nigel_k

I prefer 3, closer to 2 than 4.

This looks like a normal layout: [hv=pc=n&s=sa97hqj3dt2caqj73&w=sq65h96dq763c9854&n=sj832hkt742dk4ct2&e=skt4ha85daj985ck6]399|300[/hv] Nine tricks for them and eight or nine for us depending on whether they find their spade tricks in time. I definitely want to bid but obviously we fixed ourselves by bidding 2♥ and cannot now play in partner's longer major. I guess to bid 3♥ anyway and hope for the best.

What Fluffy said. The aforementioned 'venna cup' will not actually be needed as we will be squeezing West, but cashing ♣A is correct because we don't want to go down when East has stiff king plus Qxx of diamonds.

This has been covered in other threads which you can search for. The short answer is that after 1NT-X-P, you can bid a five card suit if weak. Pass with values or no five card suit. You can't do everything and are going to concede -380 sometimes. If they bid something, suit bids are natural non forcing and I think double for takeout is the majority view. When your 1NT is doubled (I assume it's a weak NT), there are at least as many methods as there are posters on this forum, probably more. The first big decision is how badly you want to be able to play in 1NT doubled but not redoubled. Forcing opener to act if responder passes will open up many sequences and improve your chances of playing your best fit, but has the obvious downside that responder cannot choose to just play 1NT-X.

Obviously you cannot play in a 4-4 heart fit and conceal that declarer has four trumps. Nor can you employ a mechanism to investigate a 4-4 fit without revealing that declarer has less than four when there are four in dummy. I was talking about the situation where you investigate a 4-4 fit and go back to playing the first suit. For example, after 1♠-2♠-2NT(unspecified game try), you could have the agreement that 4♦ by responder accepts and shows four hearts. That way, when you play in spades, opener's heart length is unknown except that he probably has less than four.

If partner has hearts I would like to be in game. If partner is minimum without hearts, I want to be in 3♣ and certainly want to avoid 2NT. If parner is maximum without hearts, I think it is close between 3♣ and 3NT. To me it looks like the best action is to sign off in clubs and just hope partner doesn't have hearts.

If they are that volatile, maybe we should let it make an overtrick :) Seriously, I would try to take as many tricks as possible.

GNT is a pretty good name, at least until they come up with a tournament name that has the acronym VODKAROCKS. It's the antithesis of the one in Australia mentioned earlier.

Second seat vul it is a 2♠ opening for me. Non-vul I would open 3♠ in any seat, and maybe also 3♠ vul in third seat.

When they have exchanged more information (by opening the bidding) the chance of them ending in the wrong spot due to the preempt is less, and the chance of them choosing to defend when that is right is higher. I would definitely open 2♠ on this non-vul without a second thought. As a WJO I think it's close. For people whose style is more conservative it might be a questionable 2♠ opening and definitely not a WJO.

I don't like the information leakage either. But if you can find a way for responder rather than opener to introduce the other major on these kind of auctions, at least you are not revealing the shape of the declaring hand.

Regardless of who uses the term 'GNOT', I think the Australians should definitely rename their Spring National Open Teams so it is no longer an acronym.

What mikeh said. Plus there is a double squeeze if LHO has the ♥J and it turns out he did lead from J97 or Q97.

The implication is that, after 3♠, partner is going to rebid hearts with 5-5 when he would not do so if you bid 3NT. This seems as though it could work though I have never heard of it before. And if partner is 6-4 in the majors, maybe 4♠ will play better than 3NT anyway.

The laws specifically provide that what is a logical alternative depends on the class of player involved. If you managed to reach the level of a top expert and won world and national championships without anybody in the event knowing who you are, then I agree this provision in the laws could be a problem for you.

On the North hand I would start with double. You certainly don't mind if partner passes. Save the cue bid for hands with 5-5 in the majors (or other very shapely hands if you wish to do that). After North doubles and South bids 2♥, North can splinter with 4♦. Since South has a maximum 2♥ bid with nothing in diamonds, they are going to drive to slam after that. On your actual auction it looks like maybe South should do more if 3♦ was game forcing. But it's hard because you have consumed two entire levels of bidding just to establish the heart fit.

With 10 HCP and 10 cards in two suits I would open most of the time. When something like this goes wrong, we really need to see the full hand before reaching any conclusion.

I also think 4♥ could easily be right. Hearts will usually play a trick better than NT when partner has only 4 hearts, and sometimes zero or two tricks better. When partner has five hearts, two tricks better is a lot more likely than zero. If the hearts were Qxx I would prefer 4♥, as it is I think it's very close.

Don't fight the hypothetical. You can be insulted because I concluded you were walking the dog, or you can be insulted because I concluded you really didn't want to bid beyond 3♠. Take your pick. Ok maybe you pulled the wrong bidding card. But in that case you still get to bid 4♠ next time.

When you look at the hand, isn't your first impression that the player is clearly walking the dog? Self-serving statements can be true and it's not as if you just have the rely on the player's word. There is the actual hand plus your knowledge of the level of judgment of the player involved. If lalldonn bid 3♠ then 4♠ on that hand and I was on the committee I would not adjust even if he didn't give a reason, because it is overwhelmingly likely that he always intended to bid 4♠ and was hoping to go slow and buy it there.

To me this is pretty simple. Obama had a healthy lead until he had to switch off the teleprompter and go head to head against Romney. Then he sank like a lead balloon. But it's still close and the rest of the way, he only has to stand in front of friendly crowds and read out what his excellent speechwriters have prepared for him. That's where Obama excels. Plus, he has more money so can buy more ads. The economy isn't going to get noticeably worse before the election, especially now that the Fed is blowing it up like a balloon. Any emergency that may arise in the next two weeks should favour the president in the short term, as long as he takes strong action. So I would definitely bet on Obama.

The general rule is that when one suit has been doubled for takeout, subsequent doubles of a different suit are penalty. Maybe it is logical for this to be an exception, but I would not treat it as one unless specifically discussed. A penalty double of 3♥ does have some appeal but I would probably chicken out and just bid 3♠.

We know that barmar didn't necessarily want to go higher because he told us. But the test is whether pass is a logical alternative for the class of player involved. I think there are two separate classes of player we might consider: those who bid 3♠ because they are unsure whether they want to go higher, and those who are just walking the dog. If we are satisfied that the dog walkers are the correct class for comparison, we might well decide that pass is not a LA. Of course there is the problem of deciding which class to use. But if the player says they were walking the dog then the director/committee may choose to believe them, especially if the content of the hand provides pretty strong corroborating evidence.

LOL, probably only in New Zealand could you find an elderly, forgetful gentleman playing transfer preempts in a club game. Anyway, the possibilities are: A) Partner has forgotten B) Partner has diamonds and prefers 3♦ to 3♥ as a contract Scenarion A is a logical alternative and is the one suggested by the UI. So you can only choose it if scenario B is not a LA. Partner's forgetfulness can certainly be taken into account, but in this case I think it would be hard to justify a conclusion that B is not a LA. The meta-agreement you suggested would not change the alternatives or whether B is logical, so would not help.

Fluffy's reasons are good ones, but I might still do it. I like the 6-4 shape and diamond spots. The frequency of gain is high and partner doesn't always have shortage in your suit, though it definitely could be messy if he does.