mich-b

[hv=d=w&v=b&s=saqt65h875da87c64]133|100|Scoring: IMP P-P-P-?[/hv] You do play Drury, if you need to know..

2♥ is my best hope to show both my suits. Yes , I might go down in game, so what ?

For us - a cue bid. Opener, by splinterring implies that 5♣ will be ok. Having a ♥ cue available helps a lot for bidding a ♣ slam.

Does that imply that normal stayman gives you the tools to check if 2NT opener is 5-4 in the majors? :blink:

For me, after 2♠ we are comitted to playing in ♣s (or NT) , so 4♥ is a cue, inviting to 6♣. I would , of course , sign off in 5♣ since I dont have a ♠ control.

What exactly made East sign-off? What was he worried about? West is 100% blameless.

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=sqj98ha75dqt3c876]133|100|Scoring: IMP 1♣-P-1♠-2♦ X(supp)-P-?[/hv] Would you consider passing? If not , would you pass with a 4342 shape and same cards?

[hv=d=s&v=b&s=st2htdakt9743cakj]133|100|Scoring: IMP 1♦-1♥ 2♦-3NT* 4NT - 5♥ 6♦[/hv] 3NT was slow (agreed). North actually had a balanced 16 count. South proceeded directly to Blackwood and bid slam making. Is PASS a LA for South? Is PASS a LA for a South who bid 2♦ previously? How would you rule? Note 1: No special system agreements for N/S - vanilla 2/1. Note 2: N/S are good players with at least 15 years of experience at the regional and national level, but not experts.

Declarer plays 6♦ with "too many" tricks, and trumps AKT9xxx opposite Jx. He wins the lead , plays the ♦J from dummy , RHO discarding a ♣. Declarer ducks to LHO's ♦Q, wins the next trick, draws 2 (yes 2!) more trumps and claims, showing his trumps, and saying he has an entry to dummy to cash the tricks there. The defense still has a trump left. How would you rule? Would your ruling be different if declarer claimed without drawing the 2 rounds of trumps?

Would you Pass or open 1♠?

[hv=d=s&v=n&w=skt8752hqt5d2ckq3&e=sa96hkj62djtca654]266|100|Scoring: IMP P-2♦Multi-P-2♠ All Pass[/hv] ♣ lead , both blacks breaking , 12 tricks made. Any blame for missing the game? Note 1 : This is not supposed to be a discussion of the merits of Multi. If you have issues with the Multi , just assume 2♠ - all pass. Note 2: partnership style is "modern classic", which means not particularly agressive, and not particulary conservative.

[hv=d=s&v=e&s=skhjdak842caqt864]133|100|Scoring: IMP 1♣-1♥-1♠-2♥ 3♦-P-3♠-P ?[/hv] 1♠ showed 5 cards , so double by opener would show "takeout with less than 3 ♠" 1. Do you think the 3♦ bid already showed 6-5 ? (I think you would double with 5-4 minors, what about 6-4?) 2. What's your choice now : 4♦? 4♠? anything else?

wtp Double. Would open 1♣ as well. Why should I regret it? now pd knows which is my longest suit and can support it.

Agree with 4♣ now , but would not bid 1NT, this is a GF hand for me.

Do you play 2NT here as natural rather than scrambling/Lebensohl?

3 decisions from last weekend , all around the same theme :pass or compete. [hv=d=w&v=n&s=s6h97dakj43caj982]133|100|Scoring: IMP 4♥-P-P-?[/hv] [hv=d=w&v=n&s=s6h97dakj43caj982]133|100|Scoring: IMP 4♥-P-P-?[/hv]you had no suitable convention to use on the previus round, so would you double now? [hv=d=w&v=n&s=s6h97dakj43caj982]133|100|Scoring: IMP 4♥-P-P-?[/hv]Doble here is agreed as takeout. Would you? I will be very happy if someone could run a simulaton for hand 1.

1. Forcing , semi-natural (I would prefer 2♠ with a GF hand with a ♠ stopper, but no ♦ stopper). 2. 5-5 GF We think it is better that 2♦ then 3♦ show the inv 5-5, and direct 3♦ show the GF 5-5. One reason is that with the inv hand , if opener after 2♦ rebids 2♥, or 3♣ we may judge to pass and play there. 3. Splinter, ♣ fit.

I like the 2♦ rebid , because this is a complex hand, and I need the space to show my suits. After 2♥ the auction has developed favourably for me , now I can bid 3♣, which is naturalish and showing extras. Over 3♣ pd can support ♣s, bid 3NT with max and strong ♠s, bid 4♥ with Qx there and 5233 with good honour location, return to 3♥ with min and nothing better to suggest etc..

A free 2H bid - and thank you opps for playing this convention that allows me to show my suit so easily. You can use 2♠ as a responsive double.

2♣ intending to bid again (♠ or X) on the next round at any level. This is my best chance to show both my suits, and their relative lenghts.

Agree with all those choices, and especially with the concept that a double shows 2 places to play.

XX was agreed to show a top honour in ♠, so not really an option.

I don't think that partner ever passes with a ♣ void , unless this is a forcing PASS and he is planning a "pass and pull" to show a big hand.

[hv=d=n&v=n&w=sq7632haqtd753cj6&e=sjth9862dkqck9752]266|100|Scoring: IMP (P)-P-(1♣)-1♠ X - 1NT - P-P X - ALL PASS Down 3[/hv]

I (being non expert about bridge laws) think the AC's decision is in the right direction. N/S have failed to alert an alertable call - there is no doubt about it, so their score should be adjusted negatively, be it -170 or -620. This does not however automatically mean that E/W are entitled to a positive adjustment. The double could have had other non-alertable meaning (takeout), and assuming that it was penalty was just wrong. I feel that assigning different scores to EW and NS with a negative total, is often a good solution in cases like this.