OleBerg

Correct, we only know it is 5+. (And with 6 he'd normally take it to 4♠ himself.)

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=sj5hak109dakq7c1095]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] With opponents silent throughout, you have shown 15-17 with 4 hearts. Partner has shown 5+spades, exactly invitational. Unfortunately your homegrown "expert-system" has already brought you to 3♠, so now you have to choose betweem 3NT and 4♠. I choose 4♠, reasoning that clubs could be quite open, and communication to spades could be a problem. The ♠J also suggest that the spade-suit is a good thrumph suit. What do you think.

Just felt like making a post with that title.

Just a quick comment, for what it is worth: I have played 12-14 NT's with "no garbage stayman" for at least 6 years. I don't miss the garbage option. Knowing 2♣ is at least invitational is also handy when the opponents compete.

So you'd pass 4♣ with: [hv=s=saqxxxhxxdaqxxxcx]133|100|[/hv] ?

No, mainly for the reasons stated above. Exchange my ♥J with dummy's ♥10, and I would encourage.

When partner replies 1 over 1 in a major, and I can make game facing Kxxxx and a doubleton, I bid it. Actually I would splinter here, as it doesn't show more under my agreements.

LOL

X Anything else is shooting for to small a target.

yeah, why would we want to invite when we are perfectly capable of masterminding the auction and just bid 4♥. And partner's opinion is of no consequence since we are such good masterminds :) LOL FYP

Yeah, but she never completed that lesson at the academy. (It was cancelled due to unforeseen circumstances.)

Pass. Finally a hand thats easier at MP's than at IMP's.

I would indeed rule like this without second thought. 10% 4♥-1 is fine too, but not my call.

That's what she said!

Off to see the shrink. At §150/hour, he should be able to explain to me, why 3NT is not a big WTP.

who would do that? No idée. But it is the only, somewhat reasonable, alternative I can see, to taking the first club in hand, and the run the ♥Q. Well you could play a small heart to the 10 in case of stiff K onside, but that can really mess you up if E ducks. Yes. In my opinion slightly less reasonable than a heart to the ace. And under any circumstances no way near anything I'd do. That didn't escape my attention, but it doesn't change may plan. If opponents are real bad, there might be a case for ducking the first club, but I'd have to be rather sure of that.

X. And my next bid will be 6♣. If partner has any imagination, he will know I have diamonds. If not he will pass (or raise). Anyway, I do not have the imagination for anything more ingenious. (If partner takes 6♣ to be voidwood, I'll try some of his medication, and have a funny night.)

I'll semi-join you. I think it's close betweem 2♠ and 3♥. I would bid 3♥, but advice my partner to bid 2♠. (As declarer will be an overbidder and an underplayer.) Edit: I bid 2♠ with the thrash most people do. And then some. But MP's is MP's.

Indeed. And I don't mind missing a good slam once in a while. But this is 13 wall-to-wall tricks.

1♥ - X - XX - something 2♥ - Now neither Pass nor 3♥ are unreasonable, and it will be the final contract. As for the getting a penalty thing: South should pass an XX, which should not be penalty, and then North can bid 1♠. If EW goes for the throat here, they will have many accidents.

who would do that? No idée. But it is the only, somewhat reasonable, alternative I can see, to taking the first club in hand, and the run the ♥Q.

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=sa32hk108654dj8c82&s=s95haqj2dakq104caj]133|200|Scoring: Rubber (3♣) - Pass - (Pass) - 3NT All Pass[/hv] North had the option of inviting slam with hearts, or to play 4♥.

No. I'm not playing a heart to the Ace.

With your psionic powers, right? :) I would. At top flights I'd recommend "Tower of Iron Will" that relies on the super-ego to build an unassailable haven for the brain. Oh good grief... Old school AD+D psionics from the 80s... Actually that is the 91-version Somebody must have used "Mental Surgery" at fourth level of mastery, to make you forget that. Which is, by the way, AD&D psionics from the 80'. (Dragon Magazine #78, October 1983.)

Not to rub it in, just resulting; it seems I was right, the hand was not one where declarer-skills mattered a lot. :)