CSGibson

Depends on the day and partnership. I don't have strong feelings about this personally, but when I was tracking preempts, I found that preempting hands with 1 flaw was a big winner, and preempting hands with 2+ flaws was a big loser when I preempted 1st & 2nd seat. In my limited study of my own results, flaws were counted for bad suit quality/unusual suit length, outside first round controls (aces or voids), and outside 4 card majors. I consider the bad suit and the void to be two flaws in terms of preempting, so I might be able to talk myself into passing, despite my natural inclination to bid.

2♠. I think its a max for the bid, though, and if I were playing precision or another light opening system it would be a 3♠ call.

to me, all three aspects of the game are important, but especially cardplay. Bidding is subjective, a good bidder may be punished on a particular layout, etc. Cardplay is rewarded on every hand, including having opponents start to get more cautious when you start setting them multiple tricks in their tight games. Don't get me wrong, I don't think you will be truly successful without all three aspects of the game firing away at a high level, but I don't think you can really be a good bidder without being a good player of the cards - you have to be able to visualize some of the play in the bidding. Likewise, you have to have a minimum amount of skill bidding to understand the opponent's auction, and the inferences available for opening lead. I think that is a severely underrated area - I have a partner who usually takes about a minute to select an opening lead, its because she is visualizing the hands, and voila, she leads extremely effectively.

It really depends on partnership style. If we make aggressive doubles in the direct seat, I am much less likely to balance with 2N - but my inclination is to balance with 2N anyway given that we are red, they are white, and it is teams. If the colors were reversed, I'd be much more inclined to pass. I think it is a very close decision.

First of all, if someone plays suction like you described, they are not playing it well. Richard (Hrothgar) explained the best (only?) way to play this convention effectively. 2nd, there is no responsibility to explain forcing. Think of transfer bids over NT - you explain transfer, you don't need to explain that you must complete the transfer. Suction is similar. Also, you only explain what the bid shows, not what it requires from partner.

Actually, a real suggestion might be bidding 5♠, over which partner might very well bid 6♦

tell your partner that you misread the hand, and want to talk to him about it later. Jot down what you are thinking in your scoresheet for easier recollection later. If your club allows it, actually take the board after it is finished and go over the hand after the session at the club.

6♥. Mostly because I think I can make 6 hearts opposite most hands with 10-11 HCP outside of spades, and on some hands with even more spade wastage, but also because there is a chance it would push them to saving even when it is wrong to do so.

[hv=pc=n&s=skj2h2dqt432ck932&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=ppp1c1hd2h3sp]133|200[/hv] This is how I understand your problem, in an easier to read format, I hope. First, I would not have doubled playing standard methods where X implies exactly 4 spades. I would have bid 2C. I don't think it is possible for me to extricate myself from this mess. I bid 4S, and hope the moysian is right.

2♣. This is about to get competitive, I want to get my suits in.

I am so curious as to who is on this list now. Oh Timo, leaving cliffhangers.... For what its worth, I do the same on Bridgewinners, making sure I "follow" people with a base of knowledge I really respect. Frequently this means that they have won a national championship (or I know them in real life and want their opinion), but I add and subtract from the list as I see fit based on their other postings.

Partner has a max 1♠ call and no interest in defending diamonds. 3♠ would just be competitive, so this is a game try. I accept.

Maybe not overall, but when declarer has more guesses than defense, then double-dummy will favor declarer, and vice versa. when declarer has KJ combinations, double dummy will more likely favor declarer than single dummy play. When declarer has his choices restricted, double dummy play will probably favor the defense more. It will tend to average out, but it does not mean that it cannot favor declarer over defenders for specific hand types.

It would surprise the heck out of me. 4+ card suits have the ability to take tricks without using extra HCPs - ie, the length makes them a threat, not just the honor cards, though, of course, you need honor cards in the suits to win a tempo war. They also restrict defender's choices, and sometimes become essential in the endgame via squeezes and throw-ins, much more so than 3 card suits.

I altered your line of play somewhat because I was ammused that you went for the endplay rather than the simple 100% finesse.

Follow-up - how convinced are you that partner is 6-5 or better, as opposed to just cue-bidding a heart control?

[hv=pc=n&s=saj98h6dkj73cat84&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1dp1sp2hp3d(game%20forcing)p3hp3sp5dp]133|200[/hv] Playing with a good partner, but without good agreements about what 5♦ means. Cross-imps on BBO, playing against an expert pair.

X is standout. You can convert 3♥ to 3N, and it shows tolerance for majors by doubling first.

If we were to adjust, we would have to say that bidding on was suggested by the break in tempo, and we would typically do that by saying that the break in tempo showed that partner was thinking about bidding because of extra values. Here, it is clear that overcaller was not thinking about bidding because of extra values or a decent fit. Therefore I think he has demonstrated that for this player, his break in tempo does not suggest bidding on, and advancer can do as he pleases.

No adjustment. East has the worst possible hand for his bid/this action, it is clear he was not thinking of bidding on, therefore bidding on is not suggested opposite this player's hesitation in that situation.

This is really absurdly easy. South bid normally but aggressively, North bid abnormally and aggressively, opening an aceless 4-3-3-3 11 count for no good reason, and then confirming the opening hand with the 1N bid. The only interesting thing about this problem is the OP, who asked for opinions, then argued with the opinions that he got in a fairly defensive manner, which makes me think that he decided to post this hand to prove a point to partner, then was shocked when it was his decisions coming under fire.

I don't see why everyone is assuming they will bid 4S over 4H. They are vul, opener was 3rd seat, partner made a strong call and we have two aces. If they do bid 4S, I'm going to X, partner can remove or not as appropriate, but I'll bid 4H now.

What happened on the actual hand is largely irrelevant - partner had xxx of spades, and opener had AJTx, so 4S was very wrong, but I don't feel that has as much bearing on the problem, since partner didn't actually have a hand worth reopening on opposite a passed hand. Mostly I wanted to see if anyone else thought that this was worth bidding on, or what they thought of the earlier auction to check my own judgment in a more typical situation.

I wasn't going to concentrate on that, I didn't think it was the interesting part of the bridge problem.

Vulnerability is right, these opponents don't typically play in the UK :)