Little Kid

[hv=d=s&v=e&s=s986hdakjt8763cq8]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] - 1D is 4+♦. - Your preempts can be very light at favourable. - 3NT is agreed as a solid 7-card minor with at most a Queen outside.

It is an IMP tournament, but it probably doesn't change anything to your answer.

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=sa3hk8653dk83ckj9]133|100|Scoring: IMP (1♠) - 2♥ - ( X ) - 5♥ (Pass)-Pass-(5♠)-Pass (Pass) - ?[/hv]

3♣

1NT gets your hand off your chest in one bid, taking the pressure of any subsequent bidding. If you Double, LHO raises and partner bids 3♣, do you bid 3NT? It might depend on the style of your opponents but LHO bidding by no means says we don't have game. I'm not a big fan of these kind of decisions so prefer to just bid what I have in as few bids as possible and let my partner decide in case the auction gets competitive. When 1NT is the right contract you won't always get there after a double. If LHO is not going to raise ♠s, chances are partner has some ♠ length and is going to be playing your 4-3 fit with a lot of common 4432/4333 hands. This hand is a 4333 with scattered values, not the perfect hand for a suit contract anyway. Having said that I don't think there is a huge difference between Doubling and 1NT, I just have a preference for 1NT.

Pessimistic because it gives up on some decent games as it is hard to describe the strength later. I can think of quite a few holding with a long minor and 7-9 pts that would make 3NT have great play but with no way of getting there after a Double. I would obviously rather be in a 4-4♥ fit or 5-3m fit than 1NT but not at the cost of missing potential vulnerable games. Something else that may have biased my choice to 1NT is that I will double with almost anything, like bad 3343 12-counts or 1444 10-counts. Then I almost have to bid 1NT on these kind of hands to take some pressure off the Double so partner won't hang me too often in case I have a bit extra.

Since LHO didn't go via rkc without the ♠A it seems reasonable to assume the ♦s are solid along with first round control in ♣ and ♥. It also seems probable LHO will have at least 2nd round control in ♠s, which is probably the ♠K. If you trust your opponents to have at least second round control in ♠ then I think the ♠A is out as you are probably just setting up a trick (K♠ or more) and handing them tempo to explore all their options. A ♦ lead might make them misguess a suit they would have gotten right if you lead it, but leading a trump against this kind of contract also has a lot of inferences attached to it for declarer! A small ♠ could work if you find your partner with the Q and opps with K and J. I wouldn't be prepared to take that risk because you might hand them an impossible contract if they have something like KQxx-x/Kxxx-Q/Kxx-Qx. It loses tempo and may allow them to set up a discard for their 2nd loser before you knock out the ace in that suit (eg. K♥ or K♣ with partner). ♠ is your shortest outside suit so if there is a suit they need to set up, it is most likely to be this one. If they have a guess to set up ♠s, they may still have it later! Most people will automatically put up the ♠J with KJT later in the play so they might still get it wrong. Any of the other leads could work too but would be more likely to lead a ♣ than a ♥. Simply because I have more of them and the opponents are more likely to be forced to start on that suit because they have more expected combined length. So I suppose in the end I would lead a small ♣.

1NT. Wouldn't ever consider Pass but could live with Double although I think it is a bit pessimistic.

What is the vulnerability?

I'll be there.

I've seen a few different treatments of the auction: 1♣/♦-(1♥)-? a ) 1S 5+♠ and dbl with 4♠ (+ some other hands like BAL hands with no stopper) b ) dbl 4+♠ and 1♠ showing 0-3♠ c ) 1♠ natural with 4+♠, leaving double open for a lot of other hands The standard treatment at least with most of the people I play with seems to be a). Though b ) or c ) definitely seem more sound theoretically in my mind at least, which is probably why conventions like b ) exist. What do you play and what do you think is the best way to play it? Are there any big differences between b ) and c )?

