cherdanno

You should just define 2S as a reverse - there really isn't anything else you can bid with a reverse hand.

Plaur's hand was ♠AQxx ♥Q ♦Qxxx ♣AQxx -- an ace more than Cherdanno's example. A double on Cherdanno's hand may be borderline but I think more than 60% would approve in a poll. This illustrates the point I was trying to make :) Believe it or not, this is not by accident! I tried to make the point that even someone following the ace-rule should come to the conclusion that the hand in the thread is a clear pass... Anyway: - If the international you quoted is really any good then I am sure he would pass here anyway. - I would recommend taking generic advice ("bid 3N when it is an option") from an International less seriously than specific advice ("you need 18+ hcp to act here") from a World Class player. Especially when it is not clear whether the person you are quoting for the generic advice would even mention it in this particular circumstance.

I don't mind John Maclaren's principle. E.g. when you have a hand that you would open with an ace less, then you should really think twice about bidding 1D-1x-2D. However, here with Qxxx Q Qxxx AQxx we would really have a very borderline double. Additionally we have learned that opponents don't seem to have a fit, so reentering the auction will be very dangerous. Additionally, we have a hand with a lot of tenaces, that will really crumble completely when partner is weak. Bidding again is way too dangerous (especially as partner would typically bid with 6+hcp, or less with a 5-card suit).

I think economics textbooks, among other things, teach the free rider problem. Thus they will assume it is true. Thus they will assume that Clee is right, and that Josh's suggestion won't lead to the most efficient outcome.

I hope Josh means exactly that. Basically by insisting N pass over 2♠ you are saying S can hold no opening hands for his 2♥ call. If you allow for the possibility of an opening hand then pass over 2♠ is a non sequitur. N will need to either X for penalties or make a call. We could look at Josh's clarification instead of guessing what he meant!

By the same logic I should double 1H in second seat with xxxx x Axxx xxxx since I could be an ace weaker!

And every pass by East was horrible!

Pass.

Ignoring the underbidding contest, 3NT is just a very bad bid. Partner has just shown a good 6-card suit, you have Kx in his suit and Ax in the unbid suit. 3H is obvious.

Seems like we take the club finesse first by playing ♣K from dummy. (Otherwise they can get 2 heart ruffs and the club A immediately if RHO has ♣A.)

I have a lot of sympathy for the arguments in favor of 4♣ but I think I will bid 4♦ for a different reason that has been mentioned: The ♣K may well prove useful, if they don't lead a diamond. The ♦K will never be useful.

The problem with sacrificing at matchpoints is that opponents' auction doesn't sound like everybody will be in game. In that case, you lose a lot if your sac is wrong (a full MP against everyone defending a spade partscore, or playing 4H (X)), but don't gain much when you are right (i.e. no MP against those same pairs).

I think a 5-5 hand with KQ of trumps and A in the other suit IS out of range for slam purposes (opposite most responding hands, that is).

Also invites after 1M-2M. Or hands that bid 1S 1N 2x 2S 3x.

I never open 1NT. However, when you have a major suit AND you can invite opposite any rebid AND you are vulnerable then I think it must be right to open. It may still be right non-vulnerable. (You should clearly open more frequently when you are vulnerable, and when you have the majors - your rules don't seem to reflect that.)

It should be a void splinter though, with 3415 you can of course just raise spades.

One of redouble and pass should show a heart fit in case that is one of partner's suits. Not that I have that agreement with anyone.

Resulting? Vulnerable at mps?? Unless you are making (and partner would probably then raise a vul 4♦ anyway) you need something like no diamond losers and partner cover a loser in the majors, AND that the opponents were making game. Yes they could do the wrong thing also by bidding 5 of their major when they shouldn't, which is the only thing that I believe prevents 5♦ from being a really bad bid! Lets not exaggerate. If opponents make game, we need only one out of "no diamond losers" and "partner covers a major suit loser".

I think I might bid 4D at MPs, 5D at IMPs.

Yeah GIB plays a really extreme version of 2-way Michaels, either weak (5-9) or strong (20+).

I would also bid 5D, but I promise you that partner won't have 3 aces, and will rarely accept.

Partner has to have stuff in the minors for his opening in 1st seat.... based on your hand, but he could have 2 losing spades. 5H! = asking to bid 6 with first or 2nd Rnd Ctrl of Sp. 5H is to play, not a slam try.

It's maybe the worst possible major suit holding for that, but it's still a 9-card suit, I bid 5♦.

This comes up in many situations; one fairly frequent example is: (4S) - 5C shows 20+ points. Which means with a typical 5C bid we will either go down in 5C, or GIB partner will raise us to 6 C.

On a similar note, can we please have responses to weak 2s be forcing?