pooltuna

Well I haven't had a chance to use this in a while and who can resist? :) Hamman eggs in one basket?

5♦ how else do you have a chance for your opps to land in their 4-3 ♠ fit and at the 5 level :) . Doesn't matter if they are world class or putzers you need to put the squeeze on for a shot at a misguess. Of course the WC will solve the dilemma better more often than the putzers but passing is just giving them more room to be sure the bat hits the ball squarely

So the Standard American is stupid IIUC. Hmmm... you must be a great, great grandson of P.T. Barnum :)

For the first hand IMO the judgment in question is do you trust partner? This assumes of course that 3♣ was essentially a help suit query. Now answer the yes/no question do I have ♣ help? Yes or No. You seem to be answering the yes/no question is partner a moron? And you chose yes. For the second hand there are probably too many 7-9 point hands for partner to hold to just bid 4♠ if you have a methodology to ask if he has 3 controls below 3♠ you might try that but failing that 3♠ is the odds call IMO.

For the stated colors and scoring I would expect a raise to be equivalent to a limit raise.

quantitative just looks silly to me as you are asking parting do you have a good 12 versus a bad 11[why didn't you just bid 1NT]? This is IMO too narrow a range to be using this as quant with any kind of sanity. In all probabllity partner has such a good hand that he just needs to know if we have 2 controls.

Outstanding ♠ including the lead are QJT7542. Rule of 11 shows that declarer must hold 2 cards higher than the 4 and the play of the Q directly implies the second card is the J with some possibility of it being the T. Since ♠ play on trick 1 guarantees that suit is cooked as a source of tricks lead the 2♥ in hopes of winning 4 ♥ tricks or 3♥ & a minor suit A.

Q1) I prefer 1st or 2nd round control Qs Q2) given that partner has 2♥ you always have oppositional possible holdings that produce a trump loser and you have some quantity of holdings that guarantee 2 trump losers. With that and the higher frequency of 14 and 15 HCP holding I would not try to go past 4♥.

3♠ I need partner to be able to evaluate his ♠ holding for slam purposes before bidding ♦

Actually partner held ♠JT5 ♥KQT754 ♦A ♣963 I think the vulnerability made me think I needed to risk a 2♠ call but it was so uncomfortable I thought I needed to share my misery :)

you have 12 tricks the problem is they get 2 first :)

at IMPS it feels like you have to take your plus score and double, expecting partner to pass. MP is uglier and a case can be made for 4NT for the minors but of course those are losing to the pairs that get to play 3NT so maybe X is the best choice there as well.

Is this like a Vienna trump squeeze where after giving up a ♣ Dummy comes down to ♠AK ♥AQ8 and your hand is ♠Jxx ♥x and ♦ x where East has to pick a discard from ♠Qxx ♥Kxx ?

and demand qbidding start.

Team game All Red In third seat you pickup your hand ♠K86432 ♥void ♦KQ82 ♣AK2 A real beauty but then the bidding starts 2♥ (P) ? an easy call ...no?

I think 4♠ is the right amount of risk/"make opps guess" level. 3♠ is a "bawk bawk" bid IMO as with ♠Ax and trash held by partner you are a favorite to make 3♠

The way to play the trump suit has to be balanced by the probablity of a stiff♣. Would you really break the ♣ suit for the opps holding xxxx Qxx xxxxx x? This must be Bbradley's Barry Crane rule

DSIP I have a near max?

One of many standards? :)

3♣ shows 5♥ 3♦ shows invitational+ ♦support 3♥ shows invitational 6 card suit 3♠ shows 4♥ and 4♠ if you have 5♥ and 4♠ you call 3♣ and with 4♠ partner is supposed to bid 3♠

support w/support

I would be denying a "biddable 4 card ♠ suit" but not an "unbiddable 4 card suit." :) The quotes mean my definition

surely 3♦ is simple stayman where I could bid 4♥ over 3NT over partner's 3♥response I will call 3♠ and we may get to a slam.

I am a 5♦ bidder at these colors playing IMPs partner has to have values I am more worried about missing 6 than I am about going down in 5

Generally use better minor with 33 and 1♦ with 44. That does not stop me from opening 1♦ or 1♣ when holding ♦AKx & ♣xxxx in the first and ♦xxxx & ♣AQx in the latter.