rogerclee

4♠

LOL

I would bid 4♣ anyway given these two options.

If I had to bid 3N to show this hand, I would bid 2♦. If I could bid 2N to show this hand, I would do that.

Looks like RHO is probably 2353 (giving LHO is 5512), though this line will make on any possible remaining distribution. Cash the ♣A, overtake the ♠K, and play the ♠Q. If RHO ruffs, overruff, and elope my low diamond. If RHO doesn't ruff, pitch my club and play another spade; if RHO follows again (or pitches again), I ruff low and claim, and if he ruffs, that means he has another club, so I also claim. In my opinion you could reuse this hand as a defensive problem for east. It seems he defended incorrectly at the table.

Yes, 4♥.

In a Walsh context, you would respond 1♠. This might be a system loss but it's unclear to me.

I wouldn't bid 4♥ with the north hand over 4♦ (too good), and so I'd bid 4♠, and after that I would get to only 6♣.

Here's a link to a scheme I just wrote up over the sequence 1♣-1♦ 2NT for Walsh style responses to 1♣. It's a little rough and I'm sure can be improved. I've attached a link to a simplified version, since I think the full version is not very useful. http://www.its.caltech.edu/~rogerlee/walsh2.txt

I don't know about "a lot of people", I rebid 2N because it describes the most important feature of my hand (18-19 balanced) to my partner while not describing my spade holding to my opponents, it rightsides a likely 3N contract, and partner can always ask about my spades if he wants to. In addition to this over 1♦ it allows me to bid 1♠ to promise 4+♠ and 5+♣, which is very useful for both choosing the right game and slam bidding. In fact I think you have it backwards, getting passed in 1♠ is a benefit, I would usually rather play 1♠ than 2NT if partner has nothing. In fact, I thought this was "a lot of people's" reasons. Anyway on the actual hand I agree with forcing to game and would end up in 3NT, sorry partner.

6♥

I'd guess partner is 3055. Without the ♦AK, slam isn't good unless the ♥9 comes down, which it probably isn't, though slam is probably making if partner has something like ♠Axx. Even if partner has the ♦AK we are far from home in 6♣. I'd settle for 5♣.

1NT

You don't, south should pass 2♦.

I'm not a bookmaker, but I think it's partnership terrorism to invent a transfer that has not been agreed beforehand. 4♥ should be natural and probably only show 4 cards since long ♦ + four ♥ is a likely hand type opposite. I think it's strange that you think 4♦ showing hearts is partnership terrorism, but 4♥ showing 4♥+m is normal (or that it is even a good agreement with discussion).

I think that if 6♥ were unambiguously a try for 7♠ with no first round club or diamond control, it would be rather obvious to bid it. Maybe partner wouldn't always get it right (as in your example), but partner would certainly bid 7♠ making a lot more than 7♠ down 1, and I think the extra information to the opponents (so they will beat 6♠ after 6♥-6♠ but not after a direct 6♠) is not worth very much on this particular hand. I agree with your second point, though, and think at the table it is losing bridge to try a bid like 6♥, so now I think 6♠ is better.

3♦!?

4♣, give your opponents a problem. It's true that if RHO is strong with hearts he won't have a problem, but that is a little presumptuous, I would say it's very likely that they have some reasonable heart fit but that it will be unclear to get there after 4♣. I don't understand 3♣, which is unlikely to give them a problem, or 5♣, which is just begging to go for 800.

On the last hand bidding 3NT to "describe your hand" is completely backwards, partner has already made a slam try and we are staring at a fantastic hand for clubs, much better than most minimum balanced NT hands. I would bid 3NT on something like KQx AKJx AKJx Jx which is not very suitable for a club slam unless partner can go on. Here we have a monster (♥ trick source and ♣AQ), and even very minimum hands for 3♣ are likely cold for slam.

I would try with 6♥, seems good enough.

1) 4♥, it's matchpoints and my hearts are fine opposite a singleton. Maybe we can't make a game but I'm never not bidding one, 4♥ seems as good a guess as any. There's some argument for 4♣; good problem. 2) 3♥, easily the best description. 3) 3♣, good agreement to have on this hand. The main point of this is to let partner save intelligently. 4) Double, then bid 2♠. 5) 4♣, let's tell partner that we're interested. I hope to bid keycard eventually, putting us in either 6NT or 7NT depending on what partner says.

I would double if NV at matchpoints, probably not a popular opinion though.

I agree with 655321, North's pass was wrong.

I thought it was an interesting hand/position and didn't particularly care where it came from.

Looks like an easy pass to me, partner has a stiff heart sometimes!