pooltuna

The bidders must see something in this hand that I am missing. I take the 2♦ call as a PJS usually showing 6♦ and partner's X as a negative X too weak to bid a forcing 5 card major if he has one; reinforced by his pass of our 3♣ call. The belated 3♦ raise tends to imply an opinion that 3♦ is making or only going down 1 or an undoubled 2. Consequently I am inclined to pass and give partner a chance to act. I await information from the bidders of what they see in the auction that I am missing. I am inclined to play partner to be 4432, 4531, or 5431 from more probable to less probable.

Looks like you need to play RHO to hold [hv=s=stxxhqxxxdkqckqxx]133|100|[/hv] so clear the ♠s and finesse a ♣ into RHO who will be forced to return either a ♥ or the critical 2nd ♣ which will allow you to win the 2nd and 3rd ♣ leads before re-endplaying him with the 4th ♣. don't forget to cash the ♥A first.

failing to have that in your arsenal just bid a NON forcing 2♦

This looks about right of course we don't know if this is IMPs or MPs

I seem to recall a recent thread where an auction like 2♣-2♦; 6♣ showed something like a hand where your partner could raise to 7 with the ♣K. Of course that doesn't help you if you belong instead in 7♠

I didn't look closely at conditions yes much harder to bid 5♦ at R/W

Probably 3♣ is right but you might be able to make a case for a] stolen bid X or b]support X :)

- (p) 2♣ :P

bidding again is anti-partnership. When you make partner captain it is rarely correct to bid again

I need a seat on the 4♥ bandwagon

yep might as well make them play 5♠ or you 5♦

I vote with the chick, the cat chick, and the cat with the party hat.

at MPs it is hard to construct a hand that would bypass 3NT so blithely. So perhaps it is this hand and West is expected to raise to 6 with any excuse. Actually surprised that West did not as 5♣ rates to score so poorly.

In MPs I suspect you need to treat this like it is a 4 card LR. Vul at IMPs this is a much harder problem and I would probably Meckwell the hand :)

I agree with the ♠A and the cat with the party hat (sorry but it ain't sombrero, it is still a cat forced to wear a silly hat :P )

snip If some level of of compliance to the Laws of bridge is not enforced, or at least strongly encouraged, at the Main Bridge club, what is the difference between that and the "relaxed" club? Why does it exist? snip As for why the skill level on my profile says "private" - that's because I'm a better player than almost every "expert" I've ever played against here (and several of the self-described "world-class"), and I know I'm far from expert. I refuse to lie, and if that's your criterion for accepting me at your table I'm pretty sure I'm not interested. Now, if BBO devised some reasonable way of objectively rating players (which given the database of hands played shouldn't be too hard - base it on their scores relative to everybody they've played, weighting recent scores more highly than older scores - the hardest part would be giving relative values to IMPs vs MPs), I'd be pretty thrilled... You might allow some initial rating based on rankings from ACBL or other leagues - nobody believes ACBL rankings are very relevant, but they'd quickly get adjusted by actual play. In the main bridge club they really are trying to do their best, they also think they are experts (even when they aren't and why I find those who request "real experts" hilarious). If they leave unexpectedly it is because they think you are a bad player (even if they don't understand why you took a Q finesse with a 9-card fit). If you want a ratings system I suggest you use the Dutch site StepBridge (not free) rather than OKBridge(also not free) because OKBridge's rating system IMO sucks. Not sure about Swan Bridge's rating system as I have little experience with it.

Looks like possible calls are 4NT, 5♣, & 5♥. I will dismiss 4NT out of hand because I don't think RKC is appropriate (if that's what it means) for this hand that 5♣ which partner will hopefully read as a Qbid for either ♦s or ♥s. By making this call now you help partner immediately know what to do with a hand that has 2 small ♣. 5♥ obviously indicates the suit where you want to play and does not possibly confuse partner that you want to play ♣. My choice is to risk 5♣ now.

only justification for an X is to assume the opps will end up in 3NT and you would prefer a ♠ lead to that of a ♦

yes partner may/probably have/has 4♠s even so I will be finessing RHO for the Q which rates to be odds on

I don't see any wings!!!!

Seems to me like you gotta go with the odds and hope declarer has 1264 hand with a high ODR ratio which means he should hold most of the ♣/♦ cards. Additionally partner rates to hold 5♥ and only 2/3 ♣ if you want to guess which one he is likely to hold, go with the longer suit. You could play the A♣ and see if you get an encouraging card. Of course declarer holding the K will do his damnedest to make it look encouraging :)

As a caveat I have never used Bergen raises. IMO the argument against them is the amount of information they generate combined with the possible exchange of opponent information by doubling or not doubling the Bergen call. Compared to a more ambiguous forcing or semiforcing 1NT call followed by 2M or 3M which leaves the opponents more in the dark as to whether balancing makes sense.

definitely call 2♦ at your first opportunity and if the opps find 2♥ you are well positioned to decide whether 2♠ makes sense

Dare I venture to say that the 4♥ call would be the unanimous choice of all the frequent posters to BBOF. Your partner needs to grab the bull by the horns for any further action since your call has essentially made him captain.

I thought it was forbidden to use logical and ACBL in the same sentence.