rfedrick

Imps (KO teams), love all. Dealer on your right opens 4♥. [Edit - before anyone asks: double is take-out of course]. [hv=pc=n&e=sk5hkdk652cakq753&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=4h]133|200[/hv] Double? Keeps 4♥ doubled in the picture, but obviously risks a silly result (though partner will not pull without real shape - there's little danger of playing 4♠ in a 4-2) 5C? A little committal? Pass? Interested in opinions (my choice turned out to be sub-optimal).

No

Thanks for the comments. Like the majority here, I bid 5D, with some misgivings.This went for 1100 (against 650) when LHO turned up with a strong NT (including Qxx of diamonds) and partner contributed a distinctly unhelpful Qx Q9xx xx xxxxx.

4S is normal, something like a 4-8 count with lots of shape (this is from a strong teams match, it's not BBO).

[hv=pc=n&s=s32hj2dakj9432ck2&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=1s(4-card%20Major)p4s]133|200[/hv] xx Jx AKJ9xxx Kx, 4th in hand at teams, NV vs V. (Opps are 4cd M / weak NT).

So RHO didn't have ♥9xx then.

Good hand for the weak NT in our match. 1NT-(P)-2H-(P) 2S-(P)-P-(3C) AP ATB.

Well, 3NT would have shown two spades and five hearts, and anything else would super-accept spades. Which of those is better than a 3♠ bid? Obviously 2NT has huge flaws (as does everything else), but once you've chosen it you can't start doublecrossing partner by unilaterally inventing system on the hoof.

I'm interested in how people check on Aces in no-fit auctions (i.e. with no keycard available). This weekend i co-perpetrated this disaster NORTH (DEALER): ♠AQJxx♥AQxx♦x♣AKx SOUTH:♠Kx♥xxx♦AKQJ10♣xxx Our auction is unimportant (it was partly artificial so not particularly illuminating) but a point was reached where North had shown precisely 5413 20-21. South loved his source of tricks but had no way of checking if we were off an ace and so settled for 6NT. I'm interested in how people (playing essentially standard methods) would bid this after starting 1♠-2♦; 2♥-? (or 3♥ if you prefer). Thanks.

Part 1 2nd in hand, you hold ♠-♥AKxx♦K9xx♣AK10xx RHO opens 2♦ (weak); what's your choice? [you are at red, playing pairs, if it matters] Part 2 Having chosen 2NT in part 1 (if you find that morally repugnant, please just follow the usual formula, i.e. you have been called in to fill in for someone who has left the table mid-auction for some sort of emergency), the auction continues (no interference) (2♦)-2NT-3♥ 3♠-4♥ ??? Partner's sequence is defined as 5-5, non-forcing but with slam interest (he can show three tiers of major 5-5: game only, this one, and slam-force) What is your choice now?

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=sk10xxhj10xxxdkxxcx&s=saqxxxhaxdaqxxxca]133|200|Scoring: IMP (3♣)-P-(4♣)-X; (P)-4♥-(P)-4♠; AP[/hv]

[hv=d=e&v=n&n=skxxxhajxdxxxcxxx&w=sqxxhqxdkqj10xcqjx&e=sajh9xxxdaxxck10xx&s=s109xxhk10xxdxxcaxx]399|300|Scoring: IMP 1NT-3NT-AP ♠10-x-2-J (2 = UD Att) club to J club to K and Ace spade...[/hv]

♥Q, not close.

7-board swiss teams, game all, team-mates are +680 so your choice will swing 26 imps. Two affable gentlemen bid 1♦-1♥; 1♠-6♠ and you have to lead from xxx xxx J QJ10xxx.

true, but your construction requires a very precise hand for declarer (he needs the spade 10, and exactly ♦Q9). Moreover, unless he also has the ♠2 (and remembers not to burn it on the first two rounds), he has to choose between the end-play and the simple heart finesse, a choice i would expect him to get wrong.

The rather formal, 1950s-sounding English makes me think that this is just a hand lifted from an aged textbook (Reese?). If it's not, and this deal really occurred in the last 48 hours, I apologise sincerely. Anyway, i play a club (necessary if declarer has eg AQJxxx AQJ Qx Ax).

I can't say for certain (i was East on this deal), but i strongly suspect that for the pair in question that would be the GSF. Which doesn't necessarily mean it's the wrong bid, of course.

[hv=d=e&v=b&s=saxxhdakxxxcakxxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] (2♥)-X-(4♥)-4♠; (P)-? Do you move? If so, how?

Like almost everyone here (kudos to Phil and the other doubters) I bid 4NT and thought it ws automatic. Partner had K AKQ10x AKQx Qxx and felt that he had far too many extras to bid only 5♦. The opponents gratefully cashed their two bullets and we were -100. Partner gently suggested that Pass/4NT described my values rather well; I gently suggested that there were far too many hands that which he wouldn't be able to reopen, but that we should still be bidding 5m, to make Pass sensible. We both agreed the other had a fair point, and moved on without really achieving a resolution. Comments?

[hv=d=w&v=b&s=sxhxdj98xxxck10xxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP (2♠)-X-(4♠) to you. If it matters, RHO is a very strong player, LHO less so but solid.[/hv] It's possible that i should really be posting partner's hand as the problem, but i'll see what the consensus is this way round first.

If I was trying to show any medium 4441 (mini-Roman), I would agree. But I have two anchor suits, the majors. Opening this pattern 2♥ has worked very efficiently for me in the past.

Because as soon as you remove the option you know you will pick up ♠ KQ109xx xx Axxx x, Vul in 2nd?

No blame. (I marginally prefer X = 2ptp, but we'd get to the same contract). Apart from the fact that it presumably happened to go off this time, what's wrong with getting to 4♥?

If declarer has K8x Q1098xxx xx x then you are right - a third diamond is as good as the ♠9 for -2. (Indeed, the Ace or 2 of ♥ also are good enough for -2.) But the ♠9 uniquely gets -3 when partner has the stiff ♥10 and declarer has K8x Q987xxx xx x. BUT... if partner has the ♠K (declarer holding eg Qxx Q1098xxx xx x) then the third diamond (or club then third diamond from partner) is required to get -3, a spade switch (any spade) is only good for -2. if partner has the ♠K AND the stiff ♥10... i leave that as an exercise for someone else, as i'm going to watch the football now. it's a good problem.

No, I want to use 2♥ to solve a bunch of 4441 problems. For example, playing our particular T-walsh variant, a 4414 15-count is impossible to show after 1♣-1♠ since a 1NT rebid would be 11-13 balanced. And, a 4441 (stiff club) 12-count is awkward if (i) 1♦ is supposed to '5+ cards unbal' and (ii) even if you do open it 1♦ then you need to mangle the 1♦-2♣ structure to cope, and (iii) 1♣ is supposed to be 'clubs or balanced, 2+ cards' so opening it 1♣ is not ideal either. There are other situations too, all of which i currently solve in various ugly ways but would all be neatly sorted by a 2♥ opener = 44'14' 11-16 (or 44'05' 10-13). 4441 hands are a pain, everyone has to do something to deal with them. This is just my version of the problem.