OleBerg

I would indeed open 1♠, and indeed bid 3♠. 1♠ - 2♥ 3♥ - 3♠ 4♥ As the South hand was opened with 1♠, I take the liberty of assuming it is within partnership style. In this case the North hand is only worth an invite, which South will refuse. Staying in four would not be possible with me in the North seat. Wiking-Club handles this hand nicely: 1♠ - 1NT (Nat. 10-15 - GF Relay) 2♦ - 2♥ (10-13 minor-sidesuit - Relay) 2NT - 3♣ (Four-card diamonds - Relay) 3♠ - 4♣ (5-3-4-1 - Relay for aces) 4♦ - 4♥ (One ace out of four - Relay for kings) 4♠ - Pass (One king out of four) Even if North can't completely write off slam, it is quite unlikely. Partners Ace-King combo has to be ♠K and ♦A. Furthermore partner has to have the ♥Q and ♦Q. The ♠T is also needed in case thrumphs are 4-1. Hearts 4-1 might also be troublesome. So even 5 could easily be in jeopardy. Pass is big odds-on. Not a perfect sequence, but quite good.

I'd rather bid 7♦ on 5♣ than 6♦. All partner needs is to four small in a red suit and four spades, for a grand to be reasonable. When I have a fair shot of making a grand facing a true Yearl, I bid it. Of course if I have a sequence available to show such a powerhouse, I'd use it.

3NT. And then pull the brakes.

In this auction you haven't shown anything. Why do you consider this auction to be superior to one where partner has bid hearts 1 less tiem but you have shown both good values and good diamonds. A lot of people also play kokish which would be terrible for bidding 2D on this hand obviously. Well first off, as a general principle I don't like to gobble up bidding space, when our correct strain is so uncertain. All denominations but spades is possible. I might not be aware of all the implications of Kokish, but as I read OP's post, 2♣ - 2♦, 2♥ would show hearts or a balanced hand. Cannot see anything terrible in this, but I might be missing something. It might be right, that I haven't shown anything but GF values, but I have shown a large part of my distribution. 4♣ will almost always be 5-5. Furthermore, partner has had the chance to show something, and by inference deny other things. In my book, a jump to 3♥ on 2♦ would set thrumphs. I would really like to know whether partner can bid this or not. If he cannot, I will naturally go out of my way to find another strain. And in the rare circumstances were partner doesn't have a heart-one-suiter, a 3♦ bid will really mess things up. I would assume, that in the sequence: 2♣ - 2♦ 2♥ - ??? 2♠ would ask for clarification (even if undiscussed). As I do not bid that, I would not find it unreasonable to assume that 3♦ shows something substantial in the suit, but also a hand with other possible strains, as I didn't bid 3♦ directly.

2♦ If partner doesn't jump to 3♥, I'll be happy to introduce both of my suits. If partner thinks that: 2♣ - 2♦ 2♥ - 3♦ 3♥ - 4♣ is a cuebid, it's back to the B/I.

So what do you bid with 5 diamonds and no values?

Voted: "any 5+ diamonds with some (4-5 hcp) useful cards" Basicly it's any hand that is ready to bid 3♦ over 2♠, and has a distribtuion that expects it.

A story more than 12 years old. Maybe not a real Grosvenor, but at least it contains a forum member cheating. My partner and I played in a strong club vs a famous/infamous pair, who played (very) HUM. On one hand my partner was declarer in 3NT with 432 in hearts facing 65 in the dummy. The opponents took ages to cash their four heart tricks, including a few technical unblocks. During the play my partner studied their system-declaration intensely, trying to get a generel overwiew of the opponents system. After the hand a longer discussion ensued, as to whether it was unethical of my partner to study the declaration, with the aforementioned heart holding. I went to the bar for refreshments, not really expecting tempers to have cooled down when I returned. Next hand I was declarer (spotcards inacurate): [hv=d=s&v=b&n=s654hkj3dk543c543&s=sak732hq1092daq2c2]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Going through invitational sequence we ended in 4♠ declared by South, and doubled by RHO. The defence started with two rounds of clubs, ruffed by South. I was at crossroads. With thrumphs 3-2 It would be simple to draw two rounds of thrumphs, then knock out the ace of hearts. However that could backfire the -800/-1100 way, if thrumphs were 4-1. And I wasn't in the mood for another of those. I decided to play a round of hearts first, risking a ruff if they were 5-1. I led a low heart towards dummys KJ3, and LHO made what was known as "the top player fidge", just enough to make declarer believe he had something to consider, but not enough to get any TD to rule against him. "Relieved" (I made quite a show) I asked for the King. It was taken by the Ace. I could now safely draw two rounds of spades. As they were 3-2, the contract rolled home.

