mtvesuvius

LOL Also, the human is just as responsible. WTF was 5♦?! And 6♥?!

Edited, since new hand: Much closer now. If I go with my gut, I still pass. But bad things happen when I actually think about the situation: Partner rates to have a stiff/void in Clubs here. The fact that partner had Shortness in their suit and failed to act is not a good thing. Partner probably (hopefully?) has a few useful cards, and if nothing else, it may be a good save, however 3 tricks look fairly certain, provided partner leads a red suit. I think I would bid 5♥ at IMPs. There is too much to be lost by not bidding 5♥. Partner should understand to give us a LOT of wiggle room here, and not hang us for bidding some of their hand as well. In conclusion, I am a 5♥ bidder now.

[hv=pc=n&s=sht963dkjt852cq94&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=1s]133|200|Do you have enough to bid 3♦ here? What about if you have the ♦9 instead of the 2? Scoring is IMPs, and Unfavorable for those who have not gotten used to the handviewer yet.[/hv]

I would expect it always from a forum poster. If I am playing with a beginner/student, then I would not expect them 100% to cuebid an Ace there, however the definition of 3♥ is asking for a cuebid from partner. If the question is leading to whether 4N should be asking for Kings and not Keycards, I think it should not be unless explicitly discussed... And even then, I disagree that it should be. 3♥ in theory should show a solid suit, however being creative is allowed at times, and I think this is a case where it may be done on a semi-solid suit. Therefore 4N should still be RKC.

That was another case I didn't consider actually, I suppose LHO could have something like AKxx AJ7x x AJxx (or AQ7x♥, same problem) and RHO having something like QJxxx Kxxx AQx x is also possible... Maybe a ♥ lead isn't as safe as I thought. And if I am going to lead a ♥, perhaps there is a case for a low heart?

No blame. I agree with both calls, and it's just a very unfortunate hand. Sh*t happens.

I am hoping declarer has something like KQxxxx KJxxx x x, as this seems to be about the only hand that fits 2nd round control in Diamonds, as well Club shortness. Opposite the expected Axxx AQx(x) AQ(x) AJx or something, it seems the only chance of beating this is a Heart ruff on opening lead. I lead the H-T, and hope for the best. If nothing else, maybe this won't give away anything, and we can sit back and eventually take a trick.

Usually yes, it solves many other rebid problems.

I had a similar thing on the Windows client a few days ago as well. However, after restarting my computer I had no problems getting back online.

Easy 1N. Qx is a great holding to have when playing NT from your side. As a side note, I would rebid 1N on hands such as: [hv=pc=n&s=s432hj97dqjtcakq6]133|100[/hv] as well as [hv=pc=n&s=s32hat2dq32caqj84]133|100[/hv] Qx is just an added bonus.

I would definitely LOVE to do a search for threads containing "LOL". I could keep myself entertained for months then. In all seriousness though, this would be nice :)

Both. I think that bidding 2♥ on the North hand is highly aggressive, but I might consider it at MP. The South hand has a clear 2N call over 2♥, raising on two small is not good. With Hx and a similar hand, raising would be very reasonable... Two small isn't enough though. I give North 30%, and South 70%

LOL

3♥ for sure. 4♥ is quite the overbid. I almost wish I had just started with 2♥ at my first turn... then I could X now to show a bit extra.

1♥ - 2♦ 2♥ - 2N 3♥ - 4♣ 4N - 5♦ 5N - 6♦ 6♥ - Pass Fairly straightforward IMO. North has enough to make a Cue on the way to 4♥, over partner's 3♥ call. If North were to bid 4♥, IMO, South would have to pass.

It's close between pass and 6♦. I think I would bid 6♦, I have Kx♥ which is very valuable, hopefully we can score 2♣, 2♥, 3♠ and 6♦ in 6♦... Although I may be a bit optimistic.

YUCK at Michaels on this hand! 4N now.

I agree with 1♦, seems to be the least of evils here. If I can describe 9 (or 10) of my cards, as opposed to 6 of them, I will go for the first one. Now I bid 3♣, unfortunately partner will be correcting to some 5-2 Diamond fits, however I think this will still do better than 2♠. Tough hand.

That is why Keycard was invented.

The problem lies in partner's 4♠ call over 2♠, which shows a bare minimum hand. Partner may not have the best possible hand, but it's certainly more than the dead minimum of xx AJxxx Qxx AQx or something similar. I believe your partner's hand is a 2N or 3♠ call depending on your style. In my style, I would bid 3♠, then South is off to the races. I cannot blame you for passing 4♠, as this shows a hand with very little slam interest, opposite even some total maximums. EDIT: As for the Grand reached in the other room... 7NT is a horrible spot compared to 7♠, in fact, as a precision pair, they should be embarrassed :P I don't know if I would find 7♠ after my auction (1S-2H-2S-3S-4N-5H-5N-6D), now S can ask about the ♥K with 6♥, and that will get us there. South will of course have to assume 3-3 or 4-2♥, in order to establish a ♣ pitch. However, if South lacks an imagination and bids 6♠, that will be the final contract.

X

I am a 3♥ bidder, mainly because I want to be able to bid 3N over 3♠ by partner. Although 4♥ could easily be right, it also can be very wrong if partner decided to bid 4♠ over this, or when partner has a ♥ stiff. Although I may be missing some games by bidding only 3♥, I think it is worth it. I'll also admit that bidding 6♦ over 3♣ came to mind.

4♦. Partner is R/W, and therefore should have a reasonable hand for their Michaels bid. I would think opposite a normal R/W 2 Suited Overcall, that we should have at least some play for game. I have 4 (or 6) card support, an ace, and a stiff in the opponent's suit... If this is not what a 4♦ bid looks like, then I don't know what is.

Thanks folks... As well as being a slight ATB problem, I thought it was an interesting rebid problem of 3♣ or 2♥, but I think the hand is just good enough for 3♣.

LOL