pooltuna

This, if I have to start the auction with 1♠. The alternative of 1NT works better for this particular hand and won't be too surprised if some start with 1♠ and rebid 2NT.

You really have to know your opp here if they are silly enough to bid 3♦ with xx xx KQJxxxx xx or x xx KQJxxxx xxx at these colors then a pass is justified. If Meckwell bid 3♦ here I would not expect to extract more than 500 and still possibly lose IMPS when we miss our +980.

Q1) not sure but apparently the meta-agreement ought to be "if no interference over any strong NT call, systems on." For me X is interference. For those who try to use "systems on over interference" I would think that would be a reasonable meta-agreement as well. Q2) I would not force to game even though I suspect the 2NT caller is in the 18-20 range. The honor placement rates to be poor.

red vs white IMP pairs opps using 15-17 INT you are in 4th seat using SAYC you hold KQJ7 KJT8652 9 7 and hear the auction P-P-1NT-? Your call?

This is not my interpretation vs NT the standard lead is the K from either KQTxx or KQ9xx. Usually to request an unblock I would hold either more length or better spots

I would think especially with a split range

I don't understand this, it sounds like you are suggesing 3♦ was indeed a good bid with this hand. It was a tactical call that didn't work out. I would have called 1NT instead but 3♦ is not the worst bid I've seen :(

No, not everyone has suggested that. So what is it? 1♠:1N 3♠? IMO, yes this. On BBO for most posters 2♠ is strong invitational when they hold this hand and weak non forcing when they hold KT9xxx Kx Kxx Kx. Partner is supposed to know the difference and act appropriately. When partner's crystal ball is acting up that is his problem.

to me this seems like a borderline hand between pass and 3♠. I don't like either one. So I get out my decision making tool and flip it.

actually the wording of the agreement for the lead of the K threw me as I usually use the reverse but in retrospect one of the A or K has to be "unblock, if you have nothing to unblock then give count" so my response to Q1 needs to be altered. BTW I thought the standard agreement with the Q lead was "if you have the J tell me NOW(by unblocking)"

Q1) Since partner has has led the K I am asked to either unblock or provide count since unblocking looks like it could easily cost a trick I give count, presumable the ♣5 Q2) You don't mention agreements on the lead of Q but standard is to unblock specifically the J if you have it and I would assume partner can stand that in the ♣ suit so I play the J.

Q1) Barring unusual agreements, no as you rate to be missing 3 aces and are set before you start. Q2) it is not so much point count but try to count your tricks. So for this hand I see about 9 tricks Q3)again try to count tricks to make your decision In this hand I think we will take 8 tricks but they will take 5 before we get our 9th.

Why not overcall 1d with: KJxx x AJTxx xxx showing suit to lead and giving partner a chance to jump if he finds nice support ? WHAT! And interfere in the opps nice smooth 1♣ auction and trying to make it hard to use all those nice asking bids? :P

Well IMO pass over 2♣ does not deny this holding so IMV 2♠ is already an overbid. Over 3♦ I would choose 3♠

my choice would be X and a ♥ rebid

BTDT....HTTSTPI :)

clearly she was just practicing her finesses :)

The scoring method and the vulnerability does not bode well for Justin's choice either IMO. IMV you need to take a risk with this hand and put up with the variance.

I will guess 5♣ because 5♣x rates to be a smaller negative number than 4♠x= and I don't think we will be allowed to keep any positive number.

IMO after east chooses pass over 3♠ (a not unreasonable choice) he has to act over his partner's 3♥call with either 3♠ or 4♥

my choice would be 2♠

how do you check to see if partner has 3♠s in his hand if you don't use 3♦? This assumes you are so inclined with this hand.

Too rich for my blood. I mean $100/lb is a bit stiff. I'll take my beans straight from the plant and then roasted. Passing them through a civet is not a requirement for me :)

caffeinated with no chicory ;)

Q1) if 2♦ is not a SJS, yes Q2) well you have lots of choices here 2♠,3♥,3♠,4♥,3♣ if it is forcing,4♣ if it is forcing, 5♣, & 5♦. Well let's dispense with 3♣,4♣,5♣,& 5♦. Doubt exists about 3♣ & 4♣ being forcing (to me anyway). 5♣ & 5♦ are too unilateral and should show less strong(5♣) or more distributional(5♦,i.e. more ♦). So that leaves the majors. 2♠ might be taken as natural. 3♥ might be taken as stopper showing. 3♠ should be initially stopper showing. 4♥ should be a splinter for ♣ (but maybe a ♦self splinter). IMO you can reduce it to 3♠ & 4♥. The advantage of 3♠ is that you might be able to qbid 4♥ over 4♣ or 4♦ but you will be strapped over 5♣ or 5♦ altho a qbid at that point will be grand seeking. 4♥ leaves you in a less descriptive position. I would choose 3♠ Q3) see Q2