pooltuna

so partner couldn't be troubled to bid the ♥ suit and actually tell you what is going on People that I play with usually know what is going on. The double here is far more flexible that a 2H bid. After all, if I have Cs sown up, then I may well decide to pass :rolleyes: Yeah partner could never ever hold[hv=s=skqjt98hxxdaxcaxx]133|100|[/hv]

certainly within my variability limits altho some may say it is too strong by 2 kings (well at least one) for these colors :rolleyes: .... When you have a license to steal you need to exercise it!

RE: 1♥ (P) 1♠ (P); 2NT This is complicated only by whether or not you open 1NT with 5cM. If you don't then you have rebid problems with 15-17 w/5cM some use 2NT to show that. If you do open 1NT w/5cM, then it is a balanced 18-19 with 2 or 3♠. a 3NT rebid is generally not well defined but Helene's suggestion is playable. RE: 1m (P) 1NT (P); 3NT is generally defined as a gambling 3NT(with known minor suit) with side winners :rolleyes: maybe something like Ax A xxx AKQxxxx or even Ax AK xxx AKQTxx altho some will surely object saying "2NT opening obv"

At IMPS I would probably play 7♠ as I can count to 13 with 5♥ + 3 minor suit ruffs and 5 non trump winners

Don't go berserk unless you really like playing misfits at game level so start with F1NT

seems equitable enough. North should have converted to 4♥ because he knows they have a 9 card fit. South should only bid 3NT if there is a reasonable possibility the partnership assets will exceed 27 HCP making 3NT a better place to play than an 8 card fit. Uh? I have seen many 9 card M suit fits play well in 3NT where 4M goes down. 27HCP? Really? Personally, I would have bid 2NT with the sth hand, but 3NT is not a disaster. Pass with the NTh hand is not unreasonable. 3NT is not an unreasonable contract, and i should point out that on a C lead you may well lose 1C, 1S and 2H in 4H if the H do not play well. I don't see much blame to be laid anywhere. If you want guarantees see Lloyd's of London nevertheless you will have to produce more than "I've seen 4♥ go down with a 9 card fit while 3NT makes" and you left the key word out and that is "EXCEED" as in greater than and NOT equal to 27

so partner couldn't be troubled to bid the ♥ suit and actually tell you what is going on

Well your smallest ♣ will be a great success if it works or a catastrophic failure if your partner succeeds in winning a ♠ trick. Clearly your LHO has no ♦ or ♠ fear and probably is void in ♦. Partner had no preference between ♣ or ♦so he rates to have equal number of both that being said it looks like RHO has extreme ♣ shortage based on LHO's expectation

seems equitable enough. North should have converted to 4♥ because he knows they have a 9 card fit. South should only bid 3NT if there is a reasonable possibility the partnership assets will exceed 27 HCP making 3NT a better place to play than an 8 card fit.

pass and lead a ♠

well my gut reaction is just to RKC and suffer in 6♥ when he only has 1

One of my meta agreement standards is that a passed hand can only make a forcing bid in a suit where one of the opponents are known to have at least 5.

Should south have been able to construct a probable hand layout from the "unbalanced ♦ opening", the failure of West to use an XX (curious how the EW system uses it if not standard), and the subtle meanings of the Jordan call (like can it contain a 4 card major) IMO not only was North's TOX a misbid his failure to overcall 1♠ tends to deny 9 major suit cards. C'mon Ken I know you are or were an unbalanced ♦ advocate.

Sorry, I don't understand this sentence. see the editing

hmmm ...must be like me stifling the urge to be insulting :) EDIT: when I first looked at this all I saw were just a series of dots anyone else ever notice a post like that ?

hmmm....do you often go for 800 vs a part score? :)

equally at fault ....you can't both overbid your hands

Surely you must have conjectured some of the more obvious possible reasons. 1) preemptive effect; usually in these auction you are trying to escape with minimum loss as XX is normally indicative of the hand ownership 2) a TO bid to guide partner where to save.

