rogerclee

K(JQ). When I play the K, partner will know I have solid trumps, because I didn't double on Kx (depending on context, I guess). I think the second two cards should be suit preference though.

Yeah I'd definitely open this 1♦. Not sure why SAYC or 2/1 would affect my decision in any considerable way.

Let's say you were going to eat a tasty treat, and this tasty treat was in a container with others of the same kind. You reach in to get it, but find that ONE of them has a small amount of mold beginning to grow on it. Your plan?

Is it forcing? I made a post about this awhile ago and eventually became convinced that the most standard agreement is forcing with 5+♠. Whether this is the conclusion of the thread (or even if it's true), I'm not sure.

In the context of the original thread, the WTF wasn't about "What the *****, how is my partner this dumb?!?!" but more of a sign of general frustration not particularly directed at anyone. I am really confused as to how people can find this offensive. I agree that cursing is offensive if used in a certain way, but most of the time it's not. By the way, these comments about how cursing is a sign of poor vocabulary or upbringings or whatever are hogwash.

I would just bid 6♥. I have no problem with 7♥.

Assuming that they lead 3rd/low, and that RHO follows to the first club with the 2, clubs seem to be 7-1. If so, this line fails when LHO has ♦Q. I also don't see when this line is supposed to gain over more prosaic lines. If you lose a trump trick, you can't afford to use dummy's spades as reserve trumps, because you don't have enough of them. Not that I have any clever alternative to suggest. The best I can suggest is to finesse, ruff a spade, and then play two top diamonds. Yeah, I agree my line is nonsensical. I got confused about the timing of the ♣A as an entry, hehe. I am also with you, in that I cannot find a better line than the simple one you stated. I can't seem to solve 4-1 trumps or 5-2 spades (without the honor in the short hand).

wtf? I think this idea has considerable merit (and think it has been discussed before). But obviously not without discussion.

Finesse the ♣Q at T1; assuming it wins, ruff a spade in my hand high, and then play a diamond.

Pass. With no club stopper and such weak hearts, I am not optimistic about my chances at anything more ambitious.

Standard is that new suits are forcing, double is takeout oriented. With a penalty double, either bid 3NT or pass and hope partner can reopen with a takeout double.

I'd bid 4♥. Partner could've bid 2NT if he were more serious about diamonds.

IMPs, All White, Second Seat ♠void ♥Ax ♦KQJ87x ♣AJ7xx (1♣) - 1♦ - (1♠) - P (2♦) - ? 1♣ includes all 15-19 balanced hands. Your plan, and after LHO bids 4♠?

Double. Gotta protect my 140.

Yes.

I cast my vote for Ken Rexford as Best Bridge Psychologist of the Year by BBO.

He made this comment during the auction, and did not say anything about missing 4♠ after the hand was over. His English was not fantastic during the commentary, and his comments were relatively terse in general, so I would not read too much into the structure of his words. The "never" may have been an embellishment on my part (apologies), but his tone seemed to be that he was quite convinced pass was right. If I recall, he passed pretty quickly.

I am not sure why you think it makes sense to dissect his reason into two separate ones. Obviously you can construct an 8-count that would be an automatic balance, and you can construct a crappy 5-card suit that would be an automatic balance. I am also not sure what you mean by "he knows he underbid." Are you saying he knew he made an error?

I know exactly how you feel.

It was in a Cayne match. Fantoni passed and basically justified it as "I am never balancing with only 8 points and this bad a 5-card suit." I thought it was pretty close and am surprised that some of the 2♠ bidders think it is obvious. Anyway, 4♠ was laydown.

3♣. Let's get our side suit in to help partner evaluate his hand while creating a GF. This is a hand that should be pretty optimistic about slam.

IMPs, Red vs White, Fourth Seat ♠A97xx ♥Jx ♦KT97x ♣T (2♥) - P - (P) - ?

Quite an effective joke - seven of us have just scored +100 on a hand where we're cold for slam. Did you reach the slam? +50. You get one in each suit. No, partner passed 4♠x, but we wouldn't have found slam anyway.

This was a problem in our newspaper that I thought was interesting. My reaction was pretty much "pass wtp" like most here, but several points in the paper made me think double was at least worth consideration: 1) LHO had to make a guess on not very much information; his partner could have a pretty wide range of hands. The penalty could be pretty substantial if his partner has a minimum without a good fit. 2) Partner would seldom double here even with good trumps. You have a lot of values partner doesn't know about (the AQ behind the strong hand). 3) The opponents have bid game on not a lot of values, and the other table likely did not start with this auction. Even if 4♥x makes, it may only lose you two (more) IMPs. Thoughts? (Not trying to argue with people, just seeing if anyone is similarly swayed. I think I would still pass.)

IMPs, All Red, Third Seat ♠J87xxx ♥x ♦AQ9x ♣7x 1NT - (Dbl) - 3♠ - (4♥) P - (P) - ? 1NT was 12-14, and 3♠ was preemptive. Agree with 3♠? Now what?