Poky

True. I misread it. :) Not if North gives an echo by playing J-x or T-x of hearts (which is certainly a pretty irrational play with a doubleton).

...

Well, we can take even another different point of view to proof there's no MI in circumstances given (don't forget, nobody said anything about the 3♥ bid, until the play finished). As I understood, 2♦ was explained as something like "Transfer: 5♥ 9-11 or 6+♥ 6-11". If this is the truth, then the 3♥ bid is completely natural even with a doubleton, by means of general bridge logic (agreement or not, it doesn't matter). Why? It is very easy to see: 1. it is a jump and jumping is a natural way to show extras, nonetheless is it forcing or not; 2. it is showing an interest to play in the denomination that was bid, that's also completely natural 2a. if responder is weak then the contract will (very often) be 3♥ in 6-2 fit; 2b. if responder has a maximal hand then he cannot pass and he could (and probably should) rebid a natural 3NT with only 5 hearts. South was careless: a) by making his own deduction that 3♥ should show 3+ cards in this sequence. b) by not asking anything about declarer's hand during the play. c) by playing an inferior defensive line (♠10 before ♦A is a very clear message, as a high diamond returned is).

It seems to me that the AC did everything just to avoid the forfeiture of the deposit, which is pretty much automatic if NS aren't inexperienced. East invited naturally (having one trump less and some hcp more), feeling that this bid is better than 3NT (or 2NT). This is his right, not a systemic thing. Therefore, there is nothing to alert: 3♥ was a natural and invitational bid.

3♦ is a simple LOTT raise with 4 diamonds. 2NT should have both black stoppers and doesn't promise 3♦ necessarily. Pass. Everything is OK with this hand until the double is not around. (Btw, with 5215 partner could have doubled 2♣ in anticipation, to avoid my 2♦ rebid.)

Double shouldn't be penalty (partner will double to show some 3244 hand). Double should be takeout: a) Decent 3145 hand (passes 3m) b) Decent 3244 14 hcp hand (passes 3m) c) 18-19 balanced which cannot bid 2NT (follows with 3♥) 2NT should be natural, promising a stopper.

Partner cuebids spades to show some 11-13 hcp with 3334, or something like that, say: Kxx Qxx AKx Txxx It is impossible 2♠ is natural because: a) Nobody likes to bid misfits b) Spades cannot be 0-6-5-3 (14 cards)

Spade if IMP-s, club if MP-s.

If you make an action which could turn a sure +500 into a possible -1330 (just because you wish to achieve +800 or better, in a duboius spot), that action is gambling for sure. But this is not a matter of bridge, it is a matter of lexic and definition: "gamble - take a risk in the hope of a favorable outcome".

4♥, not raising 5m.

Both doubles are takeout, partner has x4x6 or 2425. Bid 2NT or 3NT.

Opening strong 1♣ is just HORRIBLE. Open 1♥ and rebid 2♣/2NT, depending of methods.

Heart. Partner forbid the spade lead, probably has a singleton.

I'm not sure if 3♣ should be forcing, but even then, this bid should promise 5 cards.

Double followed by 4♥ shows a slammy NF hand.

1st: 1♥ 80%, pass 20% 2nd: 1♥ 70%, double 20%, pass 10%

By standard, what would you think 2♥ in the sequence: 1♣ 1♦ 1♠ 2♣ 2♥ does mean? * 2♣ is natural 6-9, no xyz

I could understand playing inverted doubles in this position (X = 2/3 cards in opp's suit) but penalty doubles are a complete mystery for me. :) Obviously I pass, planning to convert partner's protective double to juicy penalization.

I just cannot believe the results of this poll. :( The board is very easy. When the bidding goes 2♦-pass-3♦ and we have 6-5 majors with a couple of points, partner's range is pretty strong, I will say about 10-14 points. Therefore, 4♦ is an obligatory bid. Not bidding it is very bad bridge. This bid means just one thing - "on the long run it will be good to play in partner's longer major". 3♥ instead will be bad bidding, because this bid promises much more points and probably less shape. From the other side, bidding anything but 4M with North's hand is pure horror. North has a awful hand (no ruffs, Qxxx in diamonds), not much above partner's expectations (in isolation, on this particular sequence, partner should've played him form some 10 HCP, and North should have known that) and should be happy partner found an action over 3♦. Not to mention that bidding anything after an initial pass on 2♦ is a big inconsistency. Conclusion: - South bid perfectly; - North doesn't understand anything about bridge (or he was very very deconcentrated).

2♦ is suboptimal, a discouraging 3NT with KJx would be a much better choice. After 4♣ our range is pretty wide, so, we should narrow it with a discouraging 4♠. Cuebidding invites problems. Blame: 10% North 90% South

Now I will pass it. But the 2♠ bid is suboptimal. It should be played: - 2M = P/C - pass = 5+♦, misfitting - XX = SOS -> another spot, misfitting

I cannot agree. Occasionally I play a system called Eight-Eleven where all 8-11 hands are opened on first two positions naturally (by 1♥ through 2♣ calls). Consecuently, a pass in first two positions shows the range of 0-7. By the logic of the system "openings" in 3rd/4th postition are per force different: > 1♦/1♥/1♠/2♣/2♦/2♥/2♠ is natural, up to 17 HCP (with pasrtner's 0-7 there's no big danger of losing a game). > 1NT is no more 8-11 but 15-17 balanced. This is because bids on late positions should be hardly seen as pure openings but more like responses to partner's pass which shows a pretty weak hand. I cannot see any logic proclaiming this concept as "two" systems instead of "one" well designed (and logical) system.

Well, I'm not so sure that someone treating himself as an imbecile is proper behavior either... But, that's just my opinion. To be worth more than 1 penny firstly I have to learn the difference between truth and nonsense, probably... Or not? :unsure:

True. I didn't notice it. TY.

In the OP board it's not a matter of "gaining through UI" but a matter of avoiding silly bidding. I polled a lot of good bridge players and found that in the current spot they were 50%/50% between partner having 6-5 two-suiter and spade splinter (mind it, many of them, like me, do not play splinters in competition except in a suit bid by opponents'). So, in this spot, if you are a good player - 3NT should be a clear-cut action: if partner has hearts he will bid it by his own, and if he has 6-5 this would be a playable spot much of a time (and probably the bid with best EV). Bidding anything else for me (and I would say - for many decent players) is not only a illogical alternative but playing with fire. Well, that's maybe right, but we aren't talking about 'much of time' but about one very specific case. You already bid a NF bid intending to show your seven clubs and partner placed a contract, you have nothing more to bid. If you get nailed it is a problem generated by Ghestem and not by bad bridge decisions that director wants to imply you are capable of doing it. Pulling out is a blatant use of UI. I do not think you gave an example which has much to do with our initial problem. Rather, you can tell us, what would be your ruling on the xx-KTxxx-xx-AQxx board? Do you agree with 6NTx?