MarkDean

I would have bid 4♣ the previous round.

I cannot speak to if there are "people," but I am sure there is "person."

I would drive game and not feel bad about it. If this hand type is part of 3NT definition, I would use that. Otherwise, I guess I would bid 2NT. I do not like to bid a one step below game splinter with such disparity in the minors. I also think 2♣ is reasonable. We want partner to know KQxxx xx Axx KQx is gold, but KQxxx KQx Axx xx not so much.

I would certainly have bid as your partner did, however it sounds from this thread as though I am more aggressive with leaping michaels than others.

So there were two hands (OP and Roger's) and an auction...were those two hands supposed to have had the auction proposed by Roger? Because they do not match in my mind. It is quite possible you are getting to slam off two aces with your unsophisticated auction: opener knows he has just one ace and the partnership has around 30 HCP. However, I will concede that a pair with better agreements can avoid this. A small modification to the hand I put in the previous post should do: Kx Axxx Kxxx Axx.

I do not like inverted minors, as I in general am not a huge fan of auctions where we are trying to sort out level and strain at the same time. Perhaps people who play artifical continuations solve this problem. The idea of overloading it even more seems like a really bad idea to me.

Yeah, that is a real weakspot in 2/1 if you do not play an immediate 3♣ is invitational. I had one partner who insisted that 2/1 was not GF if the suit was rebid, which helped on this hand, but opened up a whole other can of worms.

I think that opening 1NT is certainly reasonable, and I would likely do it myself, but I think that last sentence in your post is nonsense: surely we will miss the (very) occassional slam this way. Slam is not about having X HCP, it is about tricks, and opposite the right hand 6+ dimaonds can be worth more than the extra queen. And it is not like partner has to guess the contract over 2♦, he can find out if you have 10 or 15. Many partnerships (including all of mine) cannot even ask about diamonds over 1NT when responder has a 3442 hand or the like. AKxx Qx Kxx Axxx 1D-1S 2D-2H 2N-3D 3N-? Maybe you would bid 4C and maybe you would pass, but the point is that it's not obvious at all to get to all of these slams you automatically miss by opening 1N. I am confused by your example. Is the other hand supposed to be the one in the OP? Why did he not show 3 spades over 2H? Why did he bid 3NT over 3D? And how do you think the auction would go with this hand opposite a 1NT opener? It is not clear to me that you would get to slam, and certainly not to 6D opposite some similar hands where that is better than nt (like Kx AJxx KJx Axxx). Anyhow, I agree we are not going to get to all slams either way, I just think it is clear that opening 1D will get to some good slams that will be missed opening 1NT (however, I am not trying to argue that makes opening 1D a better bid).

I think that opening 1NT is certainly reasonable, and I would likely do it myself, but I think that last sentence in your post is nonsense: surely we will miss the (very) occassional slam this way. Slam is not about having X HCP, it is about tricks, and opposite the right hand 6+ dimaonds can be worth more than the extra queen. And it is not like partner has to guess the contract over 2♦, he can find out if you have 10 or 15. Many partnerships (including all of mine) cannot even ask about diamonds over 1NT when responder has a 3442 hand or the like.

2♦ now. I would not have opened 2♦, but I am guessing I am in the minority there.

I also like 2D. If partner has a great supporing hand, he can bid again. I think we need a pretty good catch to have 3NT be better than a finesse. Even if I try to give pd a max, fiting hand, such as JTx QJxx Kxx QJx, we are likely down on a spade lead. Plus I have to keep up the streak of always disagreeing with clee.

I guess I am just to unimaginative to do anything other than pass.

Yep, I agree, time for old black.

It is tough, I think these overloaded, could be choice of games or could be slammish auctions are very difficult. I was going to say that I agree with North's 3NT, but when trying to consutruct hands where 3NT was good and 5D in danger, it was harder than I thought, so perhaps a move is in order.

It is nice for one to know there are new experiences yet to come. Well, you know what they say: if your opponents never make any redoubled overtricks against you, you aren't doubling enough.

I like to play double is lead your shorter major, and I would double. Obviously it has its risks, but I am pretty aggressive with these types of doubles, and so far, while I have had them make it, I have no redoubles and overtrick like swings against.

As a general rule I am willing to bid one level higher in competition than I would have without it, so here I will bid 3♥.

Pass, slam try, pass. So while I am overbidding one hand, cherdanno and I put together overbid all three with you.

Slam could be good, but partner needs pretty specific hands. I would pass.

Why do you need iii? You need iii to make slam almost cold, but it is very good opposite just the DA and HAQ since they won't always lead a diamond. Also even on a diamond lead you are almost 100 % if partner has ATx. Also, how can you be off the AK of diamonds here? You have all the club honors, and the QJ of diamonds. If partner has no diamond control he has at most QJ AQ in the majors which is not enough to move over 4H. Why would partner not move with QJxx AQxxx xxxx --? Take the hand from the OP and switch the minors and slam is extremely good. (Of course if pd has that hand we are down in 5...) But I believe Frances was implying we might be off the diamond AK but not the ace of spades in her view of cue bidding, i.e. pd could have AJxx AQxxx xxx x and is fishing for a diamond cue bid.

I bid 3♠. This is always a tough problem: a max with bad stuff in pd's second suit or a min with good stuff. However, with this bad of a hand, I think 3♠ is warranted. I know this is not popular, but I really do not like this re-invite, and last train stuff. In fact, I try (usually unsuccesfully) to get my partner's to agree you cannot invite over an invite, you almost always bid game or signoff - other bids are rare, and are if you think there might be a better strain.

I thought forever on this hand. I would lay down the ace in either case. If I run the queen to stiff king, I am down, and I assume if LHO has Kx in spades, he can get to pd to get his ruff, and I am down. However, I only pick up stiff 9 or 6 with LHO. I spent a long time on the game theory of RHO's action, but with his uncertainly of the entry to dummy, I eventually did not read enough into either decision to sway me. If he covers and it goes 69 (or 96) on the spade ace, I guess I need to think for a while again (but I will probably still go with playing for 2155 on my left).

I cannot fathom anything other than pass once you get here - you have described your hand to partner much more definitely than she has to you - why would you act in front of her now? Huh? Because you don't rate to make pretty much ever given that your hand is this weak combined with RHO telling you that he does not think you will make, and you already stretched to make this bid. You haven't "described your hand" you could still have a 24 count, and you could still be 3442 or 3433 etc, so partner has no idea that you have a home, whereas you know you have a 5 solid suit. Also it is very hard to double 4D without trump tricks imo, they're doubling you into game, so there's a reasonable chance that you will survive, especially if RHO is good and he won't spite double you. It's not like his hand is massive, he couldn't bid over 3C, so it's unlikely he has so much in top tricks that he can light you up. Partner is never going to run, it's up to you. yeah, you are right. I was not thinking too clearly when I posted that - I think running is reasonable.

I cannot fathom anything other than pass once you get here - you have described your hand to partner much more definitely than she has to you - why would you act in front of her now?

Nasty problem. I admit I sort of want to pass, but I will double. A decent portion of the time 3NT is making (which I do not think is too often), partner will bid it over double.