pgeerkens

The second North hand, with 4333 and no high spots in the blacks or diamonds, is simply not worth it's supposed 18 count. Therefore I subtract 1 point, treat it as a 17 pointer, and open it 1NT. I believe that partner has a much easier time in the long run knowing that my NT hands are either not 4333, or have an extra point or feature to make up for the flaw. Essentially, treating these hands at face value widens your NT ranges, making partner's decisions more difficult. Similarly the first North hand, with it's nice 5 bagger in diamonds, is just shy of a 2NT opening. Throw in a couple of ten's in the minors and I would open it 2NT. Therefore, far from being nearly identical hand, these hand diverge in strength by almost a complete NT range - the jump to 2NT rebid. However if one ended up in 7H on the second hand, it only takes West having 5+ diamonds to make on a compound squeeze, a 33% shot. If a couple of 10's in the North hand had caused one to upgrade it back to 18 points, additional guard squeeze possibilities arise, if one can read them. Not the worst grand I ever expect to be in. PG

I bid 2NT. Nine tricks in NT with opener on lead seems more likely than 10 in hearts with (non-) responder on lead. PG

To me, the North hand here is exactly what I envision as the ideal hand for this sequence; "I just can't bring myself to Blackwood knowing that 2 trump controls are missing." South, staring at both the missing trump honours and a control rich hand, must do something.

On minor-raised hands, the two most critical decisions for the partnership are: 1) Are we game-going, or just part-score? 2) Are we playing a minor or NT? Using Lawrence & Wirberg's SST/WP analysis I get: 1) SST = 3, so expected tricks = (13-3) = 10 + power adjustment 2) My 11 HCP are all working, and partner has 12+ HCP for 23 total points. i) If partner has 0 or 1 points in spades, our power adjustment is +1, and we want to be in at least 5D; ii) If partner has 4+ points in spades, we probably want to play in 3NT; iii) The problem comes when partner has a couple of point in spades, and otherwise a bare minimum. We want to buy the hand for 3D, but will compete to 4D if we can buy the hand and double them at the 4 level. I believe the bidding 3S initially gives partner the most assistance in making a sensible decision on what his hand is worth opposite mine. After the 4S interference (If opponent knows I am stiff or void, does he bid 3S or 5S instead of 4S?), and partner's forcing pass (clearly forcing after my GF splinter), I bid 5C. Slam is still possible, so all I can do is to inform partner that C/D controls are the key to the decision.

The two most important features for a single raise, especially in a competitive auction, are: 1) three+ trumps; and 2) a sure entry so that a side suit can be started from my side of the table. I raise to 2H without even blinking. Yes, the 4-3-3-3 shape is drek; but many 6/7 point hands would not have an entry whenever RHO is less than maximum. And forcing the opponents to the 3-level is good bridge.

On hands like these, I try to always remember an old adage: "Good hands shouldn't bid bad suits." The JS to 3C creates all sorts of problems by bidding, strongly, a suit of quality significantly less than that of the hand. That responder decided to show his own suit after opener requested a preference in the blacks is equally odious. Without any system over 1NT, I would jump to 3S if that was forcing, or 4S otherwise (and wish I had opened 2C).