rogerclee

PASS?

I think it is strange that you think that "awkward hands outside my NT range" is a reason to play weak NT, since there are many (!!!) more hands where you will have this problem with a weak NT. It is because "minimum balanced" and "minimum unbalanced" are much more similar than "minimum unbalanced" and "strong NT", so you have less to sort out if you play a strong NT. I think the implication was there are no awkward strong notrump hands here since if they don't have a stopper they are good enough to cuebid. Yeah, of course this is a better auction to be playing weak NT on, though you will occasionally get into trouble with 18-19 balanced and no spade stopper.

I think pass is the best call, for the reasons cited by andy_h. Good problem.

I think it is strange that you think that "awkward hands outside my NT range" is a reason to play weak NT, since there are many (!!!) more hands where you will have this problem with a weak NT. It is because "minimum balanced" and "minimum unbalanced" are much more similar than "minimum unbalanced" and "strong NT", so you have less to sort out if you play a strong NT.

I would pass. I think I would bid 5♥ if your style is to open 4♥ on a wide variety of strongish hands that most people would open 1♥ on.

For some reason this comment annoys me more than any of the other idiotic things you have written in this thread. I thought you were all for talking about the bridge! You wanted a detailed response analyzing the problem in full! Three-word responses are not good enough, no matter who they are from, because they don't contain any content or justification! Now all you can do is hide behind this unnamed national champion, who you think can't possibly be wrong (even though awm explained very clearly, using the LOGIC you wanted, why your friend is wrong). This is just such a LOL, because not only are you just terrible at bridge logic, but you are also a hypocrite.

Clever! Anyway all I can say is that you are being pretty obnoxious in this thread to think that only you are capable of seeing the problem here when everyone else thinks the solution is obvious. Maybe you are right, but historically, I have been wrong when this has occurred to me. Similarly, if you think I am not an advanced/expert player, that is fine, but you are being pretty emotional in this thread, so I would stop and consider some of the things you are doing and saying. Your arguments for 5NT are within reason since 6♣ can often be right, but as others have pointed out, it is not that good a description of this hand, since we could have doubled with all kinds of hands with a doubleton (or even singleton) diamond, so 5N should be wrong on balance.

I have never really understood the point of posts such as this. If I was counting votes for or against 6♦ it might have occurred to me to conduct a simple poll. When I post an article instead, the intent is to invite opinions which provide some insight on the topic, not to learn about how vehemently you feel about one choice or another. As a general rule when I (and presumably others) post a one-line response, it is because I don't consider the problem interesting enough for actual discussion, which does not necessarily mean it is a bad problem, but just that it is not the kind of problem that one analyzes at length. I don't know what else you want, it is just obvious that we will make 6♦ most of the time, and they may save in 6♠. Posting a question in the advanced/expert forum, I would expect you to understand this. If you want a detailed explanation to an obvious question, ask in B/I or maybe some other subforum.

Definitely 6♦

Your partner had a routine double.

I would be happy to double 5♦. Yes it is dependent on partner's club length, but I don't see why we are assuming that he has club length with no honor. The king makes 4♠ a great contract (though I suppose it is not really relevant, since partner would probably accept any game try, unless you mastermind a pass and miss game opposite AQxxxx xxx x Kxx), but even the queen can be really useful here so that the doubler can never attack clubs, and the jack works well for this purpose too, or maybe the opening leader just doesn't have a club lead, especially if we don't allow them to bid clubs! On top of this game is probably very good opposite a 7-card spade suit, which is pretty common for a r/w 2♠ bid. It just comes down to the fact that partner has 0-2 clubs slightly more often than 3-4 clubs (but one of the more mathy people on this board can double-check this and tell me I am wrong), and if partner has 3-4 clubs game can still be very good, while if partner has 0-2 clubs you almost certainly want to be there. Since we have no shape ask available, and I don't think it is intelligent to see if the opponents bid clubs since they will usually just bid some number of diamonds which is inconclusive to us or bid Lebensohl which doesn't give us any information but allows them to bid more effectively, we should just make the most likely bid that will work, which is 4♠. Maybe in England this is only worth an invite, I don't know what an English r/w 2♠ bid looks like. However since we have already established that what we are really interested in is the shape, not the quality of hand, I don't think inviting is very logical here unless partner has such a tendency to have a terrible hand that we need to ask about it. Also it is not unusual for me to think about a bidding or play problem for a very long time before giving a one-line response. Sorry that I don't usually type out my entire thought process, but anyway I disagree that this problem is "deep".

Vulnerability and form of scoring are very relevant here.

I would pass but it's close.

I play it's NF but shows values. Unless you overcall very soundly I think this is the right treatment, and it is "standard" in North America. Many people play transfers (also called Rubens advances), where 2♣ would show diamonds here, and 2♦ would show the strong raise. This way you can show different kinds of hands with diamonds, with the main downside being that your game try is a little worse, since it leaves less room for partner.

nope

I liked Josh's first post, not his second.

Definitely 4♠, unless partner is extremely aggressive, then I would bid ogust and then game over anything except bad/bad.

pretty obvious 4♠

I would pass without thinking too hard about it.

Seems like a pretty easy double to me.

2♦, since forcing to game by committing to 5♦ seems like a huge overbid to me. I predict partner will bid 2♥, then I will bid 3♦, and then partner can do what he likes. I also play that both 3♦ and 4♦ are fitted.

Please expound It is just an idea, but I deleted my post since it was badly off-topic.

hmm, deleted

Agree with Maggie.

In my opinion, for a casualish partnership (or even a very regular, high-level one), it's most important to just not mix any of these things up. You can fix this with a simple rule: We can only splinter in the opponents' suits. In competition, jumps in a new suit are fitted. We can debate whether or not this is the most effective treatment (I think it's the best way to play that can be explained in under 30 seconds), but it sure is easy.