nigel_k

I agree with aardv. There is no reason for anyone to play the queen from Qx or Qxx here. It's quite different from a situation where declarer leads the J from AJ109 towards Kxxxx in dummy. So there is no damage resulting from East's action. Declarer made the wrong choice in the club suit but East's actions didn't make that choice any more likely to succeed.

Reverse Flannery is 5♠ and 4♥ and. IMO it should be just under GF strength, around 8-11 HCP. These are the problem hands because, if weaker, you just respond 1♠ and pass if partner rebids their suit.

This a pretty good method, better than most I think. It's not clear what you bid with both minors in jallerton's variation. I play something like this except that XX is two suits with spades and P then pull XX is two suits without spades. So opener bids 2♠ immediately when there is a 4-4 spade fit which can make things hard for them.

I strongly prefer pass to 2♣. I don't think you can avoid 6♣ now.

I would have said "because 5 - 3 = 2" was the correct choice. The actual choice C is simply stating an answer rather than providing a reason to believe it is correct.

To me this is a normal 3♥ opening. If preempting aggressively you might choose 4♥. I would not agree to a style where this hand is expected to open 2♥ or pass. If vulnerable I would still open 3♥ but it is closer and I'd prefer 2♥ if the ten of hearts was a small one. The only distinction I draw between a two and three level opening is based on how many tricks I can take if doubled.

I am reluctant to answer without seeing the hand because I don't want to pass judgment on someone's ethics based on being told to assume which alternatives are logical, rather than deciding that for myself. To me, this is a negative double auction. Responsive doubles are when partner has doubled, not overcalled. If they have agreed negative doubles to 7♦ then double is not penalty here though it will be passed fairly often. There is also the stop bid issue but we need more facts to know how that affects this auction.

IMO North has the wrong sort of hand to be looking for an 11 trick contract opposite 18-19 balanced, let alone a 12 trick contract. It has no shortage, no spade help and is just too soft. South was entitle to cooperate especially with that spade holding and would have expected something more like x Kxx Kxx Qxxxxx. North's 5♣ does not deny a spade control - he may simply feel he has done enough.

It's more or less standard that double is penalties of one or both suits and North has that. However: 1. North will not be happy if it goes 1♦-(2♦)-X-(2/3♠)-X. North has quite a lot less defence against a spade contract than a double in this situation will usually have. 2. Where would you want to be on this auction looking at both North and South? Probably not 3NT. 3. Playing double this way is not a very good method. The problem is that North had moderate values and doubt about strain. Those are the typical problem hands in this auction and it's just luck that the issue can be avoided here because North also happens to have good defence against hearts. Change North to something like Q Jxxx Qxx KJxxx and passing 2♦ risks a bad result opposite a strong South hand. You need to be able to do something on all these in-between hands without implying a desire to penalize.

When I was studying law, I had a discussion with a professor (about a question in a multi-choice test) that went something like this: Him: You have given the logician's answer rather than the linguist's answer. Me: So is the lawyer's answer usually the same as the linguist's answer? Him: Unfortunately, yes, it is. It sounds like Ken is having a similar experience.

16A1d: 'it is information that the player possessed before he took his hand from the board'

1NT. The heart suit is good enough to overcall but I wouldn't do it on this hand type because it just shifts the problem to the next round in most cases. For me the options are 1NT and pass.

On the first one I would splinter: 1♣-3♥ 3♠-4♦ 4♥-5♣ 6♣ On the second one: 1♦-1♥ 1♠-2♣ 2NT-3♠ 4♠-pass

This is a good hand, 17.2 on Kaplan/Rubens. I would double and lead a spade.

If you are walking by the river and see a kid drowning, do you: A. Save them B. Let the kid drown because 400,000 other people drown every year so rescuing that kid won't fix the problem C. Let them drown but spend some time organising swimming classes because that is more effective D. Let them drown because you never liked the kid anyway but use B and C as excuses if anyone asks questions