nigel_k

2♦. I agree with Fluffy. There is zero chance they settle for +380 after a 2/1 and partner will not enter this kind of auction with a balanced hand. Probably they will double 2♦ but passing just makes it easier for them to decide whether to do that.

North's 3♣ is an underbid. If you take the view that partner likely has a stiff spade then it is probably better to bid 4♣. Or if partner might not have a stiff spade, you can try 3♠ in case he has Kx. If you have the general agreement that the cheapest new suit is a general force, then North can bid 3♦ but I don't know if that would help matters much. I would have raised clubs with South instead of passing 3♠ but I don't really blame South for thinking that 11 tricks in clubs would be too hard after North bid only 3♣ earlier. Also, it's quite a thin game though you would want to be there.

The subsequent auction doesn't change the fact that the doubler thought they had a takeout double of 1♠. Any further double of the same suit is extra values, not penalty. Maybe xx AKxx AQx AQxx. I wouldn't pull it with a balanced hand but with something like xxx Qxxxx x xxxx you should definitely bid.

I think responder in general has to be aggressive in this auction as 2♠ could be an extremely poor hand. But with queens in both of partner's short suits it makes sense to just bid 2♠. I would not move with West. Anyway it looks like ten tricks could be difficult if diamonds are not 3-3.

2♥. Obviously hands can be constructed where partner will pass and game is cold, but across the entire range of hands that partner might hold I feel pretty confident that 2♥ will work out better than 3♥ on average. Edited to correct obvious mistake.

The basic problem is that each post should not be limited to just one category. But that would require a fairly radical overhaul of the forum structure.

It is the right strength for 1NT (and much too strong to rebid 1NT). The reason people prefer 1♦ is to emphasise the diamond suit. The upper limit (in terms of playing strength) of a 2♦ rebid quite a lot higher than the upper limit of a 1NT rebid, so rebidding 2♦ is better than 3♦. I would probably open 1NT though.

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan is the key case in the US, essentially making it very difficult for a public figure to succeed in a defamation action. In other countries based on the English legal system it is much easier, almost ridiculously easy. There are defences of truth or 'honest opinion' but they are quite hard for the defendant to establish. Britain does have constitutional protection for freedom of speech (the European Convention on Human Rights) this has not led to much change in defamation law. But damages are not high and legal costs are significant so there is a practical disincentive to sue.

I agree with 3♥ but 4♥ could work. 2♥ is too little and showing a two suiter in this kind of situation makes the play too easy for them.

I would bid 2♠. It's ugly but the field will probably bid with this hand so I would want a higher degree of confidence that 2♦ is best before passing it.

I'm sure we can afford a separate thread for each vote. After all, we are printing the ballot papers using recycled electrons.

Club for me too. If declarer does have AQ of clubs, quite often there will be cards in dummy that would have provided discards. Sometimes declarer will have a side suit of AQJxx of clubs and a doubleton in dummy but that's life.

Maybe 'Interesting Bridge Hands' can be closed because it's kind of redundant - or you would hope it is redundant. But I'm happy with the rest of the structure. You will always get people disagreeing about where a hand belongs. I wouldn't separate judgment and agreements. Often it's useful to have opinions on both for the same problem.

4♦ for me but close to bidding 5. Not 3NT.

Good problem. I always double on these hand types at IMPs but I don't have a strong feeling that it is best. At matchpoints I would bid 4♠ though.

I think it suggests a spade lead but you definitely need an agreement. I'm sure there was something about this in Bridge World Standard but I can't find it now.

I don't like it either, but there is a big difference when you are talking about a small country that is a very big food exporter. Damage to the reputation and brand of that country from a small number of incidents can affect the livelihoods of a large proportion of its population.

I definitely would expect the meaning to be the same as an in uncontested auction, unless there was a specific agreement.

I don't mind which way people do it, but I care if they choose the method based on whether they want the change to appear small or large.

I'll bid 4♣ now and will settle for 5♦ even at matchpoints. I don't know exactly what 3♥ means if undiscussed. Maybe partner has a stiff spade but there aren't many spades in the pack in that case and I won't be surprised if he turn out to have xx Ax AKQxx AQxx though I would bid 3♠ with that. Even if he does have a stiff spade there could be a trump loser or maybe he will drive to slam himself when it makes. 4♥ could be the best spot as well but I think it is too hard to get there only when it is right to do so.

I would definitely rebid 3♣ with South and raise with North. Probably I would end in 6♣ at matchpoints but that is a result of the level of duplication and others in this thread who stop in 3NT would also stop there if South had AKJxx AKx KJxx instead.

For me dbl promises hearts and I would bid the same as after 1♦-P-1♥-P. I prefer 2♥ to 2♦.

To me that sounds like it could be a concealed partnership agreement. If partner is not going to raise spades (or not above the four level) because he knows you might not have them, then I think you have to tell the opponents that. These situations are hard because it depends on what the opponents will reasonably expect, and there is no general agreement about this and it can vary from place to place.

I will try 3NT. The best that can be said about it is that it only loses when 3NT fails and 3♥ would have made.

Pass is not just a tactic here. We should pass because our hand is simply not good enough to bid 1NT. The honours in the short suits mean it is a fairly poor 15 even before taking into account that our five card suit is breaking terribly.