nigel_k

It's close but the hand is quite defensive so I'd pass. If I had KQ instead of AJ I would open because my trick expectation is about the same but theirs is higher. Also would definitely open in any seat except second.

IMO it's better for the unbalanced hand to describe and if anyone is 'captain' it's the balanced hand. After a 1NT opening for example, you could use relays to complete the description of opener's hand but it just doesn't work that well because you honour location is so important and you don't discover that until it's too late. It's better for the unbalanced responder to start describing even when opener is as well defined as a 1NT opening. I would suggest two things: 1) There should be different approaches for a balanced responder compared to an unbalanced one. So opener describe only when responder is balanced. 2) I think there is merit in a split range, e.g. 1S-2NT is say 10-11 or 15+ and 1S-3NT is 12-14. The downside is being a level higher on some fairly common hand types, but you can use all the space to describe shape as values are already known.

I like the lead choice and can't really imagine leading from Jxxx on this auction so maybe East should get it right. But there is little blame, if any.

It is between 2NT and a three card limit raise. I think NT will score better on average when partner is 5332 though it certainly could be wrong. I will rebid 3NT over 3♣ and 3♠ over 3♦. Since it's BAM we don't have to worry about going against the field by playing NT instead of spades.

I would prefer 2♦. Probably I should run a simulation on this but my gut feeling is that diamonds will outscore NT on average. While it is easier for them to balance over 2♦, if they balance after I pass, it will be harder for partner to compete when that is right.

Wow. I really disagree that declarer accidentally blocked the suit, unless they are a rank beginner. Not playing the jack first is not merely careless, it is squarely in the category of mind-bogglingly irrational for anyone who has played much bridge at all. To me the only possible explanation is that declarer always wanted to play the jack but failed to name the rank when calling for card. The only way I would rule against declarer here is if 'incontrovertible intention' can only be inferred from what declarer said and the cards in dummy, it cannot include inferences from declarer's own hand. But I see nothing in the laws to suggest restricting it in this way.

I mostly agree with bluecalm's analysis. But it does mean you are playing for East to have passed green with Kxxxxx xxx JTxx -. Though it is in second seat some of us could not resist so you'd want to call on any knowledge of the E/W tendencies that you may have. The alternative is East to have bid 3♥ with Jxxxxx xxx JTxx - and West to have refrained from doubling with Kxx AKxxx x J9xx. I can certainly think of opponents against whom this is more likely. Also, if you do play QS and West follows low you can still ruff and make if East has both king and jack. I would be surprised if many Wests would not cover from Kxx if you do it early.

I think there will always be an absurdity somewhere if the regulation is worded in a way that eliminates the use of judgment. If they want to use rule of 25, they should say something like 'the strong option must have either 16+ HCP or at least as much playing strength as an average rule of 25 hand'. The downside of this would be that the appeals committee might not agree with your assessment of the hand's playing strength, but at least you could make the normal bid if prepared to defend your valuation. But given the actual regulation I think you just cannot upgrade the example hands if you play with that partner often enough that it becomes an implicit agreement. IMO you were a bit lucky the AC ruled as they did.

It's a choice between 1♦ and 2♣ (followed by 2NT usually). Common ways to lose by opening 1♦: 1. Partner has a major and passes with game makeable 2. Partner bids a major but we miss slam because he doesn't believe we are this good. Common ways to lose by opening 2♣: 1. Partner is weak with no major and 2NT/3NT fails when 1♦ would have made 2. Partner has diamonds support and we play 3NT going down when 5♦ (or maybe even 6♦) can be bid and made after a 1♦ opening. But if playing inverted raises partner will bid 1NT, not 2♦, on quite a few of these hands. Based on this I think 2♣ is better.

If 'bal' includes 4441 then you are sometimes going to be opening 1♣ or 1♦ with a singleton. Other than that I agree it seems pretty harmless. But I would not expect a director to authorise putting a different sticker on it. The opponents should get to decide for themselves whether the low frequency etc. mean they don't need any special countermeasures.

Agree that it's between a heart and a club and the only difference between them is that partner might have longer clubs. But I think that argues for a club lead, e.g. KJ98xxx Qx xx Ax x KTx AKQTxxx xx Maybe there are also layouts where a club allows them to get a useful heart pitch but I think those are less likely.

You'd need to agree on a maximum hand that would transfer and pass? Or maybe a few different types. Also, are we saying that a really bad hand eg xx xxxxx xxx xxx will pass 2NT or still transfer. If that's a pass then you also need to decide when responder will be 'too good' to pass with a five card major. Doing this would allow me to build a simulation to calculate the cost of this approach. But calculating the benefit would be harder I think.

