pooltuna

in this case the easy action=the %age action

My plan is to put dummy down on the table and maybe get myself a coffee if I feel like one. black 1 and a half teaspoons of sugar in mine please.

yeah it's tough to hold E/W to 3 tricks or fewer but my IMP tendencies take over and it is real hard not to pass the reopening X :lol:

It may or may not be good idea to use Stayman on this hand. IMO, however, unless you are doing well with few boards left, you should choose the bid with the best expectation at the current form of scoring. If you simply bid with the field, play with the field, and defend with the field, then you finish in a mediocre rut :lol: And I am sure that is what he is doing. The field is not using Stayman with this hand because 75 years of bridgeplaying says the %age action with this hand is to pass.

you have no clear course of action so X. As far as whether FP is in effect I think a clear meta agreement needs to be in place on what minimum action by responder needs to trigger it. IMO a qbid should be enough to trigger it.

you have no clue what the right action is, so you pass and see what happens as partner is still there plus LHO will have to act

can you play an encouraging ♣ at trick 2? Even more important are you ready to play a low ♥ at trick 3. Since declarer did not start ♥s at trick 2 by leading a top ♥ out of his hand it is likely that he has problems here and your 4 tricks may be Q♥,A♣,♣ ruff and A♥

When you hold this type of hand do you get to pass the card of your choice to the player who needs one :lol:

isn't 4♥ exclusion in this auction?

agree with Han :)

I can manage a pass at this stage of the auction :)

The first hand I am not defending anything expect probably 7♦. I mean is too much to expect parter to hold [hv=s=saxxhxxdxxxcxxxxx]133|100|[/hv] My inclination is to check for aces over 2♠ as long as partner has an Ace aren't you always at least 25% to make slam. On the second hand yeah I hit it and don't consider any other call after hearing partner bid in my void.

I'm pitching my tent next to Nigel's :)

yes this is one

This strikes me as backwards, i.e. it might be more advantageous to use 2NT as a max huh? If responder has 8 points without club length, he would be stuck when opener bids 3♣. So it's better to play 2NT as showing minimum, then responder can pass 2NT. right I had my thinking crossed thinking 2♠ promised ♣

Partner has limited his hand and you have 7 highly probable tricks assuming partner has the minimum 2♦ his 1NT call should promise. Now is it more reasonable to think we are missing slam or should we just be considering which game. IMO we ought to limit our aim to game. So which game? Do we try for a ♥ game providing the defense with extra information or do we just hope partner has the probable 2 tricks in 3NT. I think the latter carries more weight so I think 3NT is tactically clear if not technically correct.

This strikes me as backwards, i.e. it might be more advantageous to use 2NT as a max

blasting is clear. had a similar situation where i held (it was goulash) the following hand and partner in first seat opened 3♠ and rho passed. dealer: ????? vul: ???? scoring: unknown ♠ k75hdak98765432c]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] I decided to take a shot at 7 with a little less than a blast...I tried 5NT and partner was allowed to play in 6♠X which the defense managed to hold to 6 when my RHO led his singleton ♦Q and LHO trumped with his stiff trump. :) I guess you could argue that partner was 70% to hold the ♠A and I should have bid 7♦ or 7♠

1) J♠ 2) I follow orders and lead a ♦

1) the strength is that of a limit raise not GF 2) see above 3) if you are just supposed to bid 2♦ with this how does partner know the difference between this hand and say J83 AQ32 7632 86 which IMO is the obvious bid with the latter hand.

What were partner's options over 3♦? Anyway partner could have the miracle hand x Axx KQxxx AQxx where 3NT is real iffy if they find a ♠ lead while 6♦ has good odds. I would assume 3NT was based on partner liking his ♥ stopper plus extras so 4♣ for me.

choices look to be Jacoby 2NT, 2♦, and 4♣ without an initial discussion and which is why you need one to differentiate all the possible support hands I prefer 4♣ to show this type of hand

two chances after 1♥ response W could venture a 1♠ overcall and after 2♥ E could venture an X

1) I would X if preemptive otherwise am inclined to pass 2) I would try 3♣

more like punish partner :) since there was no X of 1NT and no 2NT "cue bid"