nigel_k

That's what I would say as well. Just saying 4+ diamonds is incomplete unless they asked about the length only. But you don't have to mentioned specifically that it must be unbalanced or that it cannot be 18-19 balanced because you would open 2♦. After all it cannot be 15-17 or 20-21 balanced either.

I would pass. Maybe I get to double next time and somebody has bid spades by then so partner won't think I have them. I wouldn't bid 1♦ because I don't really want partner to raise them or lead them and it doesn't help us find hearts if that is our suit. If not passing, I prefer 1♥ to 1♦, don't like double at all and 1NT would be my last choice.

IMO both pass and 4♦ are definitely logical alternatives. That is the easy part. The hard part is what the slow pass suggests. Obviously it depends on the partnership methods and style but I would analyse as follows: Since partner couldn't bid 2♦ over 1♠ it's unlikely he was considering going to 4♦. Maybe his 3♦ balancing action was based on spade length and he counted on me having short spades and some diamonds. Even then, he probably has bad diamonds or would have bid them over 1♠ so his values are elsewhere. It all adds up to his hesitation being because he was thinking about doubling. Maybe a hand like: KJ9x x Qxxxxx AK If that is his hand, probably they are down in 3S or get you for 300 in 4♦X or both. There may be variations on this where bidding works but I definitely don't think the UI suggests bidding. Actually there would be a stronger case for adjustment if the given hand passed after the hesitation and that was the correct action. Edit: Sorry was 14 cards, removed a small diamond

Pass. AQx Ax AQJxx QJx 4NT is high enough. We need to add ♠J and ♦10 to this for slam to be good, which is near perfect and arguably too good if it's 20-21. Don't forget that a simulation will always find the ♠J and always make the correct guess in diamonds or hearts if there is one. Double dummy analysis is often too high on slams because declarer has to make all the decisions and defence just follow suit. I'd go as far as to say that if it's 71% double dummy you want to stay out.

Playing five card majors and a 16+ 1♣ and no other relevant agreements, I would expect a 1♠ opening to have playing strength that is at most half way between a typical 15 with five spades and a typical 16 with five spades. If the hand is closer to the latter in playing strength then 1♣ is the normal opening and the regulations need to allow for that. Obviously KQT9xx Axx x AQx clearly qualifies. Upgrading and downgrading is essential to good bidding, whether most players do it or not, so it's completely unreasonable to make it illegal. In practice, people will have different opinions about how much a hand is worth, so it would be preferable to have a rigid rule that avoids subjectivity. But I doubt there is any rule that can be applied robotically and is also consistent with good bridge judgement. In that case I'd prefer to take my chances on being able to convince the director that my hand is really worth 16 HCP rather than be forced to make a bid that's limited to a much weaker hand than what I have.

Obviously you shouldn't do this any time you have a minimum opening with six trumps. But there are hands where you definitely want to bid one more to keep opponents out (yes, they do sometimes make at the four level). With good judgment, I think the shutout usage is better than any alternative use. But when one side is quoting the LAW and the other side is quoting a book by Ron Klinger, I really feel bad about supporting either.

I definitely want to bid 3♦. I wouldn't do it but I won't be surprised if Mrs Guggenheim at the other table bids a firm 3♦ and it works out well for her.

Maybe there is. I was thinking of hands with something like Hx(x) in clubs and slow but solid stoppers in the other suits. This would be quite good if the invite is for 3NT but not for slam. I'd tend to think that if responder makes a slam try after transferring then opener needs to re-evaluate.

You lose the ability to bid cooperatively with a one-suited invitation in clubs. You also lose the chance for a responder with a one-suited slam try to hear immediately about opener's suitability for clubs. I think that together those constitute a significant loss. Edit: I'm not actually saying that four-suit transfers are better than this. In fact, I think almost anything is better than having to bid Stayman when I don't have any interest in partner's majors. Ok maybe I don't understand how people are using 4 suit transfers, but my understanding was that opener initially bids either 2NT or 3♣ based on their suitability for 3NT opposite a club invite. That is surely quite different from suitability for a club slam. Just knowing whether opener is minimum or maximum instead is not as good but is still useful information and the other stuff can be more easily shown later.

