nigel_k

I really hope I will be able to go live on the moon before this happens.

I try pretty hard to avoid rebidding 1NT with a singleton. I'll do it with a singleton honour if nothing else fits, but on this hand type and with a small singleton I would normally bid 2♦, or sometimes 2♣ if the diamonds are poor. Here 2♦ is fine.

East has a powerful hand and would like to open 2♣, but you would want some artificial methods after that or you cannot show both suits below 3NT. Just playing standard I agree with 1♦. I don't mind West's 3NT as the hands don't appear to fit well and I think most of us would play 3♥ as FSF, not natural. Certainly I would do no more than invite slam with West and even that is aggressive. If West cannot bid a quantitative 4NT over 3♣ then maybe 3♥ instead and hope partner bids 3NT so you can raise it. East's 5♣ is clearly wrong. It's between 4♣ and pass. After 5♣, West would like to bid 5NT to try to salvage some matchpoints but there is no guarantee you'll be allowed to play there. Raising to 6♣ is too much as you have nothing much in the minors and expect all those major cards to be wastage. Overall, West didn't do much wrong and shouldn't get more than 10% of the blame. East gets the rest but it's quite hard to reach 6NT.

Han, I still don't understand why you are considering xxxx opposite Qxxxx in clubs but not also considering Qxx opposite xxxxxx. There is also a falsecard possibility for LHO. He can play Q from Qxxx to try to induce a finesse. Or he can be forced to play Q when he started with Qxx. So once you adopt the approach of considering the cases where an overall strategy succeeds for fails, I think you need to take into account Qxx opposite xxxxx as well since you can't automatically assume LHO's queen is a true card. Adding in the Qxx opposite xxxxxx cases changes it from 9:8 in favour of the drop to 4:3 in favour of the finesse.

Ok I understand why we might want to include the Qxxxx cases, though we know the current hand is not one of those cases. But don't you then need to also include the cases where RHO has xxxxxx (and LHO Qxx)? Anyway after redoing the simulation completely disregarding the ♣Q I get 57% (4:3) in favour of the finesse. The layouts break down as follows: JTx, Qxxxx 70 cases ( 8C4 ) JTx, xxxxx 56 cases ( 8C5 ) Total 126 Jx, xxxxxx 28 cases ( 8C6 ) Jx, Qxxxxx 56 cases ( 8C5 ) Tx, xxxxxx 28 cases ( 8C6 ) Tx, Qxxxxx 56 cases ( 8C5 ) Total 168 Which is a 4:3 ratio. Without the xxxxxx cases it is 126:112 which is the 53% that MFA got.

I can't do maths any more but I ran a computer simulation (100,000 random E/W hands consistent with the conditions) and it was 2:1 in favour of the finesse. Isn't hanp's reasoning missing the restricted choice element, i.e. only half of the J10x probability counts because they could have played the other card?

2♣ on the first, whatever you would do without the double on the other two. Even suggesting redouble is horrible. On the first one, it's harder to get back to clubs if you bid 1♠ than it is to get to spades if you raise clubs. If we have a spade game partner can just bid spades. Or my raise may enable him to compete with 3♣ over 2♦/♥ when he would have to pass if I responded 1♠.

I'm not yet convinced of the merit of 3♣. This is not a particularly good hand for NT and if we bid 3♣ partner will bid on with any 2254 or 1354 shape including a heart stop and, say, 14 or more HCP, e.g. x AQx Kxxxx KQxx Why do I have to end up in a silly 3NT on such a normal pair of hands? You could add ♦Q to the above and 3NT is still marginal, or you could add other cards instead where 3NT is still hopeless. In fact, if you add enough for 3NT to be good, the hand will be one that would probably act over 2♦. 3♣ is only a good expression of our values if we are going to play in clubs or spades and if we have game in either of those, partner will definitely bid again. In fact, I'm more convinced of 2♦ now than I was before. I respond light but I don't agree with the 'how much worse could I be' test because the really bad hands are less likely than the normal ones. It's a better policy for both players to evaluate with reference to a 'normal' minimum response and accept you'll sometimes overbid when responder is really weak.

