655321

I admit that it is rare for me to understand a Cloacal post, but this one is in a class of its own!

2♥

Agree with this. Agree with this too! We would like to have more values to overcall 2♣ at this vulnerability, and I would apologize if something went wrong, but with such a good suit, and the 6-4 shape, it seems to me that more good things than bad things will happen after bidding immediately.

Partner heard you bypass hearts to bid 4♠ before he bid 5♣. One thing you can be sure of is that you don't have 2 heart losers.

1) 3♣ wtp 2) 3♦ 3) 5♦ More likely it is a negative double showing hearts, I expect han would have told us if double had a special meaning. I bid 3♦ anyway because the auction is competitive, we have a 5/5 hand and need to show our suits. If any more excuse is necessary (I don't think it is), partner shouldn't expect the world for a competitive bid at the vulnerability. On (3), it is possible we should bid more than 5♦. I feel as though we need something useful like a trump card, or a doubleton (outside trumps), or another King. Maybe I am wrong, we did bid 3NT instead of supporting diamonds earlier, and partner still has interest. Perhaps the major suit queens are enough for 12 tricks. Anyway when I am not sure I prefer not to bid above game.

1) 1♠ 2) 1♥ 3) 1♠ On the first hand, I don't hate 2♣, I don't even mind it really, but personally I would need to be a bit weaker before I skipped to spades to raise clubs. Similarly on (2), I don't really dislike other bids, but would always bid 1♥. On (3) though, I do feel more strongly about bidding 1♠ and do hate the redouble with 3 clubs.

4♠ Gadget (to show 'preempt' with extras) 2NT GF raise - partner bids 3♣ with minimum, and we can show heart shortage.

Seems a very silly rule to me. With 5 card support you don't raise to game unless you have 10 points? With a doubleton you raise to game on a balanced 13 count? It is possible there are balanced 13 counts that would raise a vulnerable weak 2 to game (although I can't think of one off the top of my head) but I am very sure there are no balanced 13 counts with doubleton support that should be raising NV weak 2s to game.

4♦, it is true that partner needs a lot for slam to make, but we should tell him that we have more than a courtesy raise just in case.

I don't understand these results. Firstly, in fact these results do give East the long diamonds only 44% of the time (West 56%). Secondly, diamonds 5-0 happened 1779 times compared to 0-5 4506 times (i.e. in 5-0 breaks, East had the long diamonds about 2.5 times as often as West), yet diamonds 4-1 happened 16,517 times compared to 1-4 8968 times (in 4-1 breaks, East had the long diamonds about 0.5 times as often as West). Is there a confusion between West (5 spades, no 6 card suit) and East (4 spades, can have longer suit)? Also (I am not a mathematician, so I could be wrong, but) shouldn't the simulation only count hands where West does have exactly 5 spades - it looks to me that all hands where East (West?) has no 6 card or longer suit are counted.

I just had a similar auction where the robots didn't lead dummy's suit: (1♣) P (1♠) P (1NT) P (P) X I doubled, the explanation was something like "Penalties, asks for the lead of dummy's suit", yet partner Gib led a 4th best heart instead of his Qx of spades.

Agree with awm, and it seems pretty clear too.

Run to 5♦? The alternatives seem to be to sit back and expect 590 or more, or to try for 880 which has the risk that somebody might run and we collect only 300 or so against 4♠X. Really, introducing a ratty 5 card suit at the 5 level is not an option. BTW, it wouldn't hurt to spend 10 seconds in each new thread to reproduce the hand. (Edit, I see OP has the hand now, thanks)

Agree with assigning (at least some of) 6♠X. Your partner's actions were interesting. On the one hand, he did the ethical thing by calling the director when he could have (unethically) kept quiet, OTOH he passed 4♠, which (after keycarding and hearing about 2 Aces) seems to be clearly using UI. The other thing is http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...ndpost&p=487122. If I was on the committee and had heard this story on the grapevine, I would be asking the director if (in addition to changing the score to 6♠X and keeping the deposit) there are any penalties we could assign to you for being a vexatious litigant!

Basically I agree with the dude, except I am not sure about raising 3♦, passing 3♦ is also attractive since 11 tricks are a long way away.

[hv=s=sakjhaqxxdqxxxxcx]133|100|[/hv] 3♥ is a big underbid, I would just bid 4♥ instead.

Club, prefer a club to a spade if only because we have long spades, opps have bid a slam (and LHO has a lot of red cards) so it seems unlikely that we can set up a second round spade to cash. Hope to set up a club instead.

Pass

3♥ limit raise. I don't completely hate 2♠ at MP, 3 small spades is not great, but 2 Aces including an AJT9x suit, and a doubleton make this a reasonably comfortable limit raise to me. No idea why anyone would force to game though.

Opps have bid and raised diamonds to the 3 level and North has JTxx, he isn't worrying that South might have Qxx on this hand whatever their takeout doubles might look like in general. Also peachy's suggestion that North might have bid 3♥ on a 3 card suit and no values is eccentric to say the least.

I think North should bid 4♥. Almost any time South has a small singleton diamond 4♥ should be a playable contract. I think South could bid 4♥. At some point a hand will be strong enough that raising 3♥ to 4♥ isn't punishing partner for competing. This hand looks to me as though it is strong enough to have crossed that line. So I give some blame to both, but more to North.

♠ AKxx ♥ Kxx ♦ Qx ♣ xxxx ♠ AKxx ♥ Kxx ♦ Qx ♣ Axxx Are to assume that awm passes the first hand (a 10 count), and opens the second hand (a 14 count) 1♣? I would never consider counting a doubleton queen as 0HCP, sure it might turn out to be worth nothing but to count it is nothing is a fairly elementary error IMO.

I would open 1♠. At this vulnerability I really hate 2♠. 3♠ is possible, but the hand has more playing strength than partner would expect for 3♠ here, so my second choice is 4♠.

http://www.worldmapsonline.com/images/Cram/History/europeundernapoleon.jpg

I have been persuaded that 5♥ was better in the other thread (all vul), but I think I still double at this vul. :) On the one hand we have more work to do to get 800 (4 down instead of 3 down), on the other hand RHO will have their bid much less often at this vulnerability. So not only are we very likely to take more tricks in defence, but - since RHO won't always have AKJTxxxx of clubs - the chance of partner having wasted club honors (with correspondingly fewer heart/diamond honors) has increased, so 5♥ will go down more often. I agree that a factor in favor of bidding 5♥ is the possibility of bidding slam, maybe that should be enough to make 5♥ worth while, but I still double.