OleBerg

When the opponents bid 3NT based on a solid suit?

♥K wtp?

World of Warcraft.

3♣ Obvious to an overbidder. I am not going to defend 2♠ at favourable, when they have a 9-card fit, so I might as well bid immidiately. Even withouth being a passed hand, partner should know I was pre-balancing (MP's). A good partner might even think twice before leading from an unguarded honour in clubs, if she has a good alternative. As there are many warning signs, I wont attemt to get to the best contract, but rather make it likely, that I get to something playable. Thus 3♣ and not double (Of 2♠). (Partner passing that double, would definitely be a nail-biter.) Furthermore, 3♣ is also the most difficult to defend against, as they dont have an uncommitting double available.

I would never assume this undiscussed. And I wouldn't even prefer it as an agreement, but if partner insisted.

Both opening 1♦ and bidding 2NT now seems obvious to me. As we didn't open 1NT partner will now we have an intermidiate unbalanced hand.

Maybe. And even once in 1000 when I'm right, people will just think I got lucky.

♣ The only way my lead can affect the outcome, is if something is not kosher. So I play West for a bluff; she is void in Hearts, not Clubs.

What!? A voice of sanity in the wildernes...er forum? :) No. Just another old man. :angry:

5 Diamond scores less in undertricks... Actually 3NT is microscopicly better, as it can often handle 4 diamonds in South.

That's probably true as these terms are commonly used, but I think the world would be a slightly better place if we had one term meaning "4 cards in each unbid major" and another meaning "some support for all the unbid suits". So I like the usage implied by the question, even if it's not universal. Indeed. I was trying to illustrate, that, for some, there is no clearcut boundary.

To put it simple: The higher the level, the less shape requirements. Whether you call it "negative" or "take-out", is just a matter of words. At the 5-level, some players even play them as fit-showing, or highly indicating a fit. Edit: On the hand I double. If partner bids 4♠, I pull to 5♣, having shown a hand that can play in both minors.

Pass wtp?

Are they experts?

But parners raise might. I would certainly lead a heart vs NT, and I would often want partner to lead one, even from Kx. So what? We bid when we are minimum, we pass when we are below minimum. Apart from the abovementioned: - It might be our hand. - We might push the opponents to high, battling for the partscore. Classic arguments, classic counterarguments. Obviously debateable. Better than pass, but still along way from my choice.

Pass wouldn't occur to me. Gnashers 2NT seems right.

Nice posts. They might even help jdeegan to "to gauge the quality of commentators."

Where this is headed:

We prefer the term "undercat".

Good question! I meant "Forced" unblocking to be the case, where a hand has to follow to partners trick with a highcard that could have won the trick, if partner had played a small instead. Or if the card is of equal strength to the trick-winning card. Unblocking is simply throwing winning cards on other winners. Edit: So if you throw an ace on a winning deuce, you have unblocked 4 HCP. If a hand plays the king, dropping partners queen, you have unblocked 2 HCP. (Provided either hand had a small card they could have followed with.

Construct a full deal where, with best defence and declarer play: - NS will score 9 tricks in NT. - 28 HCP' are unblocked (Including forced unblocking.) Winner gets a no-prize.

Why must partner have at most 11 HCP? RHO have at least 13 LHO have at least 6 I have 10 40-13-6-10 = 11 Thus partner have at most 11 HCP. QED

I hate keycard, but on this hand it couldn't be more handy.

No. You should check out what people opens these days.

I'm not saying double is right, but wouldn't partner lead a spade from ♠K10754, the only lead allowing the contract to make?