IMO this is a definite improvement as you lose very little and it's bad having to bid Stayman with no major if you want to invite. Apart from giving info to the opponents, using the sequence 1NT-2♣-2♥-2NT with or without spades mean opener cannot correct to 3♠ with a minimum. Or if you bid 2♠ over 2♥ to cater to that then you cannot use that bid for another purpose. Actually if you play 4 suit transfers the 'standard' way you are probably better off never inviting in NT without a major and just guessing to pass or bid 3NT.

Good problem. I would double (and pass 4♣). It's too hard for partner to act with a decent hand if we pass because he is likely to be short in one major and because he will reason that we won't be this good with short diamonds. So it's between 4♦ and double. 4♦ is an overbid but gains over double if partner has no four card major and 4M makes but 3N does not. That will happen sometimes but I think it will be outweighed by the times we stop at the right level after doubling. If partner passes the double, this may or may not be good for us but at least I have some useful stuff on defence.

The only choices are 1NT and 2♦. Your spades are too weak to pass and 2♥ has no advantage over 2♦ and is more likely to be raised. 1NT does show some values but need not be 8 HCP. Here the alternative of 2♦ is really unattractive so I would try 1NT. I do expect partner to raise it too high sometimes though. If I had a four card suit, e.g. one of the hearts was a diamond then I would bid 2♦.

If you start with the 8 off dummy, how often do they smoothly play low from Kx?

This is the answer on these kind of matchpoint problems. Your partner is a better player than most of the field and the contract at most tables will be 1NT, which is a difficult contract to play and defend. So your expectation is about 65-70% if you pass. Even if you could improve the contract 60% of the time by bidding Stayman you probably shouldn't do so because at best you increase your 65% to 100% and you could convert your 65% to near zero if you bid Stayman and it's wrong. Don't go against the field in the bidding unless you are fairly sure it is right. The lower the level of the contract, the more strongly this applies.

No blame. North is quite close to bidding 2♦ over 1♠ but I think he has to pass 4♠X. South must have had an uneasy feeling that 4♠X was not his side's best spot but he has no choice other than double really.

Finding partner with a weak 4315 seems like a pretty big risk as well and I'm not sure why it will be hard for them to double when we are down two. They seem to be pretty well placed to decide correctly from here. But partner could also have: xxxx xx Axx Kxxx Then we make 4♦ and they probably make 3♥ so it would be very costly to pass. If he has less and we are down one that is ok too as long as he doesn't have a lot of defence. I think this is hard but I'm leaning towards 4♦. It just feels bad to be bidding four of a suit by myself when I have a 1NT opener.

I'm always a bit skeptical about these kind of assertions. Aren't there plenty of people who will bid 3NT over 2NT with something like: AQx xxxx Axxx Ax If partner does something non-systemic you need to start by considering whether they may have an unusual hand or their hand has been improved by the bidding in an unusual way.

The odds favour responder having most of the partnership's minor suit cards so it just seems better that opener doubles if he has some help in their suit and responder doubles when he has really got them. Sure, responder can pass then double when he wants to defend regardless, but on the given hand, why can't responder have e.g. Axxx xx Qxx KJxx

I don't agree with this at all. The best pairs to preempt against are the ones who cannot show their suit when they have a good hand. If you can get the bidding up to three of a major or something before they have shown a suit it is very hard for them. Doubling a partscore with no info about partner's shape is a lottery unless you have a trump stack. The only thing I would say for certain is that an unbalanced positive must be able to show a suit immediately, either by playing suit bids natural and forcing or by using transfers.

3♠ and pass.

Unlucky. I wouldn't bid game with South at matchpoints though it is close. North's bidding is fine, he needs more to jump to 4♥ over 3♦.

Double is ok on the first one if 2♠ is really 8-12. It would be better if they were vul but they might go down two. Straightforward pass and 4NT on the other two.

You aren't going to transfer and bid again very often because you would double with those hands. So you are losing when you wanted to bid 2♦ to play or when they benefit from their extra chance to call, and also when someone forgets. You are gaining when it's better to play the major suit contract by opener or when you use the 2♠ bid for something else. It's not that clear which is better but I wouldn't do it.

I would pass. This hand is not that useful with the stiff ace of diamonds and likely losing finesses and bad breaks. If partner has enough to make 5♣ he will usually double again. And if he bids four of a major after our pass (as compared with double) it is much more likely to be correct.

1. Pass. I limited my hand and partner signed off. He has plenty of other options if he can make slam opposite this. 2. 2NT. Right sides NT when we have no stopper. 3. Pass. What Justin said. 4. 3♠. Because I lack imagination.