OleBerg

I would have passed over 2NT with some partners, for the simple reason that any bid here would be constructive. Having passed, I can now balance quite easily as that in no way misdescribes my hand. I don't think you can necessarily talk about "class of player" in isolation. My methods in any partnership are constrained by partnership methods, which in turn are usually constrained by how my partner likes to play. If acting as I director, I would be very skeptic if someone tried to place themselves in the "Not good enough to bid the first time, but now 3♠'s is obvious"-bracket. But of course it is not impossible. Anyway, to answer OP's question: Yes, if you judge pass to be a LA (and judge that pass demonstrably suggests bidding, which I find obvious), then 3♥ for both sides is correct. Edit: The word "good" refers to the player, not the hand. ;)

Unconcerned pass.

Not that I in any way believe it would be beyond the British system, to let it happen. I feel fairly confident however, that you will not feel ill from prostate cancer, before it is to late. Personally I have never been tested, even though the test is simple. How about you?

The agreement as not unusual, it is the most normal agreement for such a double. (Not in advanced or expert circles, but if you simply count the number of players playing it.) Your friend has protect himself. It is really being on to high a horse, to believe that everyone automatically must play your expert methods or alert. Actually, it would be more fair to ask your friend to pre-alert his doubles with shape-requirement, when playing with little old ladies/men. If appealed, I would judge it to be without merit.

Speaking of the Coen-Brothers; My all time favourite is "Miller's Crossing" . A gangster movie with an excellent plot (with no silly holes or ooopsies), and great actors. (Albert Finney, Steve Buscemi and Gabriel Byrne, to mention a few.) And for a rainy, hungover day, there is "Burn after reading". Not a deep movie as such, but still entertaining in a slightly intellectual way. And it contains the greatest laugh I had in years. Warning: Don't download these films from www.vuze.com. Even though the site is quite user-friendly and spam-free, using it is illegal.

FYP

Then try to imagine partners possible hands: ♠ xxxx ♥ AQxx ♦ A109xx ♣ - or ♠ KQxx ♥ Qxxx ♦ AKxxx ♣ - or ♠ AQxx ♥ AQxx ♦ Kxxx ♣ x or ♠ AQxxx ♥ Qxxx ♦ AKxx ♣ x or ♠ Kxxx ♥ AKxx ♦ KQxx ♣ x And these are all minimum hands. partner can easily have extras without being able to X 4♣.

The beer card is originally a Danish custom, actually from the club I play in: Studenterforeningens Bridge Club (The college Students associations Bridge Club.) In it's original form, you'd get a beer, whenever you took the last trick on the ♦7, in any contract, both as defender and as declarer. One strict requirement was, that it hadn't cost a trick, not even an unimportent overtrick. Edit: The beer is on partner, not opponents.

How about a confident 3NT. They always lead another suit, unless openers partner has a solid sequence. Wouldn't at IMP's.

Very strange not to bid 4♥ over 4♣. After the double, it is a wtp. (5♥ is simply to rich.)

May I suggest bidding 4♦ rather than 3♦? Shouldn't this show good trumps and slam interest, i.e. exactly what you have? Indeed an option. I find it borderline whether to bid 3♦ or 4♦. As opener I would respect a 3NT bid from responder, but maybe that's to chickenish (is that a word???). I play, that after 4♦, it is not an option to declare 4NT (or 5NT ;) ), but it might still be the right bid. Anyway, it wouldn't have solved my ace-checking problem. Edit: If I felt certain that 3♦ promised 4-card-support (and maybe it is obvious???), the ace-problem would be solved, as opener could bid 4♣ instead of 4♦, freeing the necessary space.

You don't you spades first if you have 5♦, 4♠ and less than GF values? If you did, trumps could be set quite low. I don't quite follow. In my system, the 2♠ bid is mandatory, as lower bids are reserved for other hands. This is the scheme: 1NT = 15-17 bal 2♣ = Clubs, non-forcing. 2♦ = 3-card diamonds, or 4 card diamonds and a real bad hand. Non-forcing. 2♥ = 3-way: Natural reverse, 18-19 bal. or various strong club-hands. (2♠ = Relay.) 2♠ = Natural reverse. 2NT = Strong diamond support, forcing. Doesn't seem that insensible, but it does force us high on this hand. I play that 1♠ denies four card majors unless 10+. Not so hot on this hand, but even if played "unless GF" it is not without problems to support diamonds immediately. The pro's and con's of immediate support in a T-Walsh-structure would merit its own thread. I like for responder to be able to show 10 hcp by bidding 1♠ followed by 2M. Problems rarely occur, but when opener is Marmic or 4-0-4-5/0-4-4-5, things can get a little muddy. (Supporting diamonds immediately, would make it impossible to get back to spades, as all subsequent 3♠-bids will be used to prompt for 3NT.)

