mich-b

1♠ is clear for me at these colours. Pass is a call I can understand. 2♠ is a style I dislike a lot.

First decision :strain - I will bid ♥s now. Second decision: level - I think 3♥ is enough. I might make 170 once in a while , but bidding 4♥ is likely to result in going down on the 5 or 6 level too often. And on most hands where we make game , he will raise. Another advantage of 3♥ over 4♥ - if partner bids 3NT , I can offer him a choice of (major suit) games with 4♦, in case he has a ♥void , or (surely possible) 5 ♠s.

Assuming the auctions were as you suggested , by far the worst bidding was North's in table 1, who failed to bid the obvious 4♠ , in spite of being given 2 chances to do so.

Double leaves me with a problem if pd rebids ♦ or NT. So I prefer to overbid and GF with this hand , hoping to cath a fit for one of my suits (and hopefully some aces...). Once I made that decision I prefer 3♣ to 3♥ , since I am not passing 3NT anyway , and starting with 3♣ gives me better chances to locate my best fit.

2NT. I think it is clear, but I would be more worried of getting caught for 500 in 3m, than of missing a 5m game.

We would not consider 3♠ to be forcing. Can be a hand that planned an invitational jump rebid , or slightly less (around 8+/9-11). A stronger hand should start with a double and rebid ♠ later.

4♣. Where are all the non-leaping-Michaels fans? :)

3♠ , or 4♠ if I am feeling (very)lucky and brave.

This is a maximum for the 1♥ bid (and I wouldn't argue with an initial 2♥ bid), so not bidding over a raise is very poor. IMO this hand gets the bulk of the blame for missing game. I think this hand is an easy 1♥ rather than 2♥ , but when pd (the doubler) raises to 2♥ , I think bidding anything less than 4♥ is an underbid.

The previous Pass is what caused the problem , and this problem has no solution. This is why it is wrong to pass with values after RHO overcall (unless trapping) - there is no good way to recover and show values later. Each partnership just has to decide WHICH call they prefer with a hand like this - either a systemic call showing values without 4+♠ , or just a normal negative double, which implies 4♠s , but does not 100% guarantee them. I know this style has met a lot of objection here , but why is playing (1♥) - DBL this way (usually 4♠s , sometimes 3) seems acceptable to everybody, but doing it here is not?

1NT. How can showing a balanced hand with 15-17 and a ♦ stopper be wrong? Why would 1♥ implying 5 cards (which I don't have), which has a much wider hcp range be better?

I would bid 2♠ , or whatever other bid shows a ♦ fit and a good hand. I believe in supporting with a 4 card support, and showing the fit, before going hunting.

I think that 2♥ here should show significant extras, and real hope of making game if the 1♥ bidder is close to maximum. This would of course be different if RHO had competed rather than passed. Do all the people that bid 3♥ here , play that opposite a 2♥ raise the 1♥ bidder just passes with any hand?

I would bid 3♠ now, which should show (for now) only a doubleton. If I do have 3 card ♠ support, I can always bid spades again on the next round.

4♠. Very seldom it would be right for us to play in ♦s , and this is by far compensated by the cases where the opps having to strt bidding on the 5 level will misjudge level and/or strain.

How do people play the sequence 1♠ - 1NT 3NT 2/1 , no Gazilli. We play it as about 18-19 with 6+♠. Do you have any specific suit quality requirements (♠)? Do you allow 6331 , or only 6322 is ok? When would you prefer to rebid 3m in a 3 card suit?

I would pass. Bidding again can be dangerous - I have quite a lot of losers, and who knows, maybe LHO had a trap-pass there.. If the hand does belong to us there is a fair chance that partner will reopen , with either of 3♣, 2♠, double, or even 2NT (long ♦ +♣tolerance). If pd can't bid any of those I think we did well to let them play 2♥. Last point - if one feels he is too strong to pass now, maybe he should have started with a (big) double, which would be a (slight) overbid.

I like this sequence , especially the 3♥ bid , which I think should be reserved for hands without any other good option , and does not show any extras. This gives better definition for other bids (3♣ shows 3 , 3♦ shows 6, etc..)

Thanks for all the responses. Sorry if this thread was not meaningful - I guess it was partly caused by my frustration for losing IMPs on those 2 boards, so I thought I would check if we did anything wrong , since some other pairs in the field did reach those games.

I like 2♣ , followed by 2♥ over 2♦ or 2NT over 2♠. This should show invitational values with 2 places to play (this time ♥ and NT)

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=s432hk985d64ckqj5&s=sa5hat763daq87c84]133|200|Scoring: IMP P-P-1♥-3♦ 3♥- ALL PASS[/hv] ♣ 6-1 , but ♥ 2-2 , so 4♥ always makes. [hv=d=n&v=n&n=s432hk985d64ckqj5&s=sa5hat763daq87c84]133|200|Scoring: IMP P-P-1♥-3♦ 3♥- ALL PASS[/hv] East has ♥KT , West has the ♣A , so 4♥ makes if you guess both suits. Who is at fault?

After responder's 3♥ , opener can bid 3♠ as a NoTrump probe, letting the 3♥ bidder bid 3NT if he has a stopper. Using 3♠ in this manner is not dangerous because the 3♥ bidder does not have 4♠s (no negative double) , and will not support.

Yes , mixed teams & pairs and open teams. Would be happy to meet.

3♣ = stayman 3♦ = signoff in ♦ 3♥ = transfer to ♠ 3♠ = both minors

2C wtp.