OleBerg

#1: Partner is not allowed to pass, but if opponents bid, a force is not set up. #2: 5♥, raising 5♠ to 6. (We migth still belong in diamonds.)

No, you were being patronising, which is not polite. But it actually might be ok here, as I hadn't even noticed it was MP's. I'd probably still do it, but I find the arguments for pass much, much stronger at MP's.

To solve that problem, I use a highly sophisticated gadget. It's called: [Drum roll, snare, cuuuuurtains] Invitational bids. It's a little complicated, but when partner has a hand where he eyes 3NT, he bids 2NT. When he just has some support, he makes a normal raise. And when he has a good hand with support, he cuebids. This last thing is really unfair, as probably no-one plays it, but we call it "re-invitational bids". It's much to complicated to get into, but maybe I'll describe it someday.

I would naturally share your concern. However, if LHO makes a negative double, partner will be forewarned, and if he doesn't, partner is likely to hold a few values. This will virtually guarantie, that we get three diamond tricks, even if partner has a misfit. Like rhm, I feel the the heart-void is a safety-meassure, and would be reluctant to bid with with a single heart. Well, being the overbidder I am, I would probably do it anyway, but I would be well prepared for a rough time at the post-mortem. The whole trick (imho) to understanding this situation (or at least my wiewpoint), is to have equel focus on what can go wrong if you bid, and what can go wrong if you pass. Many people often see pass as a "safe" option, that should be excempt from critisism.

The style is low from doubleton. Should have been in the OP. Is now.

Rather silly-looking: [hv=pc=n&s=sj652hq43dat8c987&w=s94h875dkj543ca53&n=sakt3hakt2d92ckj4&e=sq87hj96dq76cqt62&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=p1c(Natural%20or%2015-19%20bal)p1h(Transfer-Walsh%2C%20shows%20four%20spades)p4s(18-19%2C%20bal.%20or%20specific%202-4-2-5)ppp&p=c2c7]399|300[/hv] 1♣: Natural or 15-19 balanced. 1♥: Transfer-Walsh, 4+ spades. 4♠: 18 good or 19 hcp, either balanced or specific 2-4-2-5 The ♣2 was led to the ♣7, ♣3 and ♣J, and the defence was over. Post mortem: East: Leading into a strong hand, that migth easily be balanced, I lead the suit that would require least from partner. West: The only justification for leading into a potential strong club-holding, is a spade stopper, and the hope for a ruff. Ducking is essential to preserve communication. Edit: Leads are second/fourth best with attitude. Low from doubleton. Shoot.

Well, you're very clever. Except you arn't. Of course we all know the stories about the diamond-stack behind, a double and a telephone-number. And everybody is having a laugh at the expense of the silly 2♦-overcaller with the anaemic 5-card suit. Thats the stories we remember. The stories we forget, are all the times you get into ambigious sequnces after a pass, and have a mishap, like collecting an impressive +190 when partner holds: ♠ x ♥ KJ10x ♦ Axxxx ♣ Q10x (Ok, gnasher collects 640) But those mishaps goes by unnoticed, because the same thing happened at the other table. But a lost oppertunety to earn a gameswing is also a lost gameswing. But at the post-mortem everybody agrees, that it was "impossible to bid it, because you cannot overcall 2♦". Further, the hand is incredibly strong if partner has a fit. ♠ xx ♥ xxxx ♦ Qxxxx ♣ Qx Is enough for 5♦ While: ♠ xx ♥ xxxx ♦ QJ ♣ xxxxx Makes 5♣ huge. And, if you use all your imagination you migth be able to imagine LHO taking a bid, like, wonder of wonders, supporting his partner to 2♠. When this comes around, do you feel that 2NT do your hand justice? The only place pass is a good bid, is in the post-mortem betweem players who zealously guards their reputation as "sound bidders". They have an easy time here, both because of the abovementioned reasons, but also because everytime you pass and back in, things are so ambigious that you will also almost always have a reasonable claim, that partner could have bid diffently.

And appriciate it! If no-one ever said anything the majority believed to be wrong, we'd still be in the dark ages.

Touchdown, the crowd is cheering.

I wont ruin it.

