rogerclee

I would pass, but a higher Shannon entropy would make me feel a lot more confident.

2♥, with double being the closest (and IMO, only reasonable) alternative. On a hand like this, even though the suit is bad, there is just a huge upside to finding a heart fit that we have to take our best shot at it.

I agree with the double, and now I would bid 4NT. I think 4♣ overstates my clubs by a lot, and the hand is not quite good enough to force to slam. I think 5NT is the only other call which has merit, after which I'll pass anything partner bids. Honestly I think it is quite close between the two, good problem.

I don't know if you are asking everyone in general or just Han, but I would even pass vul at IMPs.

I don't know how you can think you have the values for an invitation but the playing strength of a game force. I thought "playing strength" and "values" meant the same thing. But I understand what you are saying, you want a way of saying "I have a very bad game force." This is understandable, but I don't think it is a significant loss for standard bridge. Anyway we are getting away from the point that this hand does not have the values to force to game. Yes game is very good or even cold opposite a good-fitting minimum, that is why we use the magic of probability and consider how often partner has a good fit versus a bad fit.

I wouldn't, but I understand your point. I got into a discussion the other day with someone about opening these kinds of hands 2N or 2♣, and it swayed me to open 2N more often than I did. However, now I think you are right (and that it's quite clear), this hand is just too good, we will routinely miss slam opposite 10-11 counts by opening 2N.

Because plagiarism is frowned upon? got emmm

What does your partnership bid with a 4351 minimum? If the rebid is 1♠, then 3♥ should be this. It would not be correct to think that a 4351 minimum should pass 2♥, game can still be easily on, which responder is now very well placed to judge. The chance that we go down in 3♥ is very low, anyway. If your partnership raises to 2♥ on this kind of shape then this should be a 4252 maximum, willing to go to game but offering 4♥, and now responder is very well placed to judge whether to bid 3N or 4♥.

I do not.

I think that the main problem with playing 4♠ in the 4-3 fit is that they might be worse than 4-2 after this bidding. A 4-2 diamond fit is unthinkable. Partner would be 6520 for that and bid 4♣ in the first place. BTW: I have heard of a player that raised his partners 3♣ opening to 5♣ on a singleton after a double. Both opponents "saw" the club singleton or void in partners hand. Their slam went one off in trick 2 on a club ruff. Sorry I changed my post, since I didn't see that Josh wrote about how infrequent either a 4-2 diamond fit or a 3-3 spade fit is. I don't think I am experienced enough to know with what frequency opponents like to joke around with their 3m-4m auctions. I suspect it is not very high, but maybe it is worth some serious consideration given that we have 4 clubs.

Agree with this post mostly, though this is not how I was introduced to "in and out" evaluation really. It is just a principle that having soft cards in your suits and outside AK's in your short suits is much better than the other way around. Pretty simple. Basically the biggest thing to take away from this hand is that 4333 shape in this kind of auction is very bad, perhaps even bad enough to add one to your loser trick count total.

Agree with this, though I play 2m is a natural signoff. I am not sure what you mean by "partner can pull 2♣ to 2♦"; of course he can do this, but he should be aware that we can easily be 2425.

I agree with Michael, I think bidding 5♦ over 4♥ is better than bidding 4♠ over 4♥. Josh, I don't think the point of bidding 4♠ vs 5♦ is a matter of reaching a ridiculous fit (which will basically never occur, though a 3-3 spade fit is certainly more likely than a 4-2 diamond fit). I think it is usually a case of reaching a 4-3 spade fit by bidding 4♠ or a 4-4 diamond fit by bidding 5♦. I think a 4-4 diamond fit at the 5-level will be better than a 4-3 spade fit at the 4-level.

Agree, Card Play Technique is a better and more entertaining book in my opinion. If you are into textbooks, then Watson might be your thing.

I couldn't bid over 1♦, but I think 3NT is going down. How could I want anything except a diamond?

and the bidding goes 2NT pass 3NT and partner doesn't find the spade lead. :P Or do you have X as conventional for spades?? No, I play a double to ask partner to lead his shorter major. I guess he'll hit the right one anytime he isn't void in spades...... :P Really, I thought it was universal that this asks for a diamond lead in this kind of auction (opener's minor).

This hand is a queen short of being "very aggressive" for leaping michaels.

This looks like a routine 3♥ to me.

Easy 2♠, I would like a spade lead please, partner.

Pass. By the way, I would have bid 4♦ instead of 3♥.

Easy pass.

Partner has a minimum and is either 4-5 or 4-6. Pass!

Josh I am not sure I understand this post. Are you recommending that he not offer to give free lessons because he is just doing it out of spite? I don't get this feeling at all, and I support the endeavor. It seems to me like he just wants to help people out in his spare time and start building a local reputation, which both seem like good things to me. About his qualifications, I have no real idea, but I assume he is good enough to teach from the quality of his forum posts.

I would bid 3♠, it is pretty unlikely that we have game, and this should create a pretty good bidding problem for my opponents if they don't have a heart fit.

2♣-2♦ (or 2♥ negative) 3NT - 4♦ 4♥ - pass