rogerclee

I thought 2♥ natural was normal in this auction.

Agree with the first four, 4SF/NMF would be, I think, the 5th.

Because 3♣ is somewhat more descriptive. If partner bids 3♥ over this you can show your shape, which is impossible if you bid 2♥. If partner bids 3♦, he also knows much more about your hand than if you had bid 2♥. Thus you are making overall a more descriptive bid which can get you to a good heart slam while accepting the risk that partner will occasionally overbid by playing you for a little more. I still haven't made up my mind about 2♥ vs 3♣, but I am not dense and recognize that there are a lot of benefits to bidding 3♣.

I don't, overcalling is taking a good idea way too far. We have shape, but our suit is terrible, and our hand is quite bad.

Adam, I don't know if this will sway your opinion, but when we are 55(12), these are the probabilities that our longest fit is: 7 cards - 0.105 8 cards - 0.428 9 cards - 0.337 10 cards - 0.110 11 cards - 0.018 Of course some of these are minor suit fits, but mostly these numbers will occur because of a major suit fit. From these numbers, I would say that your fears of a misfit might be misplaced.

Why is everything a heart raise? Surely you realize there are problems with giving yourself 5 ways to raise hearts and no bids that mean anything else.

Double. I assume 3♦ did not show values.

I bet even awm would open this hand.

This seems like a routine 3♥ bid to me.

I assume the question is whether or not I should have pulled 4♥x. I would not have. I want to add that I agree that I should have bid 4♠ before, but if partner is telling me he has 4♥ beat, then I would pass.

I would stayman this hand.

Looks like a zero to me :) I think you are being very harsh; I would estimate that stayman is only a small loser (something like a 40-45% action, if passing 1N is a 50% action). I would bid stayman if I were swinging for tops.

Yes, and I said that I think you are wrong, and I wanted you to explain your position more thoroughly. If this is the extent of your view, then...okay.

Because you're going to have a REALLY hard time getting partner to believe you're 5-5? Honestly if you can't systemically bid 3♣ on this hand, you should drop a natural 3♣ rebid altogether and use it as artifical to handle some problem hand. Tyler why is this true? Why should I play 3♣ is artificial because I don't rebid 3♣ on a 5-5 14-count without good suits, a stiff in partner's suit, and a KQ doubleton? I would rebid 3♣ if my hand were slightly better, and of course if you switched my spades and diamonds. Does this imply that I bid 3♣ so infrequently that I should just play it is artificial? But suppose you are right, what hand do you want 3♣ to show anyway, without drastically changing all of my 2/1 rebids? I would like to know what kind of hand you have in mind which is so frequent and difficult to show that I should have no way of showing a good hand with 5 hearts and 4 clubs.

I agree with this, except the blame assignment. North really deserves much more, if not all of it.

1♠, because the auction isn't over yet, and because it's possible partner is strong with clubs.

I would pass. Maybe a double dummy simulator will reveal that stayman is a winner, but I am not really optimistic about my position if partner bids either 2♦ or 2♠.

Yes, agree with this.

I don't agree with this second statement (that it is standard, or that it is logical). Partner's double in the balancing seat is takeout, and I am happy to just defend undoubled if partner doesn't have the values to make a takeout double. Meanwhile, I think it's obvious that if I am 4423 and it goes 1n p p 2♦, I should be able to compete.

1NT was 15+ to 18. Maybe you don't agree with this call (I don't), but the player who made it is certainly a strong player.

For whatever it's worth, I would bid only 3♥. Did the first three posters actually construct a variety of hands that partner would pass 3♥ with? I think you will find that game is usually quite bad, the only times it is good is when partner has a strong diamond holding. If your argument is that we should bid 4♥ to put pressure on LHO, I don't think it will work frequently enough to justify 4♥.

IMPs, All White, Fourth Seat ♠Kxx ♥Ax ♦AKJxx ♣Axx (1♣) - P - (1♠) - 1NT (2♣) - 2♥* - (P) - 2♠ (P) - 3♥ - (P) - ? 2♥ was by agreement, a transfer. What would you bid? The story: 2♥ was alerted as a transfer by agreement, and 3♥ was very slow (indicating that the hand had hearts, not spades). This hand decided to bid 3NT, and a director was called. At the table, this player argued that because of the diamond trick source and sharp values, 3NT was indicated instead of 4♠. The opponents argued that maybe 3NT could be right, but 4♠ is certainly a logical alternative, and so must be bid. The director sided with the 1N overcaller and said result stands. The opponents decided to appeal. Later, the 1NT overcaller says that he had enough information to field that partner could not have 5 spades, since there was no 5-5 or 5-4 majors hand consistent with this auction. However, this was not his argument for 3NT at the table. Is it relevant that the player probably did not think of this until after the hand was played? How would you rule anyway?

Standard is that we can redouble and then bid diamonds to show "balanced" diamond raises, and 2NT to show more distributional diamond limit raises. It's too important to just be able to compete when you have 4 diamonds, and being forced to bid 3♦ everytime you want to compete in diamonds it not very logical, considering that we already have two other strong diamond raises. So 2♦ is just a simple raise.

I would pass. Partner is basically never going to pull this double, given that he couldn't bid over 1♠. I think it's clear that on the set of hands where partner can't double 4♠, we would prefer to defend undoubled than doubled. Therefore, double is not a reasonable call. Is 4NT reasonable? Basically no, our suits are so bad that while we might have a good save, it is definitely not worth the risk, and I would expect to go for either 300 or 500 usually, with -800 and -100 happening sometimes (it's possible that we can make 5m, but it's pretty unlikely). So anyway, this is just a long way of saying clear pass.

North had a 1435 17-count, but described it as balanced and 12-14. This is not a reasonable way to bid the hand, and 2♥ is the most normal bid, though I actually like a 2NT rebid for tactical reasons. South bid her hand reasonably, though I prefer a preference to 2♣ instead of passing 1NT.