andy_h

I don't think 2♠ is suggestion of contract with KQJ10xx, or else you might be stuck with 12+counts with 5 spades say KJ109x that wanted to penalty pass but now has a good fit for opener's 2nd suit. Given that opener only bid 2♣ and along with LHO and RHO's silence, I don't think a hand with KQJ10xx and out is likely. Having said that, I blame North much much more on this hand. Really can't stand 2♣ with 6-5 AKAK with a followup of 4♥ misdescribes his hand by miles.

50% slam, nothing to get worked up by. However, what is the strength of 4♥? Any GF? so it could range from 10-17?

How come you left out the vulnerability? It's quite important as certain forcing pass auctions may arise. Anyway, assuming no agreed types of forcing passes or what not, it's likely that partner will have a singleton club so I will bid 5♠. Partner has literally gameforced with 3♠ and I have Axxx support with AKJ9x side suit. 5♠ is just competitive as double would highly suggest defending. This strong of a hand? This is like a 6♣ bid.

You only have 2 cards in each red suit, so unless partner has 6 cards in one of them you won't have a fit there. If partner had 6 cards in a suit he would not dbl twice. So the only chance to have a fit is in ♣. We know that opps can't have more than 8♠, so if we apply the LoTT there are 15-16 TT, if partner has 4♣ and 16-17 TT if partner has 5♣. Without applying further adjustments, bidding 3♣ would only be suggested, if opps have an 8 card fit and partner has 5♣. Sorry, but I'm not a high advocate on the Law of Total Tricks. They can deviate a lot of the times and I only sometimes use them as a general guideline, not something I abide by. Here we know parner has 0-1 spades and usually more often 0 depending on their style of openings in 3rd seat. If we have 9 clubs, dummy could well possibly be short in them enabling ruffs. What makes it worse is that when partner is void in spades he is unable lead trumps at all. You might say forcing declarer would be a good plan but our trumps are so small that declarer could just go on a cross ruff spree. Furthermore, this is imps and basing on what could-be's with the LoTT is like playing with fire. The opponents have also heard that partner has a decent hand and, unless they're 110% sure, why would they double knowing it's imps and would only help the declarer play? Given that it's very rare for them to double, if we only have an 8card fit we still have a chance at making, and if we go down one or two 2♠ might well make. What I don't want is to gamble to defend 2♠X for a frisky 1 off especially at imps. Oh, as to the OP I'd pass 3♥ without thinking twice.

I think if you are passing 2♠X you are resulting. Would partner not double with say a 15 count with a void, like 04(54)?

Pass. 1) No 2) Takeout/values. Much more frequent when the opponents have a 9+fit and you certainly don't want to force to the 5 level unilaterally (if we're short in spades, partner is long in them).

None, not close.

Pass. Axxxx+ ain't great for preempts and there could be chances to be playing in my 2nd suit.

5♥. 8card suit, just gotta.

bluhmerz!

I guess this is sort of true in a sense if you were definitely going to compete to 3♠. However, I guess I don't like that given I'm happy enough to defend at the 3 level but also I want the maximum amount of room to explore if in the offchance partner had the big balanced hand (assuming there was a strong option).

If you wanted to bid on board 1, how come you didn't take a freeshot at 3♣? That way you also let partner in the auction of what's going on rather than you needing to guess later like you did, so you probably felt compelled that you needed to show support. Double fits are nice but with the aid of defensive cards sometimes it's best to defend and take the plus. Defending might be a little hard to grasp but it just might be the last available positive score. This applies to the 2nd board as well - the preempt has done its work and now you hope to defend to take the plus.

Ja, this for sure. Otherwise I would generally pass as I trust partner's penalty double given that it's imps scoring and that he is under declarer. I would pass with 4045 as well. 3♦ is as if there was no 1♠ with a little higher minimum given you can freebid 2♦.

Definitely. Lots of positive factors.

Pass.

4♥. Don't mess around.

Agree with Helene.

Given the bidding agreements, I bid 3♣ if it shows my hand. Long time ago I used to play this style as well and had come to hate it. If your partner prefers 3♣ to be unbalanced just like we have here, then isn't it better if we bid this so he can judge better as he will be expecting 2♠ to be the balanced type.

1. I would rather 2♥. 2. Yes it shows extras. 3. Definitely 2♥.

Given that you have boxed on your hand with 4♥, I'm assuming worse than an average minimum, then this hand should bid 5♦ over 5♣ as our hand is better than a complete junk. It's even more so perfect with a spade and a diamond control.

I have sympathy for double but I prefer 4♣. I like to bid my suits especially when they're 5-5 and that the opponents are known to be conservative.

We're dealer. 1♥-(2♦)-3♣-(P) 4♦-(P)-4♥ 4♦=Splinter for clubs. 4♥=To play or cue?

What ever happened to 4♣ or 4♦ over 3♣ to announce diamond hands? I don't think forcing is the right word, but I would say typically it is a 1534 hand, that is, it is natural and can be passed with diamond tolerance.

Some pairs play 2 over 1 is GF except rebid. This has the added edge that you can get to hear some extra information from opener before rebidding your suit if nothing special happens as opposed to a direct jump like 1M-3x showing the invitational hand. Having said that, that means now with 6+ of your own suit with GF you're usually left with bidding 2NT or possibly the 4th suit which could be awkward. If you happen to used to put your invitational hands into 1NT (semi/forcing) then this way also relieves some pressure off the 1NT. One side note, some people play a gadget where 1♠-2♦ shows 5+♥ and 10+ which also revolves around opener being able to get a 2nd bid in although I don't have any experience in this gadget. Not sure if you were referring to this topic, or the likes of 2/1 GF vs. sayc where 2/1 is 10+ or a 2/1 is only invitational with all GF going through 1NT. If it was the last option I certainly do not like the sounds of it.

I used to read this site a lot back in the school days. It was a good starting point and the rest sorta comes from experience. I was lucky enough to find some friendly players (albeit this was back in the yahoo days) whom I could play with regularly and were able to give me a few tips here and there.