mtvesuvius

1♣ - 1NT [15+ Any; Semipositive with 5+♥] 2♣ - 2♦ [GF Relay; 4+♣] 2♥ - 2♠ [Relay; 5-5+] 2N - 3♣ [Relay; Spade Shortness] 3♦ - 4♦ [Relay; 0625 with 4 AKQ points] After this start, we'd be in 6♦ probably... By breaking the relay after 2♦, perhaps we could survive: 1♣ - 1NT 2♣ - 2♦ 3♦ - 3♥ [Natural Relay Break; Natural] 4♦ - 4♠ [setting Trump & Demanding Cuebids; 1st(2nd) Round Control (4♥ is RKC)] 4N - 5♦ [RKC for Diamonds; 1/4] All Pass

Good problem Jilly.

Dee dee dee...

Guess I need to revisit my multi methods :) Unfortunately I don't get too many chances to practice them :/ I'm still not completely convinced that North is obligated to bid 3♥ if he had hearts... I think the 2N call should make that optional... Anyway, pre-empting with the north hand is questionable at best anyway, especially with AJx in the other major.

Not sure where I'd land, but just blasting RKC with responder after a raise doesn't seem that unreasonable, after something like: As a side note I don't think opener is strong enough for 4♦, so I would probably have something like this: 1♦ - 1♠ 2♠ - 4N 5N - 7♠ [2 with a useful void; Punt] If opener bid 4♦: 1♦ - 1♠ 4♦ - 4NT [Overbid; RKC, no reason to exclude diamonds since the ♦A looks useful as well.] 5NT - 7♠ [2 with a useful void; Punt] A lot of variables here, responder could splinter after 2♠, and poor opener would be kinda stuck. Would get to 7 anyway as long as opener shows the void.

At the table I chose to double, a call that I am not particularly proud of. Partner held: [hv=pc=n&n=sq9862h4dkqj95c86]133|100[/hv] She bid 3♠ over the double, and we finished in 5♠ making 5 (don't ask lol). I think 2N is probably the call I'd make with this hand if it came up again, but it's realllly close. Given partner's actual hand, not much will matter, although if you bid 2♠, she'll probably try 4♥... Would you move over that? Anyway, it has been a while since I've come across a hand that falls through the cracks and is really in-between any reasonable call. Fortunately all is well that ends well.

Definitely pass.

1. There should be a forum limit to the number of question marks allowed in a post. 2. This is a problem hand in general, but I probably would have bid 2♠ over 2♦ if I was not playing Kokish. Otherwise 2♥ then 2N seems normal enough. 3. 3♣?! "Let's bid my weakest suit that crams the auction more than almost any other bid, yay." 4. 6♣?!?!?!!? "I bid my weakest suit and distorted my pattern, I want to bid my weakest suit again since it was so much fun last time!" 5. I abstain from the final question since the previous bidding would never be reproduced. 6. Poor partner.

North! 3♥ should still be P/C, this situation doesn't change anything. I have a general rule when playing multi, which is that when in doubt, a bid of a major is P/C until opener's suit is known. Therefore, 3♥ should still be P/C... The opponent's bidding was weird as well, doubling 3♥ seems a bit off... If you're so worried about missing a 4-4 fit here, don't open 2♦ with those hands.

Stupid double post again :/

Agree with 2♥, now pass at IMPs, X at MPs... X isn't so much a suggestion to play, it's more of a "I have a maximum for my bid, some defense, and think it's our hand.". Clearly this won't work so well when partner has a really bad overcall, but IMO it's worth it when they have a marginal 10-13ish type hand.

W/W at IMPs: [hv=pc=n&s=sakt54hat72da2cq2&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=2hpp]133|200|What do you balance with and what is your plan?[/hv] You play Lebensohl here, and partner is a junior.

3♠, the 2♥ bid didn't change much.

3♣ for me. I'd like better clubs, but I think we'll have a LOT more problems after a double.