you said you had the tools to handle these. Do you or don't you? If you end up just guessing then you have to argue the number of hands that lead to a makeable slam exceed those that don't and I think that is far from certain. Are you just trolling now? Depends on your definition, Frankly, I didn't believe you when you said you had the tools to make looking for slam a percentage choice. But if you did I was interested in seeing what you had. What I got was a ♣ transfer and then play it by ear. Maybe we need to see a simul by Han that shows how many club tricks you take for a 16 point balanced opening hand opposite this What you call "play it be ear" is actually called "quantitative bidding". This is like me suggesting 1NT p 4NT on a balanced 16 count and you pointing out a bunch of hands for opener that would bid 6NT but don't make slam. So what? Mention that you think inviting slam is against the odds and leave it at that. What makes you think I have to have proof for something because you think it's "far from certain"? But no, you just love persisting. Would you rather I took each of your examples and pointed out that opener knows AK doubleton is overvalued, that you gave very unlikely and specific shapes, that if partner has Jxxxx of clubs he knows the jack is wasted? Should I mention that it's right to try for slam even if far fewer than half of opener's hands make slam, since you should only be worried about what percentage make slam out of the ones where he accepts an invitation? Or would you think it's more fun for me to point out that you have some strange obsession with me, proven by you quoting my posts more often than all other forums posters combined? Check if you don't believe it, I'd put money that it's true. I'm flattered but a little creeped out and annoyed by it. First let me apologize for probably teasing a little too hard and after this response I will cease and desist any response to your posts ...go in peace. As for quantitative bidding I suspect most of us are aware of how it works. In this particular case you have somewhere between 27 and 29 HCP in total partnership assets. As I am sure you well know 33 is the target because you cannot be missing 2 cashing aces. Nevertheless you are probably using an addendum to this since the 6 card club suit is not enough to compensate for the missing 4 to 6 HCP. Consequently you rate to be counting tricks and controls which is why the slam is odds on opposite ♥/♦ AK and AKQ. My problem is I don't see how partner is to know you need 5 immediately cashable tricks and why [hv=s=skqxhkqjtdaxcjxxx]133|100|[/hv] is not adequate. Live long and prosper

you said you had the tools to handle these. Do you or don't you? If you end up just guessing then you have to argue the number of hands that lead to a makeable slam exceed those that don't and I think that is far from certain. Are you just trolling now? Depends on your definition, Frankly, I didn't believe you when you said you had the tools to make looking for slam a percentage choice. But if you did I was interested in seeing what you had. What I got was a ♣ transfer and then play it by ear. Maybe we need to see a simul by Han that shows how many club tricks you take for a 16 point balanced opening hand opposite this

you said you had the tools to handle these. Do you or don't you? If you end up just guessing then you have to argue the number of hands that lead to a makeable slam exceed those that don't and I think that is far from certain.

1)pass 2)pass IMPS: DSIPX MP 3)2C pass is "never" the right choice in bidding puzzles or contests hmmm and maybe questions too :)

That there are many hands that make slam is not the question. The question is do you have the bidding tools to differentiate the ones that make slam from the probably equally many (or more) hands that don't And fortunately we do! presumably your acution continues ....2♠ (P) 2NT... Now perhaps you can share your methods? Opener bids either 2NT or 3♣, one saying he likes clubs and one saying he doesn't. If he doesn't like them, 3NT. If he has amazing controls he may bid on anyway, knowing I must have been interested. If he does like them, 4NT as a quantitative invite. Again he will look at his general strength and controls but will be more likely to accept in this case. Alternatively I could bid 4♣ and start cuebidding, but I think that's a worse option. I'm not saying every auction and contract will be perfect. But we have adequate tools that we are free to use. Sorry but this just looks like a lot of handwaving. So how are you supposed to know to give up with [hv=s=sxxxhakxdakcjxxxx]133|100|[/hv] or [hv=s=sxxxhakxdakcjxxxx]133|100|[/hv] and go with [hv=s=sxxxhakxdakcjxxxx]133|100|[/hv]

That there are many hands that make slam is not the question. The question is do you have the bidding tools to differentiate the ones that make slam from the probably equally many (or more) hands that don't And fortunately we do! presumably your acution continues ....2♠ (P) 2NT... Now perhaps you can share your methods?

Does that imply that normal stayman gives you the tools to check if 2NT opener is 5-4 in the majors? :) As long as responder has a 4 card major I fail to see the difficulties as the 2NT opener can both show the 5 carder then revert to the 4 carder over 3NT The "problem" is responder is something like 3136 and was looking for a 5 card spade suit. In any case, showing 4-5 in the majors after showing a balanced hand is not on my priority list. not to big on mine either since when I start getting in the 27-29 HCP total side assets 3NT probably plays equal or better to an 8 card major fit