Agree with the 5♣ cue to find out about the ♦ control. This hand is definitely strong enough to move over a mild slam try with the 9card ♠ fit, controls and even a reasonable source of tricks in ♣s. For slam you need tricks and controls, so this hand is wonderful. Short of maybe the J♦, I fully expect every card in my hand to be useful for slam and am definitely bidding. Some people use methods to show a mild slam try in ♠s below 4♠. This makes your decision as opener easier as it leaves you room to cooperate with a cuebid and still sign off later. Although I think this hand should clearly move, it may not be nearly as clear with other hands. Maybe if your 1NT-3x bids can already show 5-5 majors, you could use a transfer to 2♠ then bidding 3♥ as a good hand with 5+♠s?

3♣ may not work out too great if partner makes a lot of off-shape doubles (which I do). I can live with 3♣ but would choose 1NT myself.

This seems like it might end up being a partscore battle, so I'll describe my hand to partner now while it is still safe. I have some nicely placed honours behind the opener so this hand could easily still be ours. At this vul I'd be happy to go down 1 in 3♦ or so against their 2♠ contract. Agree with everyone else as to the reasons why Double is a better call than 2♣.

Easy pass.

For the people who bid 4♥ right away, how often do you expect partner to be able to make another bid over 3♠ if 4♥ can make? I figured 4♥ would probably make a decent % of the time but that in almost all cases partner would be able to double again as he would have to have extras. By passing now he doesn't propel me into slam if he has a good hand, of course I didn't expect the opponents to be interfering any more lol. Am I looking at this the wrong way?

[hv=d=s&v=b&s=sa95hj98432d94ct9]133|100|Scoring: IMP Pass-(2♠)-X-(3♠) Pass-(4♠)-X-(Pass) ?[/hv] Two questions: a ) Do you pass over 3♠? b ) What do you do if you passed and this comes back?

Yes, I should have let the final contract be 4♣, is anyone to blame then? Never considered the dbl of 3♠ as being take out but I suppose it is more useful? Yet it doesn't look like we could have gotten to 4♥ if the opponents resided in 4♣, assuming we don't have the option of doubling 4♠ for take out. I admit I was a bit too conservative when not doubling 5♣ but I had figured they realised we were not competing over 4♣ so probably had a nice cross ruff going for bidding 5♣ :lol:

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=saj862haq95dkqc96&w=skt943hj6da2cqt74&e=sq7h3dt8753cak852&s=s5hkt8742dj964cj3]399|300|Scoring: XIMP Pass - (Pass) - 1♠ - (2NT*) Pass - (3♠**) - Pass -(4♣) Pass - (5♣) - All Pass * Minors ** Alerted: Cuebid[/hv] You are playing against a strong pair, ATB?

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=s5hkt8742dj964cj3]133|100|Scoring: XIMP You deal and pick up this collection. Do you open 2♥?[/hv]

I wouldn't bid 1NT with that hand, too much positional strength for those AQ tenaces after the opening bid. Even the ♠A and K♥ rate to be worth their full potential after the opening bid.

I'm all for game-forcing with 12-count 6-4's at vul but this hand just has way too many negative features imo. Singleton Q♠ might be slightly useful because it is in partner's suit but the fact that it is a singleton reduces its value and suggests the hand may not fit very well. The doubleton KQ♣, lack of controls, no intermediates, not many supporting sequences in long suits, honours in short suits and a lot of quacks in general are just too much for me to GF. I will invite in ♥ whether that be 3♥ now or 3♥ later via 1NT.

[hv=d=w&v=b&s=sj7h43dk732ckqjt8]133|100|Scoring: MP (Pass)-Pass-(1♦)-?[/hv]

After something like 1NT-4NT it definitely seems like you should have a way to find the best strain for slam. Maybe bidding 5-card suits at the 6-level as Pass/Correct and 5NT as asking for 4-card suits. This still leaves the 5-level open for things like keycards or ways to distinguish between suit quality. I have no idea what is standard here and would be curious to find out too and more specifically this kind of auction.

1 N T