mtvesuvius

An opening bid is an opening bid which is an opening bid. ... Which happens to be an opening bid!

Well since this is posted here, we are supposed to hook the ♠9 (LHO won't put up the ten lol) and the ♦K is doubleton onside. Anyway, I think I'd play for Tx♣ on my left, so a spade to dummy and the ♣J. Hooking the ♠9 is too big of a position to take IMO.

In splinter auctions, there are no such things as courtesy cuebids. If you have a bad hand facing that shortness, you sign off. If you want to make a slam try, you cuebid. Therefore yes, 4♦ here would show extras... Enough to be interested in slam facing a passed hand splinter.

I'm also in the 4♦ camp. I'd pass at MPs, partially because I've found people pre-empt more aggressively at MPs. At IMPs however, I just don't see where we are getting 500, or even 200 from. We have at best two trump tricks, and on a bad day, only one. We have no outside defense, and there rates to be a few cards in dummy as well, all of which we know are working. I think passing is very bad position to take at IMPs, and will have you -730 significantly more than +500. +200 is nice, but if we beat this, we rate to make 4♦. I think we have to expect at least two "working" cards in dummy, and unless they are opposite declarer's shortness, declarer will have 5 or 6♠, and at least 2, maybe 3 working cards in dummy. While this could occasionally be a 500 set, it's not worth the risk in the long run IMO.

3N seems right. I'd rather bid 3N or double than pass... I'd rate it between bad and very bad.

I lead fourth best from my longest and strongest unless partner doubles... Then I lead a club.

My suggestion was attempting to make sense of the possible followups, and now I cannot even read it myself. Oy. Anyway, it's an interesting idea, but I don't think it can/should work.

Yuck, pass.

Pass on both. If partner cannot reopen on #1, we don't want to be declaring. On 2, it could be right to bid, but it will get us too high quite often, and facing most random opening bids, 2♠ is a nice place to be.

It's an interesting idea, and one I haven't seen before. I think in a limited opener context however, it will get you past the ideal spot of 1NT quite often. In addition, when you don't belong in 1N, you're first searching for a fit at an awkward level. I think it's just barely too high, and would cause more harm than good. One option would be to use 2♦ as a 3 card 11-12 HCP raise, which I think has a lot of merit.

You would need 3♦ for the 2♦ call, but I don't believe you need 3♣ for the 2♣ call. If you did, many expert 2/1 players would be playing it illegally. I was told by Mike Flader in Orlando this past year, that as long as the responses to 2♣ describe opener's hand in some way (not a forced 2♦ call), it is legal on the GCC. Therefore 2♣ as an Artificial GFR is allowed and legal.

I certainly could see the merit of it, like a reverse Gazzilli. 2♣ is an unbalanced hand with a side suit, I think you should use 2♥ as P/C as well though, so after 1♠-1N-2♣: Pass - Long Clubs <INV 2♦ - P/C, may want to play in 2♠ if partner has hearts ---- 2♠ then ♠ (maybe or ♠ + ♣?) 2♥ - P/C, no diamond tolerance ---- 2♠ then ♠ or ♠ and diamonds 2♠ - Signoff, or no red suit tolerance Without club tolerance you still have a problem though... After 1♥-1N-2♣: Pass - Long Clubs <INV 2♦ - P/C ---- 2♥ then ♥ (maybe or ♥ + ♣?) 2♥ - Signoff

The ACBL could fix that problem easily, Barry. There should be a small checkbox in the "General Approach" black box, players should be able to place a small checkmark in the box stating "Clueless". ... After all, it is full disclosure, right?

Yes, 2♠ shows extras. Over 2♥, North can bid 2♠ and all will be well.

I just thought of something terrifyingly creative. What about cuebidding 3♥, then bidding 5♠ to ask for a ♥ control? If partner doesn't have a heart control, they are very likely to have solid spades... It might work. I'd never try this at the table, but it's an interesting idea on paper. As it is, partner would bid 5N over 5♠ to show a positional heart card, and we'd happily raise to 6. If partner bids 6♠, we have to guess whether it's a stiff or the ace, which is why this is a bad idea, but an intriguing one nonetheless. Perhaps we could use OS5NT someplace :P

I double quite aggressively in direct* seat, partially because my judgement on balancing is so bad. I'll attempt to show how bad I am at judging balancing by passing now on all of these. Like AWM said, 3451 is possible, as is 1435 with a 9 count or so. With hands B and C I would have doubled immediately. I haven't gotten too many bad results doubling aggressively here, but partner certainly needs to be in on the joke.

You could, especially if minus 180 is one of your favorite scores.

I don't want go donating 3 or 5 IMPs every time on these hands just so I can find an unlikely spade fit. RHO didn't raise clubs, partner has to have a few diamonds, and three hearts, what are the chances we have a spade fit? Not much. BTW I think 2♠ should be natural and forcing one round, not GF.

Facing a partner who thinks outside the box a bit, I'd certainly bid it. Facing a student or inexperienced player, I'd bid 3♣. I think partner should be able to work out what this is though, after all, if you had a penalty of spades you would double 2♠, and what other hand types are there? Fromage, I still don't think that 5-5 in the reds can bid this way, and even if they could, partner should assume minors, and if you happen to have reds, you can always correct 3♣ to 3♦... Not any different than any other 2 places to play 2N. Therefore I think partner has to bid 3♣.

I've gotten a few emails about doing vugraph, and while I personally cannot do it, I am sure there will be vugraph for the Vanderbilt. Probably from Tuesday, continuing until the end. Tuesday will be 1 and 7:30 PM EST Wednesday and onwards will be 1 and 8 PM EST Other than the Vanderbilt, I don't believe there will be other vugraph. It's up in the air how many tables they'll be able to cover, but probably at least one (2 tables), perhaps two matches (4 tables).

When was the last time you were doubled in 2♦ here? 2M maybe, but not 2♦! In fact, I might overcall A just for that reason. I probably would at MPs...

2♥, I don't see the trouble - it's IMPs!

B, C, D, E. Pretty much anytime I want them led. I overcall quite agressively in this spot. I'd probably bid without the club honour on C, D, E... Depends for B.

Just being able to write "Oh S!+@ 5NT" on a convention card is worth whatever sacrifices may be necessary to play it.

1♣ - 1♦ 1N - 2♥ 4♥ - P