MFA

Clear 2♠. Even when defending is right, partner is unlikely to shift to spades before the post mortem. :D

Leading from xxx is ok. Generelly, I tend to lead aggressively, though.

The 5 is best - the 9 is too expensive. Pard might have HHxx. Is 2♣ really nothing about clubs? The club lead is very unattractive when there is 4+ clubs to the left.

3NT. Pretty clear-cut. Pass is too pessimistic and 3♦ needs to hit a huge fit to gain something noteworthy.

I agree! It is not at all the scoring that makes 3NT so attractive.

3NT.

No. I disagree completely with a procedural penalty. East's double is certainly a bridge bid and could easily have been the choice also without the break of tempo. However, pass is a logical alternative IMO, and thus double becomes illegal. But a procedural penalty is out of bounds as I see it.

I don't care if west is eating a sandwich or not. If he stops to think over 3♣, east cannot double with this hand.

Yes. I play smith too, but I'm extremely aware of this problem and would much rather make a wrong signal than hesitate. (I was not at the actual table :P ). Barring smith is too harsh. Was it Hamman(?) (and later Rosenberg?) who advocated this, but I think that they are overreacting. However, my question is more about whether declarer should be redressed after wrong-guessing the clubs. After all, who takes a significant pause here with the ♣Q before playing small? It was not just a fumble. On the other hand, it's not poker :-) @ blackshoe Of course, west should have solved his problem during the 30 sec. He just didn't :-)

This is a very interesting thread! Suppose you (west) lead a heart against 1NT-3NT. After the usual 30 sec., declarer wins in hand and plays the ♣J towards dummy's Axx. E-W use smith's echo, but west has a tough problem whether or not to encourage a heart continuation. Is it OK for him to take a pause to think with xxx? Well, at least partner had better follow the signal then. But what if declarer has ♣KJ10 and decides to let the jack run? Is he damaged then and entitled to a redress? This situation came up recently. All players around the table were "solid experts - but not close to being world class". - Any thoughts?

So, does anybody bid 4♥ with ♠A5 ♥AQ109542 ♦J972 ♣- ? First seat, all vul.

I also play the NT-rebid as a 15-17NT. In fact all the weak notrumpers I know do that.

Yep. 3♣ now, 4♠ later.

IMO this is the wrong suit to bid 3♣ with. KQJTxx and 3♣ is perfect, but the actual hand is a great dummy for hearts and a bad declaring hand for clubs, if part has a misfit (or even a doubleton club).

North has a clear 3♥. But, sceptic, 3♣?? Don't you trust partner's declarer skills?

Double - very easy. Especially at imps(!). We cannot miss our routine games opposite decent values and a stiff club. Jxx, QJxxxx, Jxx, x. He could have much more. At matchpoints, you might fear the dreaded -200 and sell out. Although i find that too passive also.

So right! Bridge is so difficult that just focusing on the evaluation problems and the card play problems is more than enough. Much of the deep MP talk about percentages and tops & zeros is just useless theoretical babbling. In practice those textbook examples where you need to take an extreme matchpoint decision come up much less frequently than people realize. Play tight/aggressive (as in poker? :rolleyes: ) and be sure not to get mentally disturbed about bad boards. This is actually much harder to accomplish in MPs because these tourneys tend to be more hectic to play than IMPs due to the frequent shift of opponents.

2♠ is natural of course. What else should it be? D+♠ and 1♠ overcall are both ok, I think. My partner and I love to bid the opponents' suits. Try this one from last Sunday: (1♥) - pass - (1NT) - pass, (pass) - 2♥! - (pass) - 3♥!!, all pass. 9 tricks. (No, 1♥ wasn't bluff :-))

2♥ is a standout. Bidding diamonds first should be reserved for hands with a much worse heart suit than the actual KQ10x.

Partner seems to want a ♦-shift (the small club), so I'll try that. Usually, declarer is 5431 or 5341 and we need to play his trebleton. But as Jlall says, partner should not request a diamond with ♥Qxx and ♦KJx. However, he might have taken his eyes off the ball, as our actual shape is a big surprise when we didn't negX. He might for instance be hoping for ♦1087x and a spade entry (+♥J if declarer is cunning enough to duck the ♦-shift). In the end, I trust pd to have got it right and thus play a small diamond.

5♣, good raise to 5♦. Then pd can look at his hand. 4M would be natural.

I like to show value concentration that potentially fit a broken suit but misfit a singleton. That is AKJ, KQx, or even Kx(!), but not Axxx. 2NT shows max with no such suit, 3M is all minimum superaccepts. Responder's new suit after a superaccept is a splinter! Below game just a game try until told otherwise. However I do play retransfers, so 3M is a gametry with shortage in the suit just below. I agree that the primary purpose of super accepts is to help constructive bidding. So often responder needs 4 card support to be able to move past 2M to look for game.

3NT. Bridge is easy :)

FrancesHinden's post makes good sense. Clear 1♥ opening. Clear 3♣ response to 2♣. Why didn't responder support diamonds with 4♦ instead of that silly 3♠?

A reopening double is fine. Adequate support for all suits. I don't understand 2NT=minors, since hearts could easily be our best strain. 2♠X is also possible, although partner needs very solid defense to pass. Unlucky that they bid and made 4♠. Good opponents don't need help to bid their vul games, so this outcome really isn't an issue when deciding whether or not to balance.