I'd recommend: 2♥ as both majors weak. Opener either passes or bids 2♠. 2♠ as invitational, with five spades and four hearts. You could choose to bid this way without hearts allowing you to sometimes play 2♠ instead of 2NT (if it went 1NT-2♥-2♠-2NT). But if you do that you lose the ability to use 1NT-2♣-2♥-2♠ for another purpose. You might also use the 1NT-2♣-2♦-2♠ sequence with 5-5 in the majors and game interest if you don't have any other way to show that hand.

I think they change too much. In general people are too conservative at IMPs on partscore hands or when preempting. I don't think there is a single hand I would open with a preempt at matchpoints but not IMPS though I see other people making this argument quite often. Also people do overbid to silly games at IMPS. The quantity of hand strength that increases your chance of making from 40% to 50% is much less than people realize. And you can only count half of that if partner is doing the same. Though in slam bidding, people change too little, mostly because slam bidding at matchpoints involves so many external factors.

Double. I might bid 2♣ with a spade void or 6-5 or softer values but this hand is far from useless on defence.

I think the first step (accepting the transfer) with a doubleton has definite advantages. The most important is that hands with three card support can go past 3NT and hands with a doubleton cannot. So you have more space available if you bypass the first step with support. Plus I like to use 2NT-3♥-3NT to show two spades and five hearts. With spade support I am always bidding at the four level on that sequence which is fine as we have an eight card fit. If you bid 3♠ with three card support and 3NT with a doubleton then obviously you can't show the hand with five hearts. Similarly after 2NT-3D: 3♥ with a doubleton heart or 4333 3♠ with five spades 3NT/4♣/4♦/4♥ with heart support What you actually do when showing support is a separate question. Undiscussed I think the default would be a cue bid but there is some merit in just using the first available step (2NT-3♦-3NT or 2NT-3♥-4♣) on most hands because it allows for a re-transfer plus another step for responder to show slam interest below game and it doesn't impart any information to defenders when responder only wanted to play game anyway which is most of the time.

1♠ always.

I agree with jdonn. Nobody is saying (I think) that you should normally pass a minimum with four card support. But the actual hand is not a normal hand, it's significantly worse than that. You're going nowhere if partner is balanced, and if he has shape then there'll be a lot of wastage with those secondary honours in the side suits. I'd evaluate it as about a 10.5. Kaplan/Rubens calls it 10.25 without the assumption that partner is unbalanced with spades which makes it worse. By way of comparison, a hand like QJxx K10x xx AQ9x is worth 11.85.

I also agree with Adam's suggestion. But responder has a problem on 5332 hands with slam interest. 4NT invitational is ok though a bit preemptive but you also have stronger hands where 6NT or 7♠ is possible but the possible spade fit is still not known. I would either try to fit these into the 4♣/♦ bids or agree to normally superaccept with three card support unless 4333 or very unsuitable.

1) Interesting problem. We're certainly willing to bid to 5♥ but don't know whether we should be aiming to make a correct choice between defending 5♠ vs bidding 6♥, or defending 6♠ vs bidding 7♥. In any case I bid 4♦ (whether fit jump or not) but may have to decide later whether to pass 5♠ or bid on. If jumping in hearts immediately I would try 6♥ since 5♥ is unlikely to buy it and unilaterally choosing to defend 5♠ doesn't feel right. 2) Definitely a trump.

No blame. East could open but pass is ok as well. West should normally raise with four card support and a full opener but the actual hand has very soft values so pass is reasonable. And the game is marginal, as suokko pointed out.

I think the correct way to approach these kinds of questions is to use HCP values as a yardstick but measure hands on their trick taking potential. The real question being asked here is whether this hand's trick taking expectation is closer to that of an average balanced 17 or an average balanced 18. Once you understand the question in that way, phrases like 'maximum', 'top end of your range' or 'upgrading' are no longer useful.

No doubt 1♠ with 5-5 in the blacks is 'standard' but so are many other sub-optimal approaches. The fact that people who play four card majors are more likely to open 1♣ suggests there's a kind of logical fallacy at work here: opening 1♠ implies you have five spades, therefore having five spades implies you open 1♠. I expect this is how 1♠ became standard rather than any good reason. I have always opened these 1♣ and have yet to be convinced otherwise. A minimum opener and/or bad clubs may sway me towards 1♠ but not on this hand. It's hard to analyze which is best. I've done some hand generation but it comes down to making the right decisions in competition which you can't really do properly knowing all four hands.

Sadly, I think you have to pass. 3♣ has some appeal but there is too little upside when they are so well placed to either double or outbid you. Its main value is as a lead director against 3NT but partner with a weak hand won't necessarily lead spades if they pass. He may/should try to hit your suit and lead hearts or even clubs.