MarkDean

I would bid 4♣ with the hand in the OP. I think waiting around for a hand better than this is losing bridge.

You can risk your contract for beer, but if you do so and it actually costs the contract (or even an extra trick), you owe your partner a case.

I would bid 4♠. If I doubled, I would then sit for 5♣.

Definitely quant for me. This is really easy in two of my partnerships where we agreed there is no way to ask key cards in a minor.

What would double of 1♠ have been?

I think if you're going to play ogust, you should have a strict definition of 2/3 top honors for good suit. A good percentage of the time responder is trying to decide whether 3n is the right game. Internal solidity is nice to have for your preempt, but it may not make much difference once you have found a fit. So what do you respond with the following two hands, all white first seat IMPs: A) KQ9653 5 QT4 742 :lol: AJT953 5 QT4 742? It seems weird to call B bad / bad, or A good / good, but it also seems strange to call B a good hand and A a bad one.

I usually play what partner wants, then always just bid 4M or pass. I do have trouble with ogust though. I often find myself with an average weak 2 and sort of arbitrarily decide if I should call it good hand bad suit or bad hand good suit.

I would just bid game. I am pretty sure I have never in my life made a game try and then bid a slam when partner made interesting noise over my try: maybe I just do not think outside the box often enough.

Looking at all four hands, I'd prefer to be in 3NT or 4♠. If RHO has a singleton heart, 3♣ might well make. The original OP had all four hands: obviously he changed his mind about that, but let me just say that they would not be making 3♣x.

I would absolutely Texas to start with. I would basically always bid game with a seven card suit opposite a strong nt. Either I think it is likely to make, or if my hand is truly atrocious, it could be a good sac.

Agree with what jdonn said.

Please do not make me give up either one.

I will not try for game. Pass.

I would also pass.

North passing the double seems like a good place. Easy when you see all four hands. Edit: When I replied, the OP had a link to all four hands.

Phil is a Californian. In California, we measure distances in minutes/hours. And don't even get me started on kilometers!

I pass. Opposite some of my own white/red 3♠ openers, we are already going down.

For the past two years I have played in the NAP district finals knowing I could not go to nationals if we qualified. Of course I told my partner beforehand. While I can see the argument in teams because of KOs, I do not really see why it would hurt the process in pairs. It sucks that the player in your story did not tell his partner, but I do not see how that relates to if it is ethical to play in the finals in general or not.

Here is what I had before reading anybody else's answers: 1. 4♣ - I am a simple guy, I bid my suits. 2. 4♣ - I would have bid 3♣ last round, feel pretty stuck this round. 3. Pass - nasty problem. 4. 2♣ - seems clear to me. 5. Pass - seems clear to me. After reading others answers: 1. To be honest, I did not think of double, certainly think it is reasonable, but I will stick with bidding my good five card suit. 2. OK, yeah, 4♣ is not great, I will join the 3NT bidders: hopefully pd can work out I have this hand type. 3. I see it is unpopular, but I will stick with pass. 4 and 5, I still think are clear.

Can I get one for my commute?

While this analysis is helpful, I do not think it tells the whole story. The lighter you GF, you either have to widen your splinter range, or make another move with some of the heavier splinters. I would GF this hand, but think it is close.

I join the chorus that would have opened as South (although I think it is close), and would have passed it out as South if I did chose not to open. Agree with North's bidding.

Where did that 10.8% come from? I get 43.3%.

I know it is MPs, but I would still GF. I am sucker for good 7 card suits.

Agree with gnasher.