nigel_k

I seldom pass a distributional hand in first seat but this has to be an exception because nothing fits. 4♠ will be awful if partner has short spades. 3♠ could be as well, or could also be too little if partner has values and a couple of spades. It is closest to 1♠ but that is just a bit rich for me. Since I have decent defence I will risk an initial pass and later spade overcall.

Agree with gwnn. Only the third one is close but I would want slightly more for a 3♠ bid.

Pass. I have good defence and not enough to expect we make 4♠ unless partner doubles again.

3♠. Up the line works after an auction such as 1♦-1♥ because partner can bid 1♠ with four spades. But it just isn't applicable here. Another way to think about it is that partner has shown support for both majors, so we can bid the same way with 4-4 after the double as we would bid with 5-5 if partner had opened a minor and shown nothing in the majors. I might bid 3♥ if there was a big disparity in suit quality such as the 5432/KQ10x example but that is the only time I would do it.

2♠, not close to any other action. 2♠ might not be enough if partner has a very well fitting hand with some clubs but we can't do any more at this stage.

With opponents silent, the auction starts 1♣-1♠-2♣-2♦-2♥. 2♦ is forcing and ostensibly natural, 2♥ instead of 2♦ would have been natural and forcing. Which continuations by responder are forcing?

There are 14 cards. If I have a seventh spade I would always open. If it is 6331 I will describe a good heart raise.

I prefer 3♠, but 1♠ is ok too. I wouldn't consider 4♠ playing 'standard' but if your preempts are quite aggressive then this might qualify.

1. Either is fine but slightly prefer 2♠ 2. Pass, not close 3. 2♥ 4a 1NT, not close 4b Not forcing and agree with 3♣ 4c Not forcing and would bid 3♠ intending to offer partner a choice between five of either minor 4d Not forcing and would raise to 5♦

I don't like South's double, but maybe North should pull regardless. If South had just passed it is much easier though. This is probably system more than judgment, but I think South has to do something other than 2♥ at his first turn. I would use both 2♠ and 2NT to show a heart raise, e.g. 2♠ More defensive usually with three trumps and high card values 2NT More offensive with four trumps and possibly fewer high card values 3♥ Preemptive raise Most hands with four trumps and too good for 3♥ would bid 2NT and needn't have full limit raise values. There is still space for opener to make a game try and it is more important at responder's first turn to express their preference for offence over defence.

[hv=pc=n&w=saj9h4dkq872ckqj6&e=s8752hat3djt96ca9&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1hdp2sp3hp3nppp]266|200[/hv] IMPs

As I mentioned above, 'game forcing' doesn't say anything much about what the hand might contain. A 4♥ opening is also 'game forcing'. But when you open 2♣ and describe it as 'game force or balanced 23+', the opponents will quite reasonably expect an Acol 2♣ opening and South doesn't have anything close to that.

Low spade at IMPs, heart at matchpoints.

I think you bid 2/1 in Acol if you want to play 3NT rather than 1NT opposite a balanced 15 so for me, this hand qualifies.

Without those non-verbal cues I can certainly understand some people thinking Hrothgar was being serious rather than ironic.

I don't agree with a rule that sets the same standard for an Acol 2♣ and a precision 1♣. But given the rule exists, the bid is obviously legal. However, words mean different things depending on context. So the legal definition of 'strong' for the purposes of deciding whether a bid is permissible isn't necessarily decisive when deciding whether an explanation is adequate. In my opinion, the word 'strong' would not be an adequate description of a 2♣ opening if the partnership agreement is that any 8 playing trick hands qualifies regardless of high cards. And the rules having a definition of 'strong' in a different context would not change that. In the actual example, we don't know their agreement. It may well be that North didn't expect a hand like South's to open 2♣ and the description was in line with their agreement. Strictly speaking, 'game force' is not a description at all. But in ordinary usage, when you say 'game force or balanced 23+' what is being described is an Acol 2♣ opening and the description is adequate as long as the partnership requirements for a 2♣ opening are similar to what most people would understand as the requirements for an Acol 2♣. The given South hand isn't close to meeting those requirements so I would rule incorrect explanation (subject to determining their actual agreement). It was possibly naive of West to pass 2♣ but maybe he felt that pass and bid later was the only way to convey a strong hand and with West having the benefit of the doubt I don't see why you would not adjust.

You can win the trump return in dummy and ruff a spade. Then take the club finesse and ruff another spade. Cash your last trump, lead a club to the ace and draw a third round of trumps. Then unblock clubs, concede a diamond and claim. But I don't like the 5♥ bid and would probably have doubled instead.

The hand opposite was a rather perfect Qxx Ax Axxx Kxxx (Sorry I forgot people on this forum open 1♦ with that shape). ♠K and ♣Q were both onside so there are 12 tricks in clubs. My view of the hand was that you probably want to play 3NT when partner has slow stuff in diamonds and invite game in clubs otherwise. I have had these hands before and still don't know the answer. Starting with 2♠ makes it hard to pass partner's NT bid with any confidence and also means that further club bids will be forcing. I just bid 4♣ and partner bid 5 which was ok but I wonder if there is a better way.

There is some danger in acting, but obviously it is much more dangerous for partner to act if he has something like Qxxx xxx xxx Qxx. The hand short in opponents' suit should usually take the initiative and I don't think there is enough risk here to make an exception.

2♠. A stopperless 1NT is possible and I would do it if my spades were worse. But with blocked spades and no tricks elsewhere I don't want to play 1NT if there is a choice. And I don't understand why 2♣ would be expected to be better than 2♠.

Partner has spades and diamonds but didn't lead a trump so likely has stiff king or queen. If declarer has something like Axxxx AQxxx xx x he can always make by guessing correctly and is likely to do so if I return a trump and partner's king falls under the ace. But from declarer's point of view, partner may have heart length and something like 6421 shape. In that case declarer needs to lead diamonds from hand at some point to avoid getting locked in dummy and partner ruffing his diamond winners. On the actual layout declarer is down if he plays a diamond early. So I will switch to ♠J. With luck, declarer will hold the ten and interpret my spade as shortness, maybe playing me for 2146.

If you want to keep it as close to symmetric as possible, after a 1S opening do the following: 2C-2D-2H: Either 5/5 majors or three suited (then after 2S, 2NT is 3 suited and 3C+ is 5/5 majors) 2C-2D-2S+: Spades and clubs (2S=5/5, 2NT+=5+/4 etc) 2D-2H-2S+: Spades and diamonds 2H-2S-2NT+: 4 hearts (and longer spades) 2S+: single suited Similar after a 1H opening except that 5/5 majors is out. Obviously you can make changes so that the relayer ends up declarer more often (e.g. 2C=diamonds or other types, 2D=hearts, 2H=clubs). But my personal preference is to get back to 'standard' symmetric as early as possible because my memory is not that good. The above can also be used if 1NT is invitational or better but in that case I would try to organise it so that opener doesn't ever bid 2♠ with 5332 because those are the hands where responder will want to invite with 2NT.

[hv=pc=n&s=sajhkj84d9cjt9432&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1cd1h1sp(At%20most%202%20hearts)p]133|200[/hv] Scoring is IMPs. You're playing support doubles but no other relevant agreements.

I would always double because it's so unlikely that defending 2♥ is right. Yes, partner can balance but we would also like him to be able to pass when it's right to do so. That is much easier for him if he can assume we don't have a hand like this one.

Double on the first and pass on the second. I really don't like 5♥ on the first one. It seems quite likely to turn a plus into a minus, and neither the plus or the minus need necessarily be small.