effervesce

I always thought that 2NT showing a bad minor preempt was brown sticker by WBF. And yet it's allowed in midchart in US? The US is bizzare on what's allowed and what's not...

Meh - would have prefered 3♠X to 3NT with your shortage in partner's suit. I'm tired and couldnt be bothered thinking of anything more than J♦ overtaken by A and forcing out the K, hoping for 3-2 diamonds or the stiff 9 or K of diamonds.

To be fair, this is one game I don't mind too much missing. It could just as easily be 4♥-1, and the south hand is a bit borderline. South may have already taken into account that north would probably know that south is short in diamonds (from the bidding) and therefore should not take into that much account the singleton diamond.

Pass. Opps have majority of points, you have a crap suit - the fact that he didn't bid 2♦ over 1♥ but balances with 3♦ over 2♥ may suggest he has heart length too. Your trump quality is a big worry for 3♥X, and lastly the opps may be cold for 3NT anyway.

If the opps never make a doubled contract, you're not doubling enough.

Abstain. Why don't we have some way of showing a semipositive hand with 6M?

Against Italian players I pass; against Australian players I think I have to bid - I'ma X it.

Why didn't I bid 4♣ over 3♠?

Put me down for bidding 3♦, also prefer 4♦ to X, and X over pass.

X, 4♠, 3♦

X and pass. The singleton in partner's suit downgrade advises against inviting to game.

This is pretty close to my ideal system B). Almost identical to the one me and my partner play - just different 1♣ responses, and their 1NT range allows them to play 1D-1M-1NT to show 3 card support.

1. No, if partner had a magical hand with all the necessary controls for slam they would have cuebid instead of 4♠; eg AKxx Ax AKxx Axx is far too good to simply bid 4♠ over 3♠ - 4♣ cuebid is better. 2. I give a positive 3♦. Bidding 2♦ then 4♦ presumably shows fewer HCP. Over partner's hearts bid I raise, over anything else I repeat diamonds. 3. A tough hand to bid without a gadget to show the heart singleton or transfer to minor, bid spades - your given sequence makes it hard for the 1NT opener to evaluate how the hands fit.

2♣, xfer to diamonds. spades too shitty and your hand is all about diamonds.

They all look fine to me at unfav vul.

Technically, given optimal bidding strategies from both sides 4th seat expected to run with a weak hand. Otherwise opps can make a psychic redouble, if passing means doubler has to run unless they have an extremely good hand. But practically, this probably isn't the case for most people's agreements.

Why is that simpler than to play first double values, second double penalties, third double penalties? That works too - but then south would have to stick with the agreement. Either south bids over 2♠, or takes out partner's penalty double via 2NT - which south did not do on this particular hand.

South's 1NT call is completely normal - most of the hand's values lie in hearts, and certainly 'looks' like a 1NT bid. Agree north should pull to 2♦ - from experience after pard responds 1NT, and we have a 5 card minor and a void, rebidding the minor is almost always better than playing 1NT. Almost certainly won't reach 5♦ though - will probably stop in 3♦.

I tried the pass strategy once with a good hand, assuming that the opps wouldn't pass 2♦. It didnt work, they were down in 2♦ but we missed our cold slam. and your point is what? That the partner of the 2♦ bidder may pass anyway if he thinks we have game, whether he has diamonds or not. Do you really think 1NT-(2♦) - p - (p) means that the 1NT opener is forced to bid or X? No, but what is wrong with defending 2♦ undoubled with your hand in this thread? Fair enough, on this hand passing may work out as its unlikely that you have game. But 4♥ _may_ be cold on this hand. But a much simpler way is to play first double values, second takeout, third penalties.

I tried the pass strategy once with a good hand, assuming that the opps wouldn't pass 2♦. It didnt work, they were down in 2♦ but we missed our cold slam. and your point is what? That the partner of the 2♦ bidder may pass anyway if he thinks we have game, whether he has diamonds or not. Do you really think 1NT-(2♦) - p - (p) means that the 1NT opener is forced to bid or X?

Looks like we're screwed already - the probable best game was 3NT (actually, probably the opps playing 3♥X). Anyway, now I bid 4♠, as unfortunately 4NT won't be to play. One might decide 6♦ since you may be up for a bottom unless you can make 6♦.

1♥-(1♠)-2♦ 3♥-4♣ cuebid 4♦ cuebid - 4NT 5♠ - 7♥ looks reasonable. I think that West should rebid 3♥ given pard's 2♦ bid makes the hand much better than minimum. AK diamonds, A spades is all that is needed to make 6♥ odds on. I prefer cuebidding 4♦ with the west hand, showing a top honor in pard's suit (never shortage), allowing east to count 13 tricks after keycarding for hearts. The 3♠ bid by east was ambiguous - as the resultant auction clearly showed, west didn't think it agreed hearts. 4♣ would be much easier to read as a cuebid for hearts.

I tried the pass strategy once with a good hand, assuming that the opps wouldn't pass 2♦. It didnt work, they were down in 2♦ but we missed our cold slam.

I think you should have opened this nice hand (especially at MPs) 1♥. But anyway, back to the topic - 2NT since pard didn't open 2♦. I think I read somewhere else that the Pearson point count/Casino count in practice has almost no applicability - it sounds good, but the whole having the boss suit mentality is overrated. If the hand looks like an opener, it should be opened. This hand is definitely worth an opening bid, thus should not be passed.

The problem here is that not playing 2/1 1♠-2♥-3♥ is only invitational, and 4♥ feels all wrong. My partner and I would rebid 2N (in our style GF and not necessarily balanced) intending to follow with 3♥ with a 5323, but be somewhat stymied by the 3♠ bid. We'd be better placed than some, in that we'd bid 3♣ rather than 3♠ with a 3523 so 3♠ would show 4 of them. Alot of standard players play that sequence as forcing as its much more useful than simply invitational. One useful rule is to agree that major suit agreement at 3 level is game forcing. This gives you some of the benefits of a 2/1 approach.