655321

Well, (like Roger) I do think you need meta-rules about the pass of the opponent's redouble so that your partnership is on firm ground instead of having to guess on a case by case basis. I have never made an exception for auctions like this. Guess it is true here that the (pretty rare) times you would like to pass to show no preference are more common than the (very rare) times you would like to pass for penalties. Even so, not sure that the extra memory load is worthwhile though, the rule that passing a redouble is to play is simple to remember. Would the exception apply after we have bid a suit and they have bid and raised, or just when they have bid and raised? Seems like there is danger of running into ambiguous sequences here.

I would bid 2♠. Having doubled 2♣, partner will assume we have heart support and will be happy to double 2♥ with Hxx. With a doubleton heart, less than partner expects, we don't really want to defend 2♥X under those circumstances. After 2♠ partner should be in a good position to pass, bid a game or correct to 3♦. With an extra heart I would pass and sit for partner's penalty double should he make one.

♣9, singleton in partner's suit.

Heart. I would like to lead the ten from this holding (HTx), but to avoid confusion (partner getting in and switching to his singleton spade) I will lead the Ace instead.

This is interesting, I guess the reason partner is more likely than LHO to have any spare clubs is that we are (rightly) constraining partner and overcaller from having a 5 card major, therefore LHO is stuck with 3 spades and four hearts, leaving only 6 spots available for clubs. Partner only has 3 of his spaces reserved (for diamonds), so has 10 spaces available for clubs. Don't know without looking at some hands how well the overcall is defined, i.e. whether overcaller would pass a lot of the simulation's 5 card club suits, and would in practice have a 6th club more often than this simulation suggests. My guess is that even though we are looking at 6 clubs, overcaller would also have 6 clubs more often than the simulation's 12% of the time.

In order 2♣ is courageous opposite a passed partner and with 3 small spades X - I prefer 3♣, double isn't insane though 3♦ - I like this bid, 3♣ is possible although you already told partner you have a club suit like this. Passing is not an option because -1240 is a bad score. 5♦ - insane, partner was supporting your diamonds under pressure, not introducing a suit of his own X - insane Anyway, after all this you just lost 5 IMPs for -650 instead of -450 and you did push them to the 5 level, could have been a lot worse!

Hate North's pass over 1NT, and don't like South's double of 3♣ either. All up, -470 seems a fair result.

I would pass. We know the hand is a misfit, not because of the opponent's silence but because we know that partner has fewer than 3 spades and fewer than 5 hearts. 2NT is certainly an alternative because it is kind of the value bid and we are vulnerable, but if partner's hand has no help in the major suits, even a hand like xx xxx KQJTxx Ax is going to need a lot of luck to make 3NT. With solid diamonds and more outside cards partner might have made a stronger bid than 2♦. Perhaps 3NT from partner's side would be better, but a bid like 3♣ seems less descriptive and more likely to get us overboard than 2NT.

1) Nonforcing 2) I don't know what the rules are about promising rebids, but to me this auction almost doesn't exist. With enough shape and values to bid 2♣ then 2♠ over partner's third seat opening, surely the hand was worth opening in the first place. But I don't think that it follows that responder is therefore showing a weak hand with 4-6 in the black suits, I would still just respond 1♠ with that hand.

I have bad news for you about Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

tl;dr

QED. You admitted to MrAce in an earlier post that you didn't even check your results by hand to make sure that your parameters produced sensible hands. AWM ran a simulation, checked his results manually, and got very different answers. Your response was what we have come to expect from you, you ignored awm's post and instead implied that everyone on this forum who disagrees with your opinion (aka the facts!) is stupid. My bridge judgment tells me that passing partner's vulnerable 2 level overcall on a decent fitting 10 count is terrible. Good players in this thread have said the same thing. Obviously my bridge is not so wonderful that my judgment is infallible, yet if someone (especially someone who has a track record on bridge forums for bidding way outside mainstream expert practice) says, 'look, pass is best and I have run a simulation that proves it', my reaction is not to think that my bridge judgment in this common situation is completely wrong, my reaction is to assume that there were problems with the simulation. I don't see this as doubting the facts, I see this as trusting my years of experience at the bridge table ahead of a random internet poster.

Without any methods to show the first hand, because it is w/w at MP I would make the (horrible bridge) bid of 2♦ rather than pass and defend 1NT.

Open 1♥ because the Oracle reveals that the hand is worth exactly 12.20 points.

2♥ is not forcing.

Yes, when partner bids 5♠ to show his AKQ of hearts you are well placed to correct to 6♥, knowing that partner won't make 5♠.

I am a 5♥ bidder.

And a raise here (instead of a cuebid or a game bash) says exactly that, it says 'partner, I am making a courtesy raise in case you are have a very good hand', it does not say 'partner, I expect you to accept this one frequently'. Without addressing other aspects of your simulation, this unrealistic estimate of 50% is enough to make your results questionable. If you play with numbers and get an answer that passing with the East hand is acceptable, it is more likely that there are errors in your assumptions than it is that you have proved that the whole of modern bidding is wrong.

3NT

I would bid 3♦. We aren't making anything, but perhaps 3♦X will be cheaper, or perhaps they decide to bid on instead of doubling. I wouldn't give partner a choice between the minors, 3♣X on a trump lead could be murder.

Don't agree with that at all. You can't afford to wait until you have 44 in the Majors before making a responsive double, you will miss out on too many good scores. Unless you mean that if East wants to make a responsive double without having enough values, he should at least have ideal shape, doubling with insufficient values and without perfect shape has to be bad, I agree with that. And as many posters have noted, even if East makes the normal pass we are still not out of the woods, it is possible to construct auctions leading to the same -200.

Did you know your opponents, there are people who love to underlead Aces and others that never do. On a good day, if you call for a low card RHO may play the Ace from AJxx(x). I have seen this work (haven't tried it myself!) even when declarer had 2 small opposite the Kx in dummy. If spades are 3-5, then LHO hasn't lead the 4 from QJ4, OTOH perhaps RHO will be more likely to play the Ace instead of the Jack when he has 5 spades instead of just 4.

Wouldn't occur to me to play pass as forcing here. I really dislike the rule that if we voluntarily bid a vul game we are trapped into forcing passes. We took a bash at game, giving ourselves a chance at the vul game bonus, then the opponents bid on and we are forced to double them when we think they are making, or bid at the 5 level when even the 4 level was taking a risk and we will be doubled. Makes no sense to me.

Completely agree with MFA. Not sure why there are 2 posts in this thread saying the East hand is too weak to bid. Passing partner's vulnerable 2 level overcall with a decent 10 count including Kx in his suit would be very bad and you would expect to miss a lot of cold games.

Yet when I look the hand up, there is a description next to the 3♥ bid saying '♠ supp. control'. Is it possible to add this after the hand, or was it there at the time? Close, but actually ♠ K6 ♥ 8765 ♦ J74 ♣ Q543 Anyway, from the jump to 6♥ my guess would be that this was a pickup pair with no agreements.