nigel_k

It's only 500 vs a vulnerable game for E/W. To find there is misinformation, first you have to find there was an agreement that was misdescribed. The evidence suggests to me there was no such agreement and East bid 2♦ because he forgot the system.

It seems highly unlikely E/W had the agreement that 2♦ could be strong. Apart from the fact West passed it, it is just normal bridge to escape from 1NT doubled with weak hands and try to play in your best fit at the two level. East bid 2♦ with a strong hand because he thought they were playing system on and 2♦ was a transfer. The suggestion they had agreed 2♦ showed the red suits and could be strong is contrary to the evidence and common sense. If most E/W pairs were in at least game, there is not a lot of damage and in any case I would not assign a very high probability to N/S stopping lower than 3♠ even if they were told that 2♦ could be strong.

I agree that East is suggesting a balanced hand and would normally bid 3NT immediately over 2♦ holding a trick source plus stoppers. So West should normally convert with a five card suit. There is the issue that spades are probably not breaking given the 3♥ bid and your spade spots aren't great. But the ♠8 could come into its own and I still expect spades to play two tricks better than NT quite a lot more often than they make the same number.

If you ask for the trump queen and partner has it, he should continue by showing specific kings. That way you don't have to choose which you want to ask about.

Slams and choice of game hands are important and swing a lot of IMPs. I wouldn't underestimate that. But many people overestimate what 2/1 bidders lose when they respond 1NT. For example: - If responder invites in NT and opener declines, the 2/1 bidders can play 1NT intead of 2NT. - If invites in the major and opener declines, the 2/1 bidders can play 1NT intead of 3 of the major which is probably better. - If responder has a rebiddable suit and less than GF, then the 2/1 bidders can respond 3 of a minor directly then that's a loss for 2/1 because those bids can't be used for something else. But game forcing hands with a strong minor are a real problem if rebidding the suit is not game forcing. - If opener raises the response and responder passes, usually there will be a similar auction to three of a minor after 1NT, e.g. 1♠-1NT-2♦-3♦ vs 1♠-2♦-3♦.

3NT for me but I don't like it much. I agree with passing the double at IMPs. 300 is likely and we could get more. But at matchpoints 300 is not enough so I would bid unless I needed a top.

I would pass the first and go to 3♥ if pushed. But an immediate 3♥ would be ok too. On the second I would definitely raise.

If the question is whether we should have responded 3♦ in the first place, it depends on your standards for opening bids. But for me, this is slightly too good to invite. Take away one of the tens and I would invite and pass 3♥.

I agree that DONT is poor, especially against a weak notrump. You really need a penalty double otherwise you're stuck with a strong balanced hand and when you can double and partner has values as well, they usually have enough shape to wriggle out somewhere. If you are determined to give up on penalty doubles (which I would only do against a strong notrump, or as a passed hand obviously) I suggest something like Lionel, i.e. Dbl Spades and another 2C/D Bid minor plus hearts 2H/S Natural You are giving up one and two suited hands with minors where you probably would be outbid anyway, and getting your major suits into the game right away and can still play your best fit at the two level. IMO transfers are also overrated. Sometimes they gain you a trick, but they also give responder's partner an extra turn which is quite valuable to them as well as consuming space that could be used to show more hand types.

Law 74 (I forget the exact section) says you can't play on for the purpose of disconcerting the opponents. I think this is intended to make allowance for people who actually don't know they have a claim or are just day-dreaming and forgot to claim. But when the player knows they have a claim, and knows that not claiming will in fact annoy the opponents, and has no other reason not to claim (I can't actually think of one at the moment), then law 74 covers it. Also note that law 74 is not limited to the specific examples given. I would suggest that any truly unnecessary time wasting is a law 74 violation and that includes failure to claim. To be clear, I am not talking about the Rosenberg situation where there was a small chance of an overtrick. That's why I specified the player has to 'know for certain that further play will not affect the outcome'.

There is no rigid rule - it depends on the suits and honour location. 1NT is very clearly right on AQ Qxxx Qxxxx AQ and equally clearly wrong on AKxx xx xx AKQxx. The cutoff is somewhere in between. I am probably more inclined to open a suit than most people but still open 1NT with 5422 quite a lot.

Some thoughts: 1. There is a legal requirement to claim when you know for certain that further play will not affect the outcome. Not claiming in that situation will 'prolong play unnecessarily'. 2. I wouldn't use the word 'ethical' in this discussion at all. Questioning someone's ethics just doesn't belong in a discussion about whether or not to claim. Not claiming in Rosenberg's situation is at worst inconsiderate. 3. I personally lack the patience to sit around for 10 minutes while opponents decide what to discard, when I have only a miniscule chance of an overtrick. But I would also regard it as inconsiderate and wouldn't do it for that reason. 4. Whether you have had unrelated issues with these opponents in the past, or whether they have a reputation for relying on the letter of the law to gain an advantage, should not be a factor. I would think less of someone who chose not to claim for that reason. 5. Declarer saying they have the rest is definitely not a solution, because of the inference when he doesn't say it and because of jdonn's point that the defenders can't really afford to rely on this kind of statement. 6. I do like Kit's idea of simplying not scoring overtricks. Nobody will bid 2NT instead of 1NT in order to try to score an extra IMP.

If you have good shape but a bad suit, the hand can improve a lot when partner raises.

Artificial. If I have Ax Kxx AQJxx xxx I really want to bid 3♣ artifical. If I have x xx AQJxx AQxxx I can bid 2NT. There is room for partner to bid 3♣ next and even if he does we may still belong in NT.

You have to pass the first one. I wouldn't open 1NT on the second but can understand it. Definitely bid 3♣ though, preferably before they sort out which is their best major.

KQJxxx xx 10xx KJ is definitely a 2♠ call for me.

I do expect to reach slam if partner has that hand. But partner is unlimited and the best description of my hand is that I want to be in at least 5♣ and have short diamonds. So I am going to take this chance to describe that even if I have to slightly overbid in order to do so. In retrospect, last train is too much though and the hand should definitely just bid 5♣ whatever partner does next.

I would have accepted the invite with the South hand. It has good spade support, the ♣Q may well be useful and the diamond holding works if partner has a partial fit there but is also not too bad if partner has downgraded a little due to short diamonds. But certainly North gets most of the blame because 3♠ ought to be invitational if undiscussed.

4♦. Will bid 4NT over 4♠ as last train, assuming there is no Blackwood when clubs are trumps.

I think the idea is that the fourth hand might come in when he shouldn't if you bid 1♥-4♥. The tactic is ok as long at it's a minimum raise to game and you can vary it according to the tendencies of the opponents or what you did against them last time.

1) Marginal double but I probably would. 1♥ overcall is ok but not really my style. 2) Automatic double 3) Style issue but I would always double.

Good luck Justin, and please try to avoid Wooldridge and Muller at the same table. Actually, on second thoughts, do put them together and I will just watch the other table.

Amen. But there are a lot of players out there who are very reluctant to preempt above 3NT in a minor suit. Four of a minor is a much better preempt than three of a minor. If the opponents can make a major suit game, which is quite likely, they have only a fraction of the space over 4♦ compared to what they would have over 3♦.

I don't think there is any standard, but I would suggest: Immediate 6♦ is at least 5-5 with no first round spade control 5NT then pull 6♣ to 6♦ is more like 6-4, also with no first round spade control With a first round spade control, I would bid 4♠ then continue with either 6♦ or 5NT as above.

If your goal is to be really good at this game, any formulaic approach to deciding what to bid will not work. Reading books by Klinger may not work too well anyway, but that is a separate issue.