nigel_k

I would bid 4♥ but this is right on the margin. You could take away ♦10 or ♥9 but not more.

A transfer to spades then bidding hearts is forcing and shows spades and hearts and North has to bid accordingly. If North has four hearts he can raise 3H, but not pass it. Otherwise North is stuck except he could pass after 2S-3H-3S/NT-4H with better hearts than spades. But with 3-3 in the majors and a maximum North should bid 4S, not 3S, over 3H. He can't go slow just to give his partner a chance to bid hearts again.

This is too hard. Please ask an easier one next time. Anyway I would win in dummy and play ace and ten of spades. If the ten holds (and no nine from RHO allowing me to overtake), I would take the diamond finesse and continue spades. Otherwise win the third heart and try clubs. As long as LHO doesn't produce an honour when I lead to the 8 I have pretty good chances. Probably missed something though and it might depend on whether I think hearts are 5-3 or 4-4.

Definitely double for penalties even with a bit less than 10 HCP. Standard is that suit bids are nonforcing but I think you need some artificiality here because there are many hands where you want to compete but don't have a suit that you are happy to introduce at the two level when partner might not have any and opponents are know to have values. I just play that 2♣ is two places to play - any two suiter or one suit with some help in partner's suit. Partner's next bid is correctable. Then you have a bit more safety on many common hand types and lose only the ability to play clubs if they would have let you.

I agree with this 100%. The title of the post is 'Ethical problem'. If you always planned to pull 6♠ but he bids it slowly, you don't have an ethical problem because by assumption you are not taking advantage of partner's break in tempo. You might have a legal problem, but if you choose to pass a slow 6♠ you would only do it because you fear that you would not be allowed to keep your result if 6NT makes and 6♠ doesn't. There's nothing particularly ethical (or unethical) about that though.

2♠ WJO, otherwise 1♠ so the second round problem would never come up. It's a definite 4♠ bid though.

Clear pass for me.

Your hand is not worth a lot in support of hearts because partner will not be able to do much with the club suit. If you want to show heart support, you should bid 2♥ over 1♠, then you can bid 3♣ next time if you get the chance as Adam suggested. Otherwise just bid your club suit and forget about hearts as Justin suggested. But you have to choose one or the other. Definitely do not bid again. I would sit for partner's double though it could be -730.

You asked partner to pick a slam. He did so but out of tempo. Ethically I think you have to pass in this situation. The reason being his break in tempo show indecision and to bid again is not a logical alternative. It's not that simple. You might have planned all along to pass either 6♥ or 6♣ but convert 6♠ to 6NT and you don't have to pass if he picks a slam that cannot be right based on your hand. The question can't be answered without considering possible hands that partner might hold. Jdonn's example is a good one but I think partner will also choose 6♠ on many more hands where 6NT is better. Surely passing 6♠ is at least close to being illogical.

I prefer not to play wide ranging but have no particular preference between weak/strong and intermediate+. But surely in fourth seat after two passes it is not weak, in the same way that a jump overcall in that situation is not weak.

First one natural (dbl with minors or a good hand, bid 3♥ with 4 of them) Second one scrambling.

IMO it is definitely not an automatic pass. The hand is limited by the failure to bid over 1♥ and it actually quite close to maximum with four card support, and the jump to 3♣ opposite a very weak responder suggests a good hand. Also, it is certainly not a hand where you strongly suspect it is right for opponents to compete further and you might even consider a penalty double if they do so. Anyway even if you find that South had nothing to think about, opponents were not damaged so isn't it a matter for the recorder, not a director's ruling?

Agree. If partner is precisely 3253 we have a better spot less than half the time, otherwise we have a better spot much more than half the time.

Open 1♣ and rebid 2♣. Really dislike 1NT, there are so many ways it can work out badly. If the hand was slightly stronger it would be too good to rebid 2♣ and I suppose I would have to try opening 1NT or risk an under-strength reverse. Playing weak NT you can still open 1♣ on thse hands and rebid 1NT only if necessary.

3♠. If not for the fact that it was a fourth seat opening 3♠ would definitely be enough. It depends on your agreements but I don't think partner needs a lot to open 2♠ in fourth, maybe around 9-11. So he is better than that but still my vakues are a bit soft and nine tricks may be the limit. It's much closer to 4♠ than pass though.

Maybe you don't play against people who are mean enough to drop the 10 from 10x. I like mikeh's line better and it makes the same number.

If you are teaching rank beginners obviously you need to keep it very simple. If you are mentoring people who already know the basics of how to play, I would suggest: King lead asks for count Otherwise show attitude on partner's lead if that is logical Otherwise show count if that is logical Otherwise show suit preference First discard is attitude and others are count. This is not too difficult to learn and IMO the sooner they start paying attention to partner's cards the better.

Assuming the other table plays in the small slam: Vul minor slam: If you make grand you gain 13 IMPS and if not you lose 16. So you need 16/29 which is 55.2% Vul major/NT slam: If you make grand you gain 13 IMPS and if not you lose 17. So you need 17/30 which is 56.7% Non Vul: If you make grand you gain 11 IMPS and if not you lose 14. So you need 14/25 which is 56.0% Assuming the other side plays in game, the numbers are: Vul minor: Gain 4 vs lose 12 so 75% Vul major/NT: Gain 4 vs lose 13 so 76.5% NV minor: Gain 3 vs lose 10 so 76.9% NV major/NT: Gain 3 vs lose 11 so 78.6% Therefore the percentage you need is somewhere between about 56% and 77%, depending on your assessment of how likely it is that at least a small slam will be reached at the other table. This is for a long match. In a short match you may be slightly more aggressive. You also need to consider whether it may be a five or seven hand when you can have much less. And if the other table might not even play in the correct denomination you need more.

It's not a claimer at trick one, but it's close. OK, it goes down the 6% of the time that they can get a club ruff, and there's a risk of misguessing when trumps are 3-0 and one of the majors is something-1, but it's still well over 90%. With ♣K but not ♣J, you don't have two club tricks so will need hearts 4-3 or pick the doubleton ace of clubs, plus a little more work if trumps are 3-0. Maybe 60%.

3NT is not quite LOL for me but I definitely don't like it. Maybe my standards for LOL are higher than other people's. Anyway this is a pretty normal 5♦ for me, maybe a bit on the heavy side at the vulnerability. I will usually choose a preempt ahead of a one level opening if it's close.

Pass. We're green and this is a preempt not a limit bid. Partner could have: xxx x KJxxxx Jxx If he has the ♣K instead of the ♣J he might bid the same way and slam is decent but certainly not laydown. However 3NT is hopeless in either case and the number of people in this forum who seem sad to have bypassed 3NT suggests to me we will get plenty of matchpoints for making 5♦ with or without an overtrick.

It just looks like North is playing penalty doubles and South is not. South's method is of course better but the real problem is the lack of agreement. If playing penalty doubles, South should double. Bidding with North's is wrong regardless but is more attractive if he 'knows' partner doesn't expect to beat 4♠.

Partner will bid 2♥ any time he wants to play there opposite a weak notrump, so couldn't an invite be quite a lot weaker than this?

I played MUD for a while when I first started and didn't know any better.

Double at IMPs because of the invitation. Cards aren't lying terribly for them but they certainly aren't good and a spade lead will help. Also the double is not too bad in terms of helping declarer place cards.