2♦. Keeps the auction open without promising more than I have. It will sometimes fail when we would have been allowed to play 2♣ making, but also will sometimes lead to us getting to play 3♣ when partner would not pass if I bid it directly. Obviously if partner bids on freely then I have extras and can cooperate.

South was wrong to bid 5♦ if they have agreed exclusion. But North is definitely wrong to bid 7♠ regardless of whether 5♦ is exclusion or a void and I don't like the club cue bid either. I think North is on something happy and rather strong, maybe GHB, and South has done no more than drink a bit too much cheap scotch.

It's not a great test of skill when you lose 8 just because your 1NT opening doesn't happen to include 15 HCP hands.

I don't claim to know what is standard, but I would be very surprised if it was standard to have no way to show a limit raise with four trumps.

I'm not a huge fan of Bergen but agree it is better than strong jump shifts. I like minisplinters. Knowing responder's shortage is often the key to bidding thin games. There is enough space to show four card support with or without a shortage and still have space for another step to differentiate good and bad invites. Plus you can show a shortage then bid on with a hand too strong for a traditional splinter, which I prefer to bidding Jacoby 2NT on those hands. For example: 1♠-2NT: Club or diamond mini-splinter 1♠-3♣: Replaces Jacoby 2NT 1♠-3♦: Heart mini-splinter 1♠-3♥: Four card limit raise 1♠-3♠: Preempt After 1♠-2NT, opener bids 3♣ if interested and responder then bids 3♦ with diamond shortage, 3♥ max with club shortage and 3♠ min with club shortage. Over a 1♥ opening you can do the same one level lower. I'm not a law fanatic so see no need to go to the three level immediately with 7-9 and no shortage.

I think you still want to define hand strength to some extent, despite being in a game force. You can reverse lighter than normal, e.g. 15 or good 14. but with a minimum opening I would just bid 2♦.

Prefer the Q, but with five of them prefer low at avoid blocking the suit. At matchpoints I would do the same but I might not lead the suit at all and just go passive instead.

Sometimes you miss a good game when partner has a perfect maximum. Partner can have 5-10 HCP which is a very wide range so you can't be right every time and the question is what is the correct percentage action. On your actual example I would probably try 2NT with responder but I agree it's not attractive and there will be other 9-10 HCP hands where you do miss a good game sometimes. Though with no fit there will also be 9-10 HCP responding hands where you stay out of a poor game.

So is this a gross and deliberate misdescription? It may not be, but it also is not ridiculous for a director to think it is. Certainly just saying it is preemptive and optimistic is not a counterargument - a psyche can be both of those.

I'd pass 2♠ and would also prefer to be using Bart.

1♠ then 2NT. It's closer to a 5332 19 than anything else. Partner is also aware of the conditions.

I'd bid 4♦ but wasn't the hand slightly stronger? I think clubs were AKJx.

I would pass 4♠, but your partner should have bid more last round, and the round before that.

There should be a hierarchy, e.g. first discard shows attitude, if that is not relevant then it shows count, if that is not relevant then it shows suit preference.

[hv=n=saq74h10952d3ca763&w=sk10632h3d9ckq10954&e=s8haj4dakj1087642c&s=sj95hkq876dq5cj82]399|300|[/hv] I wasn't on lead and just wondered how many people would find a trump. In general I would lead trumps pretty often in this situation but obviously you have an attractive alternative lead. With the benefit of hindsight the poll should have been about the level of sanity of the trump lead rather than a straight up lead problem.

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=sj95hkq876dq5cj82]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

Depends what club you play at, but against non-expert opponents I would always bid 3♣ and would not expect partner to double with a hand like bluecalm's example. My action is obviously risky but I have more safety than partner has.