OleBerg

1) All. With A I might be consent to make a single raise. With the rest I do something more forward-going. 2) With A I might pass. B and C I'll probably give a single raise, and D a cuebid. In both instances the hands are much stronger than their hcp-count indicates. For instance hand 1D only needs partner to hold ♣Kxxxx and a doubleton spades to make 5♣ a huge favourite.

Voted 2♠. Close, depends somewhat on, how much in a habit partner and I am, biddng 2♠ on a three-card-suit. I play that 2♠ virtually guarantees 4. Combined with that xxx in Diamonds is bad, we are white, and that the♣A may not pull it's full weight, I choose the conservative option. Stating the obvious (well, obvious to an overbidder like me): ♠KJxx/♥AQ10xx/♦x/♣Axx is a clear 3♠.

FYP :D

Pass. If I have to make a tough invite, I'd do it in NT, where all those pips are more likely to pull their weight.

Take-out would be default in my system, as we double a denomination they might want to play in. Playing it two-way sounds reasonable. A little risky though, to try without prior discussion, I'd think.

2♠ the first time. The level I want to compete to, if partner has an ordinary TO-double. 3NT. Not that I feel confident, but it's game after all. (And 3♥ is probably forcing anyway, in which case there is really no other option.)

Oops, misvoted North 100%. Meant South.

Go fish. (Ok, I'm spoiled.)

Ok, I yield; I change my call to a confident 2♥

Assuming IMP's (Not BAM.) 1♠ - 2♦ Off to a nice start. 2♠ = Quite conservative, but just acceptable. 3♣ is probably better, and would be my choice, but it preempts the bidding, on a hand where the question: "3NT or 4♠?" will often be the problem that needs to be solved. 3♣ = Annoying to have to bid like this on 4-3 instead of 5-4. (Dont try it with screens.) Why not 3♥? 3♠ = Why not 4♣? It seems like 3♣ is really an artificial bid, if you do not support it on this hand. At least bid 3♥, showing doubt about the final denomination. (Get rid of that "asks for a stopper" nonsense.) 3NT = Much to little. Partner bid spades three times (With weaker spades 3♥ could have been bid.). 4♥, showing a good raise to 4♠, is obvious. Pass = ????? Even if we somehow know that partner has temporized with 3♣, he must have had a reason for doing it, instead of bidding 3NT directly on 2♠. Taking another initiative seems completely obvious.

North bids 2♥, South 3♥, North 4♥ wtp?

Get a grip.

1) No, it's to strong. I bid 4♥ on much weaker hands. (Say xx/AKQ10xxx/xx/AK.) 2) I never start with a double when I have only one suit to play in. Doubling and bidding hearts would show a flexibel hand. 3-6-3-1 is one of many possibileties. If I had an ace-ask, it would be an obvious choice. Alas I don't, so I bid 5♥. 3) If I had somehow brought myself into this, I'd bid 5♥ and prey partner passed. Since he is short in clubs, a 2-3 hearts (or more) is reasonable to expect.

I feel fairly confident, that the welltrained-ness gnasher referred to, was the pokerface he kept when he doubled.

Taken from my upcoming book on declarer play.

System on (transfer). Shows a game-force with no other good bid. Could easily be three-suited with short hearts.

@Board 3: Whether to pass or open 1NT, or an off-beat 1♦, is a close call. Having passed, I wouldn't consider passing 1♠ a logical alternative. The same goes for passing 2♦ in the pass-out seat; not a logical alternative. You don't double hoping partner can pass. You double to let partner choose which strain to compete in. And it is obvious you should compete. Partners pass is a fringe benefit.

I have a hard time imagening a 5-5 hand that would bid 1♥ but not 2♦. Using my imagination hard: ♠ Qx ♥ KJ9xx ♦ xxxxx ♣ A

2♠ seems obvious, even in a 5-card-major context. 3♦ would be "taking a position", at the very least. Getting to 6♣ is not nescesarily easy. If 3♥ is forcing by North, I'd would be my choice, and Clubs would virtually be gone. (If you play 4♣ by south after 3♥ as showing club-strength (as opposed to cuebid), an inspired 6♣ might save the day. If I am (on this occasion) lucky enough that it is not forcing, 4♣ sems obvious, and 6♣ is within reach.

Is it possible to "Lowjack" a thread?

Just to be fair to the idée: There has probably been numerous occasions, where the certainty that partner held four in the suit, made the right defence easy to find.

Not to fire away in your 3-3 fit, and not to unblock Kxx facing QJx. I have been playing something similiar for appr. 8 years. Three times we have been able to diagnose partner had led from a short suit into a short suit. And all three times, we have not been able to afford a high discouraging card. Still hoping.

2:)♠

Tough hand. Pass, 2♠ and 3NT are all options. Much will depend on opponents style, and how light partner can be. And how freely partner doubles with only 3 spades.

All suits stinks, so nothing is obvious. I'll lead a spade. Should give me a fair chance of not being endplayed the next time I'm on lead. I consider it marginally better than picking a random suit.