OleBerg

Indeed. 3rd hand favourable. No big deal. Yeah no big deal. No big deal that you have a 12 count and have no reason to believe your opponents have game. No big deal that you are playing matchpoints and going completely against the field. No big deal that the opponents have opened the bidding and already have a head start describing their hands. Not a big deal at all. Like the headline say, it wasn't me, and I don't think I would have the imagination for it. And bridgewise my imagination is normally quite vivid. But I dont really consider it a big deal. (I assume you dont agree with the bidding so far.) But what is more important: I dont consider the "Dont go against the field" argument as valid.

Indeed. 3rd hand favourable. No big deal.

Partner deals at White vs Red, MP: Pass - (1♦) - 1NT - (Pass) 2♣ - (Pass) - Pass - (Double) 2♦ - (Pass) - ? ♠QT/♥J7/♦K97/♣KQJ1042 Do you agree with the bidding so far? What do you bid now?

If 2♣ followed by 2♥ is pattering out, I don't see why it should be any weaker than an immediate 2♥. In either case partner may be forced to give preference at the three level. All it does is misstate your shape in addition to overstating your values. Agree. Bidding that way should indicate 5♦, 4♣ and 3 (good) ♥. As to the original question I'd overbid with 2♥ on the second round. At least I only misstate strength.

2♦ wtp.

What a wonderfull hand, so many possebileties. In a natural system 1♣, 3♣ and 2♥ spring to mind. Depending on partner, opponents and state of the match I'll choose accordingly. (If I have a big lead, I might find an off-beat pass.) In a strong club system 2♣ is a wtp.

2♥ is a wtp for me. (Well the problem might be -800. tried it before.)

1nt at MP 2♣ at Imps, but I find 1nt reasonable.

2♦, make a plan later.

Depends a little on what continuations you play on 2♣. I'll take the liberty of a semi-hijack. If you play 2♦ as a waiting bid, made with many hands, it is easy to incooperate all balanced hands with 5-card majors, in the sequences: 2♣-2♦ 2♥/2♠ Responder has many ways of showing different degrees of support, and it makes the evaluation of the hand easier. If I have to start showing a balanced hand, 21-22 is a wtp. If the question is whether to get to game, we do not have anything more than maximum, trick-wise. If slam is the question, I will most likely get another chance to put the pedal to the metal.

We are Red vs White, so I'll only concede that we have a big maximum.

Double is a wtp. So is 6♦ over 5♥. It is not obvious what the agreement about 5♥ is, but looking at the hand, it was probably meant to show a good raise in spades. The hand doesn't warrant that. I prefer double of 4♥ to show excactly 4 spades, as we often have to double 2♥ on a three card-suit. And we are not eager to play our 4-3 fits after barrages. (Ok, the double of 4♥ should show 4 spades initially, but hands with fewer spades and a plan, can double too.)

As I always open 5-5 in the black suits with 1♣, I have an easy 3♠. In partnerships where 5-5 can be opened 1♣, 3♠ is out of the question. Strenghtwise, 3♠ shows nothing more than a raise to 3nt, it simply describes a ditributional hand, that believes that other games than 3nt is possible.

Indeed. 4♠ followed by a double (if they sac), should show a hand that expected 4♠ to make. Partner should be well placed to judge what to do.

3♦ Another thing that really makes me dislike pass, is that with our intermidiates, it is unlikely that we will be doubled, even if thrumphs break badly.

Agree. I reagree.

The ideé, that a double is required to lead a heart, does in no way appeal to me. No matter how good my partner is, I do not expect her to double, just because she has four hearts and a soft ace.

A spade. Partner can have two reasons for lightnering: A void, or a trick to be set up. Voids are out. It is not possible to construct a distribution, where partner has a void. So he has a trick to be set up, namely in dummys first bid suit.

Hi all, I had planned on a longer, and more thouroughly considered response. Unfortunately I have been without internetacces for 36 hours, and I'm off on vacation. So a short and fast reply is all I can offer. My ideé was indeed the response of bidding 3♥ to set trumphs. (I wouldn't consider any other meaning for that bid.) In my opinion, this is a borderline hand for the bid, but unless I am very certain of my continuations after a 2♥ rebid, I would choose 3♥. To find the right contract on this/these hands, I need a lot of information from partner. For instance, if partner makes a bid that shows 5 spades I would be very reluctant to support them. If partner has five spades to the queen, and a singleton heart, the hand still belongs in hearts. Likewise with diamonds, if I bid them, and partner support them, it is by no means certain, that diamonds is our best spot. If I bid 3♥, I immidiately tells partner that a doubleton and a ruffing-value is great. Furthermore, partner will know I am looking for tricks and controls, not for a fit. If I bid 2♥, and then diamonds, partner might worry about the quality of the thrumph-suit, even with three small hearts. Of course things might go wrong with a 3♥ bid, where 2♥ would have saved the day. I just consider it more likely, that it is the other way around. (Unless I have very good, very specific agreemnets about third and fourth round of bidding.)

The more I think of it, the more I realise this is a BIG WTP 4♥, so sorry for wasting time and bandwith. On the actual hand, partner had a subminimum: ♠8xxxx ♥AKQ ♦x ♣xxxx As thrumphs are 2-2, it takes a Thrumph-lead to beat it.

Well, maybe it doesn't belong here, but I wanted qualified responses. Edit: Further qualified responses are welcome.

Partner bids the expected 2♦. Opps are silent.

Not really, just be a little more specific.

Imps. ♠AK9 ♥AKQJ43 ♦AQ42 ♣ - You are first in hand. You play a natural system, with and against top-class players. You play 2♣ as only gameforce, where partner will very often bid a 2♦-waiting-bid. What is your plan?

Yes, I thought that MFA meant Mother-*****ing Askgaard, but it turned out to be MorFar Askgaard. :D (By the way, as I remember it, it turned out ok.)