se12sam

I'm too scared to bid a suit topped by 9 :). 4♥ for me

If 2♦ ("20-23, Marmic") means 20-23 HCP then we may have a slam. Assuming partner has ♣x, then our side has 26 - 29 of the 30 HCPs in the other three suits. I see no harm in exploring a slam in a 4-3 fit. Obviously, if partner has ♣Q singleton etc, this may be more difficult. As our ♠ suit is stronger, it makes sense to bid 3♠ as a slam invite. I'd guess the OP would have a system of relays that helps determine if slam is on.

I'd pass and wait for partner's action (if any).

4♥ sounds right

Is 5♦ being bid as a potential sacrifice or because we hope to make? I would presume the odds are against us making 11 tricks in either ♦ or ♥. Partner needs to produce at least 3 of these: ♠ singleton; ♦ A; ♥AKxx or ♥KQJx; ♣A. If partner has other ♣ honors (not ♣A), the ♣ values are wasted in offence but not in defence. Defending should produce a plus score more often than not; and I will settle for Dbl. If partner has a hand suitable for offense, he could make the bid of 5♥ over my double.

a. The Stayman does not need an alert even if it does not promise a 4-card major. You alert 2NT if bidding goes 1NT - 2♣ - 2♦/2♥/2♠ - 2NT, alerted as "need not promise 4-card in either major / other major". b. You only announce range of 1NT opening. If the partnership opens 1NT with singletons, the announcement should include this fact. Opener cannot have both majors is not alertable.

Dbl. Values, partner will pass with most normal hands and remove with extreme shapes or values.

What would a dbl of 2♥ by East would mean in this sequence? Would it not be takeout (4♠ + ♥ shortage)? Presumably 2♣ was 2/1 GF, so West knows about the HCP. I must be wrong because nobody has suggested this as a likely action for East. But I am curious why others do not consider this as a potential call by East...

Did you folks watch The Daily Show segment of August 10th, featuring Samantha Bee, John Oliver and Aasif Mandvi? I have to admit I thought it was a scathing criticism of the US Insurance Sector. And it was hillarious --- as always with these segments, these other presenters completely overshadow Jon Stewart.

I read the linked article (Investor's Business daily). This is a poor editorial because it appears the writer has no clue on what NICE is and/or NICE does. It is true that one of the roles of NICE is to determine permissible drugs etc by considering "cost vs. benefit" analysis. It is much more subjective and qualitative than the phrase sounds. And in any case, I wonder how many treatments for serious illnesses in the USA are turned down by the Insurance Cos --- with stated reasons like "experimental", "pre-existing condition", "not covered by insurance", "not valid treatment" etc. If this is a common enough occurrence in the US, then the so-called problem with NICE should be the least of the concerns for an average American.

An alternative line: 1-2 Win ♠K and play ♠x to declarer's ♠J (discovers 3-1 split) 3 Club finesse wins (if it loses we have 12 tricks) 4-6 Cash ♥A, then ♥K (discard a club) and ruff ♥x in hand 7-9 Cash two top diamonds and ruff the third in dummy 10-11 Play the trump from dummy, overtake in hand and play the last trump from hand You reach a simple squeeze position over West if he started with 5 ♥ cards and ♣K guarded. This also works when West had ♣Kx doubleton all along, but produces only 12 tricks when hearts are 4-4 or 3-5 and clubs were not 2-4 but ♦ finesse was on The diamond finesse option does not permit you to check whether West is doubleton (Kx) in clubs and therefore you are stuck with 12 tricks if you try the diamond finesse and it loses. I am not sure whether the simple squeeze line is better but it does not look materially inferior at the outset.

Isn't the 1♠ bid a classic psychic bid situation? A double again should expose it.

A non-expert answer: 1. If my suit/s are good, I bid one more (even with 8-card fit) 2. If I hold Aces instead of Kings & Queens, I bid one more I have never fully read the Bergen book, but this probably relates to adjustments for suit purity (or some such thing he talks about) I bid 3♥ on this hand, especially because it is IMPs

Pass

I would not open this hand normally Passing 3♦ now

I'd say it would be illogical to consider 4-4-3-2 with East. This would imply West has approx ♠x ♥Qxxx ♦AQxxx ♣Qxx and has doubled for penalty at IMPs ?