I play the ♣K at trick 1. Then the♠10 to the ace, and the ♠2 to the jack. Then the ♠K. I will believe the signal East sends to his partner at trick one; a low indicating a four card-suit, and a high indicating a doubleton. If the follow in tempo, I will also believe the signals on the two first spades. I'll then act accordingly. (Assuming that West has at most 3 hearts.)

Natural; 1♣ - 1♦ 1♠ - 1NT/2♦ 3♥ - A walk in the park. In my own system I could get into trouble; 1♣ - 1♠ = (T-walsh, 5+♦) 2♠ - 2NT = GF 3♦ - 3♥ = FSF 4♦ - 6♦ I will not go into details, but the 1♠ takes up space, so that thrumps is set at an uncomfortably high level, making ace-checking difficult. 6♦, showing a monsterhand, but only one ace, is a bit of a gamble, as partner might theoretically have only 2. I might miss this one on a bad day. Not a good hand for T-Walsh. (Wouldn't dream of not showing the spades in any system.)

Far from certain I would have thought it at the table, but if I did, I would definitely support diamonds on the first round. (Most likely I would bid 3♥ without much thought, and get into hot water later.) Edit: Oh, and the bidding: 3♦ - 4♠ 4NT - 5♥ 5♠ - 6♣ 7♦ 4NT = Three aces out of five. 5♥ = Two aces, no club-cue. 5♠ = ♦Q 6♣ = Strongly suggests bidding grand. Edit: Sequence changed. (Memory lapse.)

1♠ - (2♥) - X 4♣ - 4NT Playing 1430 you are home free, playing 0314 you are FCK'ed. In my own obscure system: 1♠ - (2♥) - X 4♣ - 4NT* *Promising exactly two aces and a diamond-control. In my world 1♠ - (2♥) - X 4♣ - 4♠ Is to play, with two or three spades. Thus bidding 4♣ is no problem.

Declaring 5♥ in the South seat, with a ♣K lead, I ruffed and crossed to the ♦J, and was relieved when LHO didn't ruff. I was a bit surprised when RHO ruffed. As hearts was 3-0 there was no recovery. Full deal: [hv=d=e&v=e&n=s1073h10872dj542c105&w=sjhd109763cakqj874&e=sa86542hk96dc9632&s=skq9haqj543dakq8c]399|300|[/hv] Well, all was not lost, even though the teammates performed sub-optimal, missing the grand. 6♣X with thirteen tricks was ok. It's completely James Bond'ish, holding the South hand, and not being able to beat 7♣ on any lead. (From any side.)

Definately not. I don't mind a doctor dictating me what medication I should take for an infection, but I would mind the very same doctor dictating me what brand of cereal I should eat.

Thats probably why no one suggested it.

A couple of small spades. Assuming partner is 12-14, taking the ace behind the strong hand seems rather panicky. I do not fear declarer running dummy's diamonds.

Pass. And when I pass, you know it's right.

I would definetely have the agreement that 3♠ was a superaccept with a minimum, (4 other bids available for maximum hands are enough for me.) I would be very conservative in using it though, the hand should be very well suited for play in spades, and thus have somthing like an unguarded doubleton and another suit without intermidiates. If 1nt is 12-14, it is another matter. Edit: Also, my guess at how likely it is that they compete, would have an influence. Obviosly a double is such an indication, but sometimes opp. has an air of resignation about them. Other times you might be up against players that competes less than they should. These last two are some other good reasons not to superaccept.

Last board of the evening. [hv=d=e&v=e&n=s1073h10872dj542c105&s=skq9haqj543dakq8c]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Bidding: (Pass) - 2♣ -(5♣) - Pass (Pass) - 5♥ - all pass The lead is the king of clubs. How do you play?

Tillykke med foedselsdagen.

1♠ Doesn't completely bury the heart suit, as it opens up some responsive doubles from partners. I would back in with a double after: (1♦) - 1♠ - (2♦) - Pass (Pass) Quite tough, but my partner usually takes out my take-out doubles, and I am an overbidder.