pooltuna

If 3♦ is non forcing why did you bid 2♥? I mean if you are worried about not being able to show a ♥ suit maybe you should use a negative double. IMO 3♦ is 1000% forcing. This frees up 4♦ to be what it should be....a ♥ self-splinter

You are V vs NOT per OP

Well I trust my partner to know that a V vs Not 2♣ call in this auction has the "goods" so I bid 3NT

Yes 3♣ but no whining or resulting from me about partner's 2♣ overcall

I don't get why you always hide your follow-ups. Is it because you think after you gave your thought, we will be too shy to voice an differing opinion? Or because we won't be able to think clearly after you revealed the right answer? Because I figure that some people might like to think about it without accidentally seeing some clue to the hand. It doesn't seem like that much to un-hide things, kept hidden for the benefit of those who still want to think about it. Geez! I mean, I personally like to think about others' posts without accidentally reading the next post that gives away the problem and taints my own view. better to keep it hidden for unbiased opinions

You need to warn 1fer that 5♥ ain't Michael's ;)

Well the choices appear to be 1♥, 1♠, 1NT. The problem with the first 2 is they underbid your hand strength because of your shape. The 1NT bid does not have a stopper but with 4 cards in the suit I would use it over the first 2.

Well the options look to be a negX, 2♠, and 3♠. In order of preference for me I would use the negX followed by 3♠

Ahhh, the transfer to 4♠

I try 3♠ now

That's a routine raise to 3♦. how about ♠Ax ♥Jxxx ♦Q ♣xxxxxx

I only self alert agreements with partner. It is really a pet peeve when opps demand to know what your bid is but you have no agreement with partner(I play with a lot of pickup partners). IMO at that point general bridge knowledge applies and my frequent reply to the demands is gfy&thyrio

This hand is not just about strength. It is about tricks if ♦ come in as they rate to do (i.e.>50% of the time) then you have 8 tricks in NT so partner needs only produce 1 more.

I presume there is substantial tolerance for conversion by partner so it is really a DSIP X

Should have bid 3♠ directly over 3♣. We can't tell now how strong partner really is as he made a protection X. Consquently the AK♠ are worth 1 trick max and so we need 2 other red suit winners just to set 1 which is just too close. At this stage I would bid 4♠ to compensate for partner's possible xtra strength.

What about he possibility that your opponents, who have had to guess at a high level, are going down in 6♣? Going for 800 when you were about to get +100 costs 19 IMPs if teammates had their par of +500. I watched this at the USA1 v Australia match. I was struck by how strapped the potential sac-ers were because of the wide spread of possible 4♠ hands neither 6♣ defender could tell whether partner had enough defense to set it.

May be we should start a sub-poll for those who couldn't think of anything but 2♦. Here's the virtual poll question: "No alternative to 2♦ because you believe that:" with choices below: ♣) My diamond suit is not solid enough even if partner has a stopper ♦) Partner being a passed hand, I'm not sure I want to be 4♦ when he shows no stopper. ♥) The auction never goes 3♥ or 3♠ on my left, making it really hard for me to get to 3nt. So I don't worry about such situations. ♠) When I look at a lot of cards in a suit, I just overcall that suit at the appropriate level, knowing that we'll always get to the right contract eventually (I would have trouble making up this choice, but this is derived from one of the replies to the post). You forgot these additional poll choices: ♣♣ I don't believe in percentages they are too hard to calculate ♦♦ If my suit isn't AKQJT98 it isn't solid enough to bid 3♠ ♥♥ A simulation? Isn't that when 2 players play a card at the same time? ♠♠ So what if partner holds ♠Ax ♥Jxx ♦xxx ♣xxxxx I will make 2♦

Not to worry it was probably a good sac. :rolleyes:

The problem hand belongs to partner who doesn't know if you have this one or one with slightly more defense ;)

Bill, I hear your dog scratching at the door. It needs to go out for a walk ;)

Oh no! Is that a threat?!?!?! Lol @ you calling me anti social over and over. That is the funniest thing you ever say, and you say a lot of ridiculous things ;) Where did I get personal and insulting? I call em like I see em, most regular forum posters here also think you troll routinely, and that most of your posts are simply contrarian/trolling for the sake of it. It is not like I just create these beliefs out of nowhere. It is obvious from your posting history. I am sure the moderators will love you clicking the report button every time you are called a troll though. I am sure they are really likely to do anything about that! Will you report me if I say you are not an expert bridge player, and your posts are generally terrible in quality also? Sorry, I am free to say that! Mommy and Daddy can't protect you from that! Troll away Hmmm a little thin-skinned. Do you think he would last a week at http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.bridge/topics?

I can't! But I am sure some of the ones who play 2♣ is "forcing" in this auction will come up with a hand.

this is all wrong I can tell just by looking that you are a dog-walker and that is what this hand is meant to do :P

2nd choice is X and relatively close. I really hate 2♦

Use of RKC in this auction implies a lot of tricks by the initiator almost certainly in the form of a very long ♣suit so attempt to cash the ♥A