quiddity

but game is probably terrible opposite a flat 7 count and many bad 8s, so what is your point?

There is a convention called "Lebensohl over weak-2 bids" for distinguishing between weak and invitational hands in this position - you can find details with an internet search but don't try it without discussion. Otherwise, you have to guess. You have 20 points, the weak-2 bidder probably has 7 or 8 on average, which leaves 12 points or so for the other 2 players. So partner will average something like 6-7 points. Given your extra strength and your club honor I would bid 3♥ asking partner to bid 3NT with a heart stopper.

I'd double, this is potentially a great hand for hearts as well.

Negative double with 1=6=6=0?

I'm sure I've seen this sequence before but I still haven't learned the lesson. Is 4♥ choice-of-games? Does it deny four spades? Is there any way to show a slam-try with spades?

Ok, I think you're right. How about the bidding and the lead?

Undiscussed. In general East would try to give the clearest possible signal assuming it can't blow a trick. We haven't discussed second-round signals but I would guess the default is upside-down count.

North didn't know that South had only 5 clubs, or that South had diamond waste, or that he was beating 2♦. Besides, he saw a chance to present you with an interesting play problem. Isn't that reason enough?

[hv=pc=n&s=sa4hdj82cakqj9754&w=sjt96h9732dak96ct&n=skq87hj65d743c862&e=s532hakqt84dqt5c3&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=1h3h(stopper%20ask)4hpp5cdppp&p=dad3dtd8dkd4d5djh7]399|300[/hv] Agreements: udca, A=att K=count at the 5 level. Bidding questions: - If west doubles 3♥ instead, what does that show? - What should the double of 5♣ show? Is it primarily penalty, or is it a suggestion to bid? If west's hand is too weak to double, how much stronger should it be? - Should east pull? Play questions: - Should west lead the king instead? - Should east encourage with the queen? - Is there a way for west to know the correct play at trick 3?

If opener promises an unbalanced hand I would bid 3♣ (especially if he would always open 1♦ with 4144).

edit - misread Phil's line.

Seems like our only legitimate chance is that spades are blocked, in which case we should win in dummy and lead a club to cut their communication. This requires someone to hold AK-tight. We could also try winning in dummy and leading a spade; maybe RHO will duck with Ax for example.

Maybe things will improve after the novelty of voting wears off but as of now I think it's a failed experiment. It creates ill-will among forum members and provides no discernible benefit.

Is this imps or MP? I don't see why you would suspect them of cheating, double is always the first call that crosses my mind when I'm in the balancing seat with shortness, especially when the bidder has advertised weakness. I also don't understand the downvoting of 3♣. Partner has at most 6 major suit cards and he has enough values and clubs to bid 1NT initially. We have an opening hand and a good 5-card suit behind RHO's clubs and short spades. What's the problem? Maybe it's aggressive or risky but it doesn't strike me as terrible. I certainly would bid something at matchpoints, I'm not selling to 2♠ here.

No, but then I don't expect that the other table will open 1♦ either. How far should I be willing to stray from normal bidding in order to avoid random system swings? North "knows" that the other table will start 1♣-(1♦). There's a decent chance that East will declare a spade or notrump contract so it seems reasonable for North to shade his overcall to avoid a swing - but perhaps not this much.

Yes, I mean it can't be avoided after the overcall. I don't mind the overcall to be honest, I would hate to be on lead against 3NT with this.

I would have taken 4♥ as a hint that slam might be on opposite the right hand. Since this is a passed hand I'd imagine it must be based on shortness. With the given hand, maybe it's best to double even without agreement? It's a good hand but the trump support is mediocre. If partner is balanced with heart length he'll lean towards defending and perhaps that's what we want. If he has a second suit he'll bid on (again good for us), and if he's light he'll try to pull the double one way or another. I guess this hand isn't so far away from Helene's 2254 10-count after all. On the other hand it gives partner a brutal problem if he has a light 5323 3rd seat opener.

Thanks for your comments! On the first one, 5♦ was not a success: [hv=pc=n&s=s976543hat7dq864c&w=sakqh85dj3caj9532&n=sh9643dakt92ct864&e=sjt82hkqj2d75ckq7&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=2c(prec.)2d3d5ddppp]399|300[/hv] -500 against nothing on a trump lead. But I don't know if it can be avoided. Even if I bid spades and they later bid 5♣ and partner doubles I'm going to feel a lot of pressure to pull because partner didn't know about my diamond support when he doubled and he assumed spade values opposite his shortness. On the second one I really like the 4♥ bid, it seems obvious in retrospect. It even crossed my mind at the time but I guess I was scared of a misunderstanding. I tried a direct raise to 5♠ which was a disaster: [hv=pc=n&s=sakhkdaj975caqj62&w=sqj43haj4dk42c874&n=st98652hqt987dck5&e=s7h6532dqt863ct93&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1dp1sp3cp3sp5sppp]399|300[/hv]

These don't count as "interesting" but whatever.. Imps scoring: 1. [hv=pc=n&s=s976543hat7dq864c&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=2c(precision)2d3d]133|200[/hv] 2. [hv=pc=n&s=sakhkdaj975caqj62&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1dp1sp3cp3sp]133|200[/hv]

This is so weird - I'm sure we don't really disagree about this and I don't know why you're misinterpreting my posts to this extent. The OP asked how to improve his bidding judgment. I'm sure we both agree that the best way to improve anything is to practice using it a lot and incorporate feedback. All I'm saying is that it is more efficient to use MSC and forums than random play for bidding judgment practice because: - it is easier to come across interesting problems - the feedback (advice from experts) is more valuable - you don't have to waste a lot of time on uninteresting hands, sitting dummy, etc.

No. If the hands are part of a meaningful event and you're trying to win, then it is analogous to playing lots of matches. If the hands are not meaningful then it's analogous to rallying. Either way, it is not analogous to training. It seems like you and matmat feel that solving a bidding problem away from the table is significantly different from solving a bidding problem at the table - so different that practice away from the table is not of much use. I don't understand why that should be the case.

Obviously passive reading/watching is not enough. You have to exercise the area you want to train - but you can exercise your bidding judgment by applying it to problems in MSC and forum threads just as you can apply it to problems at the table. This is analogous to drilling a forehand on a practice court just as you would hit it in a match.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I agree that people can improve their overall level by playing more. I also agree that bidding judgment will tend to improve as your overall level improves. However, there is no doubt in my mind that it is extremely inefficient. Consider that you can play an entire club game, or play online for hours, and perhaps come across only 3 or 4 hands where bidding judgment is a factor. In ten seconds I can use the search function on this site and come across dozens. Consider that even after playing those 3 or 4, it can be unclear whether your judgment was correct. Sometimes it can be unclear even how you were supposed to be thinking about the problem. In a forum thread or MSC problem, experts will TELL you how they think about these problems. Since you bring up tennis, consider that no good tennis player became good by "playing more matches". They all spent (and STILL spend) hours training and drilling specific areas of their games because that is the most efficient way to improve. The OP says he wants to train his bidding judgment. Playing more is definitely not the answer.