Edit, misread Timo's post... Anyway, Timo, you are still missing the point. The DEFINITION of the B/I forum is This is part of the definition!! How much clearer can it be? It's seeming more and more like we're talking to brick walls. Seriously, this forum does need work, and I agree 100% with Phil & Matmat's posts... I think they phrased it very well (and very clearly). There are clearly a group of people who feel this forum is really just another random place to post hands, and I agree with him. I remember an idea from a few years ago to have an invitational only forum as well. I think this would be a nice idea, but once again it will be tough to decide who meets the requirements. With the ability to upvote posts now, perhaps the criteria to enter should be, say, a reputation of 20? This would weed out the majority of people who make bad/unhelpful posts, and leave people who make enjoyable posts of some sort, whether funny, helpful, interesting, or some combo of all three. The other option would be to have a "panel" or something, perhaps the winners of a bidding contest.

I think I'm in a minority, but I play all of these as forcing.

Yeah, I don't think he does either.

The problem is that everyone would have bid 2♣ the first time, so this question/problem is irrelevant. All the responses here are fancy ways of saying they would never bid 1♠. The B/I forum is the place to ask something like this, and (almost) all the "experts" read the B/I forum anyway. By posting in the A/E forum, the problem should be something that most people would encounter after reasonable bidding. If something like this was posted in the B/I forum, I am sure that instead of everyone saying what an bad bid 1♠ was, they would explain why, and give a somewhat helpful response on how to get out of this problem now... If there is a way. If I had bid 1♠ I'd just punt something depending on how the day has gone so far, probably 6N. I agree that there are plenty of worse posts/analyses, and people post stupid stuff from time to time (myself included)... The point is to recognize it, move on, and not insist it isn't a silly problem.

I assume direct over 1N is penalty, since he said they only play 2♣ for the majors, and nothing else. I would think this X is penalty though, maybe it shouldn't be, but it seems like opener could be facing complete trash, and this double confirms that he is. 2N is a heart raise I guess though, so you're kind of stuck with just general values or competitive with minors etc... Maybe it should be values and takeout oriented... But sitting over the spade hand, and given the situation I think it is penalty.

I've also had this problem, and being a bit OCD, it bugs me to see an unread forum. There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to what threads it happens on, but I've had problems at least 5 times today.

Am I missing something? 4♠ seems fine, no blame, unless you want to blame RHO for having the ♦K or LHO for not leading a heart?

It's a rule that whenever you bid a grand slam, they are in game (or less) at the other table.

1. 4♠ - Favourable 7-4? Definitely 4... 2. 3♠ - Not many other options for me at this Vul. 3. 4♦ which I think should be a choice of games (between ♣, ♥, ♠)

Minors without any other agreements, probably heart tolerance as well, but definitely short ♠ and less than 3 hearts...

This past weekend, someone came up to me and asked me what I thought of LTC, and if it is a good base for a system, I'll try to recreate my reply as best as I can: "It is very helpful for hand evaluation purposes, however like all things in bridge, it is a guideline not a rule. Obviously AKQxxxx KTxx xx - is a very different "12 count" than QJx QJx QJx QJxx. It's also clear that most people when using LTC will overuse it, and fall back on it as a crutch to justify overbidding or underbidding. Generally speaking, it is a helpful evaluation tool, and demonstrates the power of distribution very nicely. Obviously like Han's hands, it has plenty of flaws. It underevaluates balanced hands and overevaluates on unbalanced hands. Once a fit is found, it is much more practical, but two seven-loser hands facing each other should not always be in game unless they have a fit, and even then it requires good honour location. I do consider LTC when evaluating, more as an unconscious evaluation tool. I don't only use LTC however, simple HCP and other habitual evaluations mixed with LTC would be an accurate way for me to describe my evaluation. As for basing a system off it, I highly dislike having set-in-stone rules for opening bids, and much prefer to use judgement. In general a system based off LTC will lose out a lot on misfits (which IMO is more likely) and misfitting honours, while gaining when the partnership's hands fit well. Since the former is more likely it will lose more often than it will win. Obviously with adjustments, you can make LTC practical, but personally I prefer to be able to evaluate my hand other ways." As an aside, I don't think saying LTC is awful and sucks is very fair. It's incredibly hard to design a catchall hand evaluation technique. Any method you use will under (or over) evaluate many hands. The best solution is a combination of many methods, and is something that comes only from experience and practice IMO. Han's post really did make me LOL as well, and I'm horrified that some people find it unfunny.