jmcw

I want to bid with the South hand but would pass, mainly because I could go for a very large number. I want to pass with the North hand but would Double, I think you have to be agressive over the fit, even at IMPS and adverse vulnerability Would I bid 4♥ if partner doubled...I think yes, vulnerability is right and my 6 card suit just got huge. If partner passes 2♠ I think I'm passing just too risky at IMPS...but its close

Partner wants to know more about your hand, and I don't think he's fishing for a second suit. Most likely he has a ♠ fit (he should have set trumps earlier), or possibly a big balanced hand(can 2NT be 25+) With no control to show, I would just bid 3♠ or if the ♠ fit is "guaranteed" I can see bidding 4♠

God Bless America. It's a blessing to live in a part of the world where I can enjoy the freedoms that the American Military have provided. IMO we all of owe a big debt of gratitude to the men and women who protect us every day. I say, do whatever it takes to keep us free and safe from those who would harm us. When it comes to war, American policy has time and time again shown Moral superiority over any who oppose us or for that matter any of our allies. Thank you.

I like the 1♥ bid. After that its all downhill and a richly deserved final contract. :rolleyes:

I Double with the North hand any VuL any Scoring. South can bid 4♠ don't see a problem. If for some reason North passes then South should pass hesitation or not.

Agree that transfers are not the way to go. I play a rescue scheme based on SWINE. Pass = Forces XX, opener may forego when holding a good 5 carder. Responder will have a weak single suited hand, or a good penalty willing to pass the XX. XX = A weak hand with 2 adjacent suits ♣/♦. ♦/♥. ♥/♠. ♠/♣. Opener with relay with 2♣, but may bypass with a good 5 carder. 2♣ = Weak with 4♣ and 4♥ or 4333 with 4♣ or 4♥ opener will pass or bypass with a good 5 carder and await developments. 2♦ = Weak with 4♦ and 4♠ or 4333 with 4♦ or 4♠ opener will pass or bypass with a good 5 carder and await developments. 2♥ = Natural invite but NF 2♠ = Natural invite but NF 2NT = GF usually a weird hand or transfers if you prefer your choice

PASS not even tempted to a black suit.

BTW doesn't 1♦>>1M>>4M deny a stiff, usually 18/19 balanced?

It's a clear 2N opening for me. The problem with 1♦ will be catching up with your rebid. 1♦>>1M>>4M doesn't quite get my values across, better is 1♦>>1M>>♣splinter which I can live with.

Count me in with the minority

3♥ can be pretty much whatever you and partner agree. 2♠, 2N, 3♣, and 3♦ are all a try for game at least. So, with lots of tries available it makes quite a bit of sense to bid 3♥ as a block. On the given hand I would have "tried" with 2♠(tell me more). FWIW I think 2♥ a big underbid, sure looks limit to me.

I suggested a delay mechanism might be put in place, not easy to do perhaps, but lets try to avoid situations where UI maybe surface due to pausing, or breaks in tempo.

If the sanctioning body imposes time constraints, then they should be enforced and penalties assigned in accordance with the applicable rule. Having said that I don't know what framework should apply for determining the "guilty" party when the time allotted is exceeded. It seems quite silly to me that applying such a rule has not been universally agreed, you would think that after 50 years or more the "braintrust" would have figured this out by now. During the finals or semi's (I don't remember) a 7♥ call was cancelled and rolled back to 6♥. It looked for a time that this decision may have decided the outcome of the match. Presumably the decision to bid 7♥ was influenced by the time taken by the 6♥ bidder indicating a problem. IMO this is ridiculous. Some bidding sequences will take longer that others, at the slam level it is likely to be less clear what response to make. In this type of situation I would like to see a "delayed" measure of time before the bid is released. A match should never be decided by a break in tempo or a 20 second delay in making a bid.

2 suiters are difficult to show accurately when starting with 2♣, and there is always the possibility the opponents can pre-empt before you have called your real suit(s). On the other hand, can you hope to catch up if you open 1♥, or might it go pass, pass, pass. On balance, I'm siding with the 1♥ opener's, seems the best shot to complete my hand description.