2♦ the first time, or else you'll never get your shape AND strength across. I don't fear partner will run amok in hearts. Our hand is better as "support" for hearts than ♠ Qxx ♥ x ♦KQJxxx ♣ Axx which I consider an obvious overcall. Should I somehow pass on the first round, I try 2♠, it will take all the kings horses and all the kings men, to keep me out of game. Pre-lol at "A 2-level overcall must show a 6-card suit."

Well, if 2NT is gameforicng, and 3♣ is natural, it is an atrocity not to support. Partner didn't bid 3♣ as a transfer to 3NT. If you dont know what your bid means; get a grip.

LOL LOL ROFL LOL Correct Dubious, but accepted. LOL 1½ out of seven. That's an E minus. Only sligth improvement needed for a passing grade. (ECTS-scale)

If 4NT on 3♦ would have been quantitative, North gets 100%. If not, the blame is split in the same fractions that NS are responsible for this.

I believe your partner should have made the query. The advantage you have gained by figuring out clubs is a good suit, is very liekely to be duplicated at the other table. If they play natural, a simple 1♠ opening is all it takes. So the percentages for a grand should not be upscaled much Change the suits to 1-3-4-5 and 4-3-4-2. Now it's another ball-game. Here it will be difficult for many to end up in diamonds, so 6♦ has a chance of yielding a swing already. Thus we upscale the percentages to bid a grand.

And yes, pass is forcing. This is MP r/r, surely we are not allowing them to play undoubled at the 5-level, when we have opened 1NT (15-17) and bid game. In this sequence it is close to unimagineable, that we, as a pair, will want to defend 5♣ undoubled. At IMP's I could see a case for non-forcing, but I'd still prefer forcing.

It's so close to cheating, I'd be able to smell it all the way to Denmark, save that it is covered in the stench of the incompetence of the polled.

I've had that problem too. Some solve it by "warming up", by playing something like 4 boards, in a relaxed mode, just before the tournament. I don't do that. I have made this rule for myself. When I've counted my cards (before seing them) on the first hand of a session, I take a pause of 5-10 seconds before looking at them. During this time, I remind myself that now is the time to focus. I have somehow maneged to enable myself to lock out distacting thougths this way, and be sharp (well, as sharp as I can be) for the first board. It works for me, maybe it can work for you too. Or maybe inspire you to find another solution.

If I could think this one up relatively fast at the table, it would definitely be my plan: After ♥A, three rounds of clubs, discarding the ♥3. Now the ♠J. Now, to East it migth look like the only hope to defeat it, is to get a spade and a diamond, making it much more attractive to cover with the King. (I rise if not covered, playing on diamonds.) I believe this would bring my percentages close to the 50% of the finesse. Furthermore, anytime my plan succeeds, I have won a small psychological victory. They will know that they can't nescesarily know excactly what to expect.* Thirdly; the joy of beating Zia at his own game. 'Ok, against me, they will probably figure that out fast anyway. but probably not in a way that makes them feel uneasy.

I guess what Fluffy meant was: "If your agreement is to have splinters at the 5-level, it solves the problems. Thats how I read his post. So you are correct, since agreement is somthing you make up.

Plz. It's not an on-line helpdesk. Looking up such things yourself, you will learn things.

41,28% according to J.M. Rudinescos: The dictionary of suit-combinations. Thats for the suit in isolation, assuming two entries to the other hand. (Which would seem rather close to the situation in the problem.) The % migth be alittle higher here, as East is known to have at least five clubs. (You dont know who is long in diamonds, when you choose your play at trick 2.) Getting the book off the shelf, I also checked the percentage on cashing spades and leading towards the jack: 73,82% The last number migth be a little higher too, again because East is known to hold at least five clubs.

But I am. Assuming you are not worrying about overtricks, there are no distributions where the finesse gains over cashing the top two, but there are distributions where cashing the top two gains over the finesse.

Assuming IMP's After the ♣A, I take the ♠AK. If the ♠Q or ♠10 doesn't pop, I test diamonds. When they fail, I lead a spade towards the hand. Even with Q10xx behind me, I still have the chance that LHO holds ♥KQ(x..) or two hearts only with the king or queen. As it came: I have to find two discards, which is annoying. Not going into the math, I discard two hearts, and play spades from the top, hoping for a 3-3 split, or the drop of the Q or 10.