Rossoneri

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=s94hj962dat7cj932]133|100|Scoring: MP P-2♣-2♦-?[/hv] Say 2♣ is your usual big hand bid.

[hv=d=w&v=e&s=sk9hadakj9865cq64]133|100|Scoring: MP P-1♥-3♠-?[/hv]

Pass.

Like some have asked, what's 5NT? 6♦ would be asking ♣K if you play spiral scans I think...

Pass. Can't see a reason to pull this unless there's something special about the double.

... and the best chance to play in 1♥. Actually despite my earlier statement that it is a normal 2♣ we routinely open these hands at the one-level and compensate by responding reasonably light. I didn't mention that earlier since the post was in the SAYC and 2/1 forum. In fact our strong opening is restricted in terms of distribution and our one-level openings are (almost) unlimited in terms of strength. This seems to rarely cost and sometimes gain. I get what you mean Wayne, in fact I try to respond with most 5 HCP hands (and sometimes even 4, if there's a reason to), but unfortunately my partner sticks to 6!

We should have a new constant defined as 42/pi and you know what it should be called!

Interesting, I have heard this often, that being an expert has much more to do with avoiding errors than producing brilliancies. SJ Simon said as much 70 years ago. And even at the elite level, Fred has said that most matches are decided on errors. That is true, and I'd rather much have better card play skills than bidding. I've spent time dabbling with more sophisticated bidding and that didn't work out well. Spending more time on card play has made me a better player than I was. Put it this way, most game contracts can be reached whether you're playing a super scientific system or vanilla SAYC. Would you prefer to bid the game scientifically and then go down because you missed a safety play or elimination play or would you prefer to just have 1M-2M-4M (say) and make the game? How about, consider the fact that a good portion of the time you're not bidding, but you need to defend? That can easily add up to a lot of swings.

Thanks guys, I reasoned that 1♥ might give me better chances to show the 2-suiter but looks like I'm wrong!

[hv=s=skq64hakqt75dcak5]133|100|[/hv]

I'll go with the ♦ as well.

1N seems like the best of the lot if we're not passing.

Well I know from a previous post you are not that keen on the English legal system( insane, I think you said) but there is a bit of a premium on facts and evidence that might be missing from some of this discussion. I'm not sure that being able to rant on a public forum is necessarily a big advance but still get the ducking stool ready. We are going to need it! Quite true. It would probably have been a lot better if the discussion started after all of the facts were established, and the official investigation closed. It is beyond me how having people jumping in and playing judge with half-established facts is beneficial to the situation or to anyone's reputation.

Definitely much better, everyone can be the prosecution, judge, jury and executor.

What do "logical alternatives" have to do with the situation at all?

The first two are suggestive, the last one is just short of putting it in explicit terms.

Pass, pass.

The first two are pretty close to call, especially the second one. But the 3rd is interesting...

Maybe the better statisticians can correct me, but that would depend on your prior belief and the perceived magnitude of the board in question?

2♦, and my partner will tell me off later for being conservative.

Tempted to bid 6, but I'll make do with 5♠

Pass for the 1st, 3♣ for the 2nd.

small ♦.

Well said! Sad but true.

Same. I'll readily admit I won't find 7S.