Sounds very strange. You should hold less 0-5 counts, than excactly 11-counts, when you have a six-card suit in hearts or spades (or diamonds)???

Trelde-split?

So it is insane to roll a die? (I must admit Einstein said something a little like that too.) Are you asking Einstein or me? My answer would be that the result of rolling a die is not "I got a 4", it's "I get a 4 1/6 of the time", and of course that won't change no matter how many times you roll it. Perhaps he would have a more intelligent answer. Yeah, I was probably just a bit trigger-happy. And maybe influenced a little by my love for chaos.

It is not common, for me, to see my opponents bid 3♠-4♠. If it was, I would play the pass as forcing. Well, in poker you try to get up against as weak opposition as possible, in bridge you try to get up against as strong opposition as possible. If you're up against Gus Hansen, you better take into consideration, that he might be on level three.

So it is insane to roll a die? (I must admit Einstein said something a little like that too.)

Isn't that an artifact in D&D?

obv So everytime East has a very distributional hand that wants to get doubled in 4♠, he simply bids 3♠ first? Or every time he wants to play 3♠ when cold for game. We are not required to bid over it, and often don't. On the other hand, if he is so wildly distributional that he is sure we will act over 3♠ and is confident of making 4♠, then we probably have distribution too and want to save instead of passing it out. If you have a distributional hand, you should be able to see it for yourself, and not have to rely on the opponents to tell you. Even if we assume he is right to bid 4♠ that doesn't mean pass shouldn't be forcing. His most likely reason to bid 4♠ is he is worried one side or the other is making. If them then we probably want to save. If us then we probably want to double or bid on to make. The logic here is overwhelming. Good players are not in the habit of missing game or failing to bid it when the decision is close, but RHO tried to stop in a partsocre. So when he bids game later, pass is forcing. He is usually not messing with us so you can't spend all your time worrying about it, and even if he is then we probably don't want to pass it out. For one thing; The "whiter" my opponents vulnerabilety becomes, the more likely he is to be messing with us. At IMPs that is. At Mp's stunts can be more freely pulled, even at aggregate. My main point however is, that if a really competent player bids 3♠ - 4♠, it is rarely right to double for penalties, and sometimes it is right to sell out. I am not saying that forcing might not be a better agreement, only that it is not obvious. Maybe an even better agreement would be: "Forcing against players up to a certain level of competence, non-forcing against players over that level of competence."

obv So everytime East has a very distributional hand that wants to get doubled in 4♠, he simply bids 3♠ first? Or put another way: When up against competent opposition, I'd expect the 4♠ bidder to know what he is doing.

Forcing with my agreements. (When we are red vs white and bid a game, that could not have been reached by a stronger route, pass is forcing.) Wouldn't be forcing at any other vulnerabilety.

You are South. Partner passes and next hand bids 3♠, normal preempt. [hv=d=n&v=n&s=s7hj10754dakq84cq6]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] Pass - (3♠) - ??? What do you bid if: a) You play non-leaping Michaels in this position? b) You don't? Exchange the ♣6 with the ace, and again: a) Playing NLM b) No NLM There is no "correct" answer, I simply want a lot of expert-opinions.

Yes, I should have included a "agree wtih the bidding so far?" Anyway, imagine you passed.

RHO deals. [hv=d=e&v=n&s=s76ha97d109875ca86]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] (Pass) - Pass - (1♦) - 1♠ (Double) - Pass - (1NT) - Pass (Pass) - ??? The double showed 4 hearts. (Normal take-out.) 1NT showed 12-14 balanced or semi-balanced. Spades very likely to be stopped. Any shots in the barrel? (I actually find this quite interesting, so plz take a moment to reflect.)

A hand for partner: ♠ KQx ♥ KJ98x ♦ AK9x ♣ A So they open 10-counts and reply on 4. Whats new? Still a very brave bid by partner. I bid 4♥ That hand looks like a double of 2♣ and 3♣ to me. Sure do, maybe 2-5-4-2 is more likely. I still bid 4♥.

A hand for partner: ♠ KQx ♥ KJ98x ♦ AK9x ♣ A So they open 10-counts and reply on 4. Whats new? Still a very brave bid by partner. I bid 4♥

I just ran a simulation on: www.resultmerchant.com It fully supports the 4♠-bid.

Thx. 4♠ = Downright silly. I had a thousand ways to raise partner to 3♠, so if I wanted to get to 4♠ (which is silly in itself), I should have included him in the decision. Pass = The normal, standout bid. Double = Greedy and quite silly. Not as obviously stupid as 4♠, but maybe even more expensive in the long run. (When this backfires it is more often an expensive swing, while the bid of 4♠ often is less expensive, but it is more frequent.)

4♥ Where I want to be, if partner has one more spade than hearts. And often where I want to be if he has two more.