nigel_k

Can we infer from partner's failure to open that they have some length in hearts? In that case a club is unlikely to be necessary. A heart could be right but I would always lead ♠A.

Double then bidding hearts suggests 5-4 not 4-5. I would rather play in hearts since we have a known fit there and when RHO is not psyching (which will be most of the time) there will often be a third or fourth round spade loser that we can discard if we play in hearts. 2♥ is not enough so I would bid 3♥.

I would bid 4♠ but using standard methods the situation is very unsatisfactory. Both myself and partner have quite a wide range and there is no space to do anything about it.

I have the source code and there appear to be 'shortcuts' in there that could possibly give rise to errors. We aren't yet at the point where a normal PC can compute a double dummy solution in reasonable time using brute force with only the obvious improvements such as choices among equal cards. Maybe such a hand could even be reverse engineered from the source code if I had nothing better to do with my time.

An unbalanced three card limit raise can just be treated as four card support. The law doesn't matter much because you aren't raising the bidding beyond what is justified by the constructive value of your hand. Obviously you would make the necessary downgrade for having one less trump. If you can show a mini-splinter then surely that is more useful to partner than knowing your trump length. A balanced limit raise can respond 1NT - if partner passes 1NT they weren't accepting the invite anyway. So I wouldn't allocate a bid to show specifically a three card limit raise.

2♦. 3♦ is a bit much for me but maybe I am getting old. The hand doesn't look much like a typical 2♦ bid but I think it will often work out ok and I don't want to pass. Given the vulnerability we need to be in the auction with this much shape and may not get another chance.

3♣. If partner is balanced with a good 14 they can upgrade and open 1NT. With an average 13 or worse, they should pass the 1NT response. There are some in between hands where partner might need to bid a 3 card club suit but it's likely 2♣ is a real suit. Even if not, partner can bid 3NT and have some chance of making it.

Definitely agree with 1♠ though I wish we were playing transfers. I would pass now.

[hv=pc=n&s=s7hjt74dq95caj832&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1d2d(5-5%20clubs%20and%20either%20major)p2hd(takeout)2s]133|200[/hv] Assuming you passed, this is part two. EDIT: Partner's double is for takeout.

[hv=pc=n&s=s7hjt74dq95caj832&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1d2d(5-5%20clubs%20and%20either%20major)]133|200[/hv] The 2♦ overcall is 5-5 in clubs and either major. Feel free to answer according to your own preferred agreements.

Partner could possibly have two useful cards but probably only one. If that card is the ♣K we need to lead a club. If that card is the ♠A and RHO has the ♣K and dummy is 2-2 in the black suits we need to lead a spade. ♣A will still be better than a trump though. 2♠ may not even be a real suit so I wouldn't assume that RHO has a top spade and even if RHO has the K and partner the ace, a spade could be best. If his card is the ♦K or ♦A and the ♣K is on our right and dummy has at least two clubs we can probably get two clubs eventually on a non-club lead, so a spade or trump will work best. Based on this I would lead the ♣A. Second choice ♠Q.

If playing preemptive jumps in competition, I think four of a minor should probably be an exception regardless of whether it is a single or double jump. But I wouldn't make a general exception for all double jumps, e.g. three of a major or five of a minor.

I think pass is the percentage action even if partner might not reopen with a minimum. We may be already behind other tables since it is now too risky to make a slam try. Having said that, most matchpoints is played in quite bad fields where you can win by just playing normal bridge and avoiding bottoms so I usually prefer to just do that.

Obviously it doesn't gain unless you put other hands types into the 2♠ bid, as others have suggested. But if you play that opener bids 2NT with a minimum and 3♣ with a maximum then the 2♠ bid can include, for example, a weak hand with either minor plus some strong hands. I prefer this to four suit transfers and bidding Stayman with a balanced invite. In fact I'd rather just never invite if Stayman is the only way to do it.

On what layout is it right for East to discourage diamonds?

They should have zeroed out reputation at the time downvoting was allowed. Otherwise reputation is, and will be for some time to come, a function of how much a person posted during the period where only upvoting was possible. Anyway I doubt reputation will ever be what matmat suggested: an indication of bridge ability or the value of the content in the person's post. Voting makes it a popularity contest and there is no reason to expect a strong correlation between merit and popularity.

Everything in the last sentence was a combination of descriptions used by the three previous posters. But you would have had to read those three posts, a total of five lines of text, in order to see that.

Some of my partners like K for count as well and whereagles' point is enough to persuade me that A for count instead is not much of an improvement. Rusinow is better but I would only do it in a well established partnership or with someone who already plays it regularly.

Definitely 4♠ with West and, if North doubles, pass the double with East. West should probably pull to 5♦ but it would depend on opponents and table feel.

Three ways to avoid this: 1) Always ask. 2) Don't ask when you have diamonds unless you intend to make a lead directing double when the bid is artificial. Then a question followed by pass doesn't suggest diamonds. When passing you need to do it in a tempo that would have given you time to decide whether you wanted to double. 3) The easiest way of all: play double as takeout of the suit opened. It could be your hand.

I don't like the idea of systemic restrictions based on negative reputation and would prefer it just to be for information only. Especially when some of us have positive reputation acquired over a long period when downvoting was impossible, and some of us do not.

This is a good question and I don't really know what is standard. In my view we are always bidding constructively here so we cannot tactically jump to 4♠ on a hand with offensive value less than a limit raise. The cue bid is reserved for hands with full game values and four trumps, or maybe three trumps if you cannot stand a penalty pass, i.e. 3♠ Decent single raise up to bad limit raise 4♠ Normal limit raise to minimum game raise 4♥ Good raise to game with four trumps X then 4♠ Good raise to game with three trumps

If playing strong NT and inverted raises I agree there is a decent case for 1NT but it still feels really bad with support for partner's suit and nothing in the majors. I would be tempted to overbid slightly with 2♦ inverted.

My answer was based on the hand being a little more like this one:[hv=pc=n&s=saq8hqt74dkj62c83&w=skjt2haj93d98cj95&n=s9763h6dq754ck764&e=s54hk852dat3caqt2]399|300[/hv] If North bids 1♠ they play there doubled for 1100 or 1400. If North bids 1♦ it is equally bad when partner has a spade suit and weak diamonds. To me this is just a very standard scrambling situation and North should pass, suggesting two places to play. South bids 1♦ and N/S reach their safest spot. If South doesn't have diamonds they bid 1♥ and North can convert to 1♠. Missing a 4-4 spade fit is not a problem because this will only happen when you have a 4-4 diamond fit as well and they aren't going to let you play there anyway.

I bid 3♠ but it's close. With JTx xx in the majors instead it would be a minimum 4♠ bid for me. I don't think you have a blind spot if you find it hard to make a choice when your hand is right on the margin.