clue - because I didn't! As it turned out, my partner had nothing. No surprise anywhere, no nothing. He just tried to be annoying, ... and it worked! Responder passed the double instead of showing the key cards, and they were completely asea. ;) Not too long after that, he did it again! We hadn't discussed it in the meantime, so I said: "No agreements", but of course I also told them about what had happened the last time. And again, he had zip! So now, our formal agreement is that this double shows ... nothing! We use it from time to time when we think that the opps are apt to [screw up - edit]. We have had no disasters so far but just about a handful of successes. :(