effervesce

I blast 5♦. The hearts aren't good enough for a fit-jump.

Pass.

I bid 2♠ - help suit game try.

If undiscussed then I'm assuming weak, 4S, no penalty pass- no preference for a suit (assuming XX was penalty interest).

5NT, pick a slam.

A general rule I live by is one balance is usually enough. I think pass (or double, top or bottom bridge) is clearcut here. I think bidding 4♦ is awful. Since it's MPs double is quite reasonable. No 2♥ rebid but bidding 3♥ over 3♦? Hmmm... the bidding does look really suspicious. Do you know the opponents? Sounds like they're in a 5-2 fit.

First time I saw someone not doubling the declarer with more points than him it stroke me as odd too. Then I started observing what happens in those cases, and it turned out that it really isn't a winning habit. Funny thing is, doublers don't care when it doesn't work, they just brush it off as they think they did the right thing just because everyone they know does the same. From my experience playing a 11-13 1NT, a penalty X is an essential part of defensive bidding against it. The gains from the weak NT stem from a preemptive effect on the opponents when its their hand. The main loss from the weak NT is when you go for a number. Without a penalty X, this main problem playing a weak NT vulnerable is removed and thus makes playing a weak NT much more attractive. I've had more than a few hands go 1NT - (all pass) when the opps are cold for game. Without a penalty X with strong balanced hands, how will the +200 from NV weak NT openers compensate for your cold vulnerable game? Partner's not likely to bid with a balanced hand with 12 pts or less or so... A penalty double is I think essential against a weak NT. Without it, your bids have a much less defined upper limit, and lets your opponents get away with murder.

I'd love to play a weak NT system against opps who pass 18 counts after a 1NT opening.

One of the problems I think with playing it as takeout is if the opps psyche their short suit after 1NT - (X). Eg, with x QJT987 xxx xxx opposite a weak NT, its pretty likely the opps have game in spades. After 1NT - (X) - 2S, playing takeout doubles makes things pretty interesting... A more practical example is after 1NT - (X) - 2C, which many would bid on 2 clubs and a balanced hand. Playing takeout doubles you're less likely to nail them.

an understanding partner. If you pass this you'd want an understanding partner...

Looks like an obvious 1♠ to me. Pass and 2♠ are completely wrong. 1A, 2K, void heart, 6 card suit... what more do you want?!

Since you're posting this in adv/exp its quantitative. If you posted in beg/int it would be RKCB.

A queen more and I would reopen. But I pass with this hand.

Totally north's fault. North has two tricks for partner, who has forced to game opposite a possible 0 count. Aces are almost never a waste, and you should not consider an ace opposite a singleton to be wasted values, especially after partner has shown slam interest. The ace of diamonds is a great card to have given the splinter. When looking for slam, it's about covering partner's losing tricks. The ace of diamonds covers any possible diamond loser partner has, and the club Q will solidify partner's holding in that suit.

no, not quite good enough for me. Put the ace in another suit and i'll bid 1S.

I'm bidding 4♥. No wasted honors, and you're vul. Yes, alot of hands are not making 4♥, but there are quite a few which do make too. Agree that this shouldve been opened 1NT.

We play cuebidding 1st/2nd round controls, 4m here would be initially considered a cuebid for hearts. The problem with cuebidding 4♦ is that partner does not know whether it is shortage or an A/K. Cuebidding 4♣ is perhaps best, but I was thinking along the lines that 6♥, in a sense, shows a hand that does not think that keycarding would be helpful, as otherwise I would bid a slower route. Looking at the north hand, I think the north hand should be able to infer that the 6♥ bid should have the A spades, and first round control in both minors, otherwise surely south would bid something else. The auction might then go 4♦-4♠-4NT-5NT showing even keycards and a void, but then the grand depends on which suit south is void in....

WTP 4♦, pass 4♠.

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sxhqj9xxxdkxxckqx&s=sat9xhakxxxdcaxxx]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] South opened a strong (precision) 1♣, west bids 2♠, 3♥ from north GF, pass by east... I simply blasted 6♥ as south, all pass, as I thought I wouldn't get useful information from bidding 3♠ (which does not agree hearts), or 5♦ exclusion, or by keycarding, etc.

2NT for me too. Playing precision the 2NT rebid should show a good 6 carder, maximum hand, no-trumpyish with outside stoppers. 2♥ and 2♠ are gross underbids playing precision.

Not when vul - I'd bid when NV though - slightly less likely to get nailed if they have a fit.

2♦ was obvious the first round. I X on 2nd round - the hand is quite good with decent defense - sure there's the risk they're making but there's also a decent chance they get nailed for 300 or so, or we get a decent sac in 5D/5H.

Damn, I thought all BBOers were chronic overbidders - nobody calling for a 2NT bid? 2D does seem a slight underbid IMO - how does partner to go on and bid with a 15-16 count. I'm divided between 2D and 2NT, but as a junior I suppose I'd have to bid 2NT - have to maintain the reputations of juniors you know :D

We need an amazing number of cards to make slam. I'm definitely not bidding 4♥ - I'm bidding 4♠ instead. The heart values are so much of a waste - i'd only have bid 4♥ if we replaced them with a heart A or a singleton heart with the values elsewhere. In fact with this particular hand I'd have simply bid 4♠ on the previous round rather than have bid 4♣ - the heart wastage is terrible and shape so-so. Partner is likely to have 3-4 hearts if having the values which could make the partnership have slam as otherwise partner would have either bid or made a t/o double with fewer hearts. If partner has 4, heart lead, heart ruff.

Surprised nobody went for 4♦. Definitely prefer 4♦ over 5♦. I'd still open 1♦ though-only at this vul however.