pooltuna

Han is never afraid to swim against the current. on the beach he charges the tsunamis ;)

So you think partner played ♠9 from 109x AQxx Jxx QJx or 109x AQxx QJx Jxx. Why would he do that? if it had suit preference overtones what would you return?

The problem I see with a ♠ is that it is too passive if declarer has AKxx Kxx Qxx xxx or AKxx Kxx xxx Qxx then the ♠ gives up the contract regardless of which hand is held whereas either minor has some chance to break the contract. I am having a hard time deciding which minor as with a good 4 card ♦ suit [QJ9x, QT9x, etc) partner might have preferred to lead that instead of a ♥. Consequently I am inclined to return a ♣ but I am far from certain that it is better than a ♦. Perhaps a simul could help :D

actually I was envisioning an auction more like 1♦ 1♥ 1♠ 1NT 2NT

maybe. But your partner's Meckwellian tendencies will take over at vul IMPS and you will have to play 3NT :D

I love the idea. While this suggestion destroys the brevity of the system, why not put the length in parentheses to avoid ambiguity with spots altogether? You could even omit the (0). Would AK(4) AJ(1) A(1) QJ look that unwieldy? use the one that is shorter to minimize keystrokes AK(4) AJ(1) A(1) QJ AKxxxx AJx Ax QJ

:D (here is the emoticon you left off :) )

here here (i.e. this gets my vote)

well this looks like the best line IMV but not sure if it is best MP line

that is my gut reaction as well

The alternative to 4♠ is not pass but a qbid(4♣) if you think partner might have a limit raise

Q1) I have no problem with south's -X although it is wierd but certainly would work out if pard's hand was♠KQJx ♥KQJx v ♣AKxxx. Q2) With the actual hand north should bid 3♦ which must be forcing as partner could -X to play ♣

well how do you ask about the # of aces? Just curious.. 4♣ is Gerber, right? :rolleyes:

I take you didn't miss the I in front of MP well as Vul=N/S with Dealer = N(your partner)?

at these colors I pass; at any other I start with 2♣ to inject some difficulty into their auction

1NT and 3♠

I am going to assume partner has the k♦ for his 3NT call and then play 5,6,or 7♥ based on partner showing 0,1,or 2 aces

This is only 11HCP who cares if it is 5 controls and 3 quicktricks <_<

well IMO hand 1 should go thru forcing 1NT. Hand 2 meets my definition of a LR while Hand 3 meets my definition of a constructive raise.

looks like you come down to 9 KQ53 K4 - - A76 AT86 - and hope you manage to squeeze RHO out of all his black cards and can read the situation <_<

4♦, it's getting a bit slippery... put me in the 3♠ crowd and here

Q1) IMO the 4♥ call is viable although 3♦ would be a more flexible alternative Q2) I would assume partner had significant xtras and would raise to 5♠ showing 2♦ losers from my perspective.

Q1) I would think it was standard Q2) you can tell the difference between a 2♠ raise made on xxxx xx Kxxx Qxxx and one made on xxxx xx Kxxx Axxx Q3) I assume you mean do you have to use Bergen. No you don't have to use Bergen. What you do lose is the ability to make a nonforcing 1NT call to 1M Q4) It creates more divisions in your major suit raises which allows for better game making decisions.

Q1) absolutely not because I can't stand an XX Q2) I win the A♥ since it is MP and I see 17 HCP out of the 19 or 20 that are in not declarer's hand that means there is a good chance declarer holds the AK♣ and will be able to pitch both of dummy's ♥s if I duck.

1) IMO yes 2) you could pass and watch the opps probably make 3♦ 3) values equivalent to a constructive raise in his suit 4) IMO yes as he does not have values for 3) and you do not have enough to go to game with this hand.