kayin801

It definitely works on this auction and overall I like it, but does it get messy on some auctions where double fits exist and we might be looking for slam in a different strain? For example: 1♠-2♣ 2♦-2♠ 3♣-3♦ (maybe responder has Kxx, AQ, Kxxx, QJxx or some such, idk) Is 3♦ natural confirming the double (triple?!) fit or showing a minimum hand here? It could be that there are less auctions like this where it's confusing (to me) and more where it is useful though.

No bidding by the opponents: 1♥-2♣ 2♠-3♠ 4♣-? 1♥ was limited to 15 pts 2♣ was GF balanced or clubs With a balanced GF and 4 spades we would respond 1♠ to 1♥, so 3♠ should show an unbalanced hand. 4♣ = ?

Heart limit with 4+ spades that got better with diamond fit, like AJxx, Kxx, Qxxx, xx or thereabouts. I wouldn't look into this too much.

Agree with 655321, declarer might have jump shifted (keyword: MIGHT) with a 4 card diamond suit, so a diamond doesn't look right, and with 7 solid hearts and AK of diamonds declarer would likely have opened 2♣. I went through pretty much every card but a low spade or heart here trying to figure out what to do, nice problem.

No, but change any card to a spade and yes. Yes, and I didn't think it was close o_o Yes

North should be shot for not bidding keycard earlier and letting South find such a ridiculous bid as 5♦. RE: most recent discussion, we've definitely set spades as trumps, having the double fit in hearts is just icing on the cake.

Declarer's situation looked like this: [hv=n=sqxxxhxxd98cjxxxx&s=shakjxxdakqj10xcak]133|200|[/hv] so the contract was cold on any lead or reasonable line, even on a trump lead, but I was just curious of the general idea of "what to lead" on an auction like this. The traveler for this was hilarious btw. Two other pairs in 7D, both going DOWN 1, a handful of 6D make 6 or 7, a 5D and a 3NT making, and a 4S (miscommunication) N/S down 1 (well played!)

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=saxxxxhxxxdxxxcxx]133|100|Scoring: MP P-(P)-P-(7♦)-AP[/hv] Righty is vaguely sane. Your lead? Is it any different if a small spade is instead a small heart?

Preemptors who bid twice deserve to be punished

Benito's Rule.

I mean, I bid 2NT at the table and it worked out (they inexplicably gave me a spade trick when dummy had Q98, but I could have also hooked in clubs for the Q through the Xer cause spades were 4-4) but I was just unsure if anyone had a huge aversion to 2NT given the likeliness of a spade lead through *cough* strength against 3NT.

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=sxxhak10dak98xca109]133|100|Scoring: IMP P-(P)-1♦-(X) 1♥-(P)-?[/hv] Only 2nd time playing with this partner, and have had no bridge discussion with them.

low ♠ in tempo unless righty suspects I underlead aces against slams, then ♠A.

1♠, only cause 2♣ and 4♠+ are wrong.

I know I want to make a takeout double so partner leads towards my spades if LHO ends up declaring!

Yeah I'll overtake! 2 ways to win: - partner had singleton ♦K - LHO believes partner has singleton ♦K and ruffs high giving partner trump promotion I put a handful of things beyond BBO experts, but I don't think any of them would believe you'd bid only 3♦ with a 9 card diamond suit headed by the A Edit: ... I hope

Sombrero +1, 2C -> 2NT

Partner has 4-5 spades, likely. At IMPs I'd just let it go but at MP I'd consider a X. I don't think partner is ever gonna pull our X here, but I'm okay defending with 2 aces. Partner will pass, lead their stiff, and likely score a couple of ruffs and a natural trump trick or two, hopefully.

With 4-6 in the blacks and weak wouldn't you rather bid a nf (assuming it is nf) 2C over 1D-X, given RHO ostensibly has the spades? I guess with something like AQxx, xx, x, xxxxxx 1S makes sense.

Without discussion I actually took it as forcing. How do you handle a GF black two suiter otherwise? My partner held AQ10xx, Ax, x, AJ109x. Is X really the right bid there? 3♥ looks super messy, as does starting with XX or 2♣. Edit: Maybe to rephrase the problem, is 3♣ forcing here: [hv=d=w&v=n&s=saq1073ha5d9caj1095]133|100|Scoring: IMP (P)-1♦-(X)-1♠ (2♥)-P-(P)-?[/hv]

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=s10984hakq10754d83c]133|100|Scoring: IMP (1♠)-P-(P)-?[/hv]

1♦-X-1♠-2♥- P-P-3♣ Is 3♣ forcing? 1♠ was forcing.

When you get a little older, it will be "oh, no WORK today". You can retaliate and ask "no hospital today?" :lol: "I thought they only let people out of the nursing home on weekends." (I would never say that but I won't say it hasn't crossed my mind)

In my partnership 4♠ would be RKC and 5♥ looks like it's asking for a club control. Both of those bids make me cringe a little, but not as much as pass. I guess I'd try 4♠ and bid 6 if partner shows 3. If partner shows 2, oh well. If RKC must be 4NT I can't bid it cause 5♠ seems like a typical response for when partner has a min for his bid. I thought andy-h's 1741 hand was a good example hand of what we DON'T want, but it seems awfully pessimistic to me to expect it most of the time. I mean, I would bid 4♥ with, say, Axx, KQ10xxxx, QJx, - too, and that has a whole bunch of wasted values. I also don't fully agree with the logic that partner's bid is more likely if he has spade shortness (see previous hand). I would be more inclined to believe LHO has club length instead of spade length given the pass of 1♣ where more people nowadays stretch to respond to partner's 1♣ opening without tolerance.

Well that'll teach you to stare at a lady's hand. For shame. I play big club with my regular partner, which, playing at a regional last weekend, led to this exchange: My partner: His 1♣ opening promises 16 or more points and says nothing else about his hand. Me: His 2♦ response promises blahblahblah. My RHO: Is that even legal?! I'm going to ask the director after this hand!