Now the more interesting (or weird?) part: [hv=d=s&v=n&s=sxxxhaxdqxxxxcaqx]133|100|Scoring: IMP South - West - North - East 1♦ - 2♥ - 3♥* - 4♥ Pass - Pass - 6♦ - Pass ???[/hv] At the table South passed -- just like most people suggested in their post. Partner now bids 6♦. Serious question - are you worth a grand slam bid?

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=sxxxhaxdqxxxxcaqx]133|100|Scoring: IMP Teams match: 'Advanced' opps and team mates Round-robin stage (IMPs converted to VPs) You are South and open with 1♦. South - West - North - East 1♦ - 2♥ - 3♥* - 4♥ ???[/hv]Playing a 2/1 system with relatively few gadgets. LHO's 2♥ was pre-emptive. Partner's 3♥ bid is systemically agreed as strong GF/slammish and almost always has 4+ ♠ cards. What do you do at the second turn? (A follow-up question later) Edit: Second part added below

I'm unable to decide if anyone is clearly to blame. One small point: After the 3♦x, South could have raised to 4♦ instead of passing. I guess 3♦x showed extra length but not extra strength... in which case South knows N/S have a more offense oriented hand. A 4♦ bid jams the auction, plus it provides additional info for North to take the final decision. However, I am not sure that North can still be sure 5♦ sacrifice is worth it.

In my previous regular partnership, we did not like to open light in the first/second seat. I mean 11 & 10 HCP hands (yes, I am old-fashioned). However, we open all 10/11 HCP hands where the points are in Aces and Kings. i.e. a hand with 1A+2K or a hand with 2A+1K is always opened because the Milton Work point count undervalues aces and kings. (Obviously, it is understood that ace/kings cannot be in short suits) I think this hand is a 100% certain 1♠ opening. And the ♦9 would not influence the decision!

I may be wrong (it's been a while since I was in college) but I think the division by 2 on 3) is incorrect. Restricted choice principle applies ONLY when there is no choice. A false-card from JTx etc is a choice and the "sighting" of the J does not reduce the probabilities from 4.44% to 2.22%.

IMO this has nothing to do with N/S carding agreements. The trick lies in the bidding.... When South passed as dealer, he denied 10 HCP (per OP condition). Therefore, the ♥Q has to call for a spade lead. West cannot be void in spades. If West was void in ♠, then South would hold ♠AKQT94 and he has shown ♥Q. This is more than 10 HCP and is inconsistent with a first seat pass. 100% blame to North.

I agree with mikeh on this one. After the NV pass, if partner has some HCP, then: 1. Partner will have 0-2 ♥ cards 2. Will not have 4-4 or 4-5 in minors (can dbl 1♠) Therefore, the most likely situation is a longish minor (♣?) We may have a cross-ruff. But doubling with my hand does not help, because partner will pull to 2♣ or 2♥. Passing and setting up a nice x-ruff seems inviting. We may score +300 or even +400 I choose pass

I think Astana team used a thoughtful strategy in the Wiggins dismantling saga. For the last 3-4 stages, Contador has been carefully "bigging up" Wiggins saying "he is the main threat", "he seemed very comfortable" etc. I'd guess after all the praise Wiggins is more demoralized than he would otherwise be after yesterday's stage! But, to the best of my recollections, Wiggins has not INITIATED AN ATTACK EVEN ONCE. He probably does not know his strengths fully, or is in the wrong team -- with a poor tactician / team director. Contador has taken full advantage of this. Now Wiggins is left precarious, having to depend a lot on what happens in today's time trials and (later) at Mt Ventoux Absolutely brilliant comment!

I think the OP expects a cute 2♥ bid as a lead suppressing bid. Followed by play in 3NT if appropriate.... In any case, I think 3♠ is the field action, and I would have no hesitation choosing it.