1NT the alternatives do not appeal

[hv=pc=n&n=s6h6daq6ckqt65432&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=pp1c1hpp2c2hpp3c3hdp]133|200[/hv] Inviting comments on North's bidding so far? Should North pass the Double?

[hv=pc=n&s=saq543h8dq3cak953&n=sj9hakqj93dk5cqt2&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1sp2hp3cp3dp3np4cp4dp4np5dp6nppp]266|200[/hv] N/S were on a different wavelength! North contends 3♦ is 4th suit forcing, 4♣ is Ace asking and 4NT to play! South argues 3♦ likely shows a control since the later 4♣ sets trumps. 4NT is 1430 etc. 6NT was indeed the place to be, luckily, but I would like to know how experts treat 3♦ and 4♣ in this auction

I was North and can add something here. 3NT was a "stab" that I thought had chances ( It was a matchpoint regional). If 3♣ had been alerted I would have a more difficult choice of bids. I explained to the director I may have called 3♥, or 3♠ (cueing to show ♦ support), but more likely would bid a straight forward 4♦, in either case my partner would know I had strong ♦ support, limited by my failure to open in 1st seat. Knowing this I think it quite likely he would compete to 5♦ regardless of what the opponents would do from here on in. This essentially, was the main reason I think damage was clear. Your last point about the opps waking up was never addressed by the director, a clear omission in my view. Does not West have a responsibility to inform on the failure to alert?, and when East "woke up" should he not admit to his lapse of memory before calling 4♠? All of therse points were lost to the director and to the committee of "peers".

[hv=pc=n&s=sjhakq5dj9872ca64&w=skq753ht7632d3cj3&n=s82hj94dakt54cq92&e=sat964h8dq6ckt875&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=pp1d3c3n4cd4hp4sppp]399|300[/hv] Before making his final pass, North asked about the 3♣ bid. East explained that he had failed to alert!. 3♣ showed both Majors a type of "Michaels". The director was called to the table before the final pass. Play proceeded and 4♠ made. North recalled the director and claimed the failure to alert had damaged his side. adding that N/S would likely bid to 5♦ had they been aware of the meaning of 3♣ when it was made. The director ruled "no damaged had been done to the non offending side" result stands, but an ave- would be assigned to E/W. The ruling was appealed, a committed agreed with the director's ruling and no adjustment was made. The committee ruled N could have reasonably recovered by biddding 5♦ at his last turn, a notion N strongly disagreed with. South pointed out he was unaware of the huge ♦ fit. The failure had essentially robbed his partner from expressing the true nature of the fit. Reviewing the results of the hand many N/S played a ♦ partial or 5♦, a contract N/S felt they would have bid under "normal" circumstances.

2♦ is awful 3♦ is questionable. 4♦ terrible

You can Pass not my choice or bid 2♠looks pretty normal

Who's got the ♠....Since lefty didn't X and righty didn't X it seems reasonable to me that partner has them. So if partner has 4/5 spades its most likely that will be his bid if I X so I'm not doing that. I dont fancy bidding 3♣ either. So I'm left with Pass or 2♥. I choose pass a tad reluctantly! maybe P will do something.

The "impossible" 2♠ rebid was part of the original Hardy 2/1 text as part of the Walsh treatment. Here are 2 examples given in the book. [hv=pc=n&s=st3hjdaq74ckj9754&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1hp1np2cp2s]133|200[/hv] [hv=pc=n&s=st32hj9daq74ckjt9&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1hp1np2cp2s]133|200[/hv] Having had this "on my card" for a number of years I can tell you that it has seldom came up. Setting the limits for this treatment should be a partnership decision. Example 1 seems clear, but I'm not convinced on hand 2. Another, possibility is to reserve the 2♠ rebid to show a strong balanced hand say 16+, I dabbled with this for some time with a former partner (food for thought :) )