CamHenry

What form of scoring? This smells like a misfit, and if it's MPs I pass when oppo are vulnerable.

I've played both "sound raise" and "good hand, no good fit" for the cue-bid here. I'm not certain which is technically better: the risk is that you can't describe the second hand type (e.g. AKx/xx/AKQxx/Qx in the auction given), but that advancer can show a fit for the overcall safely by doubling, without committing them to a sacrifice. On balance, I prefer to play "good hand, F1" rather than a sound raise.

Double isn't perfect but is less bad than any alternative. Also, "no".

If I was playing in anything other than social deal-and-play bridge, for no stakes, I'd tell them. I'd hope to receive the same courtesy. Of course, if it's a speedball, I'd probably be even less likely to notice.

You're not daft to think of it, but the typical reason to lead a trump is if you expect declarer to be ruffing losers in dummy. On this auction it's quite likely that dummy has more cards in *every* side-suit than declarer, so the trump lead has little to recommend it. If your hand was x/KJxx/KJxx/KJxx, however, the trump lead looks like the safe option at least until you see dummy!

Close, but: if LHO ruffs and you overruff, you have to guess ♠ OR ♦, not both.

I expect declarer to hold 7 or 8 trumps, including 2 of the top 3 (usually), and some outside values. If partner has Qxx, leading a trump gives away the suit; there are other layouts where it costs (e.g. partner has Jxxx). There are two risks. One is that of going too passive, and giving away a trick e.g. by picking up partner's trumps; the other is of being too aggressive (e.g. ♥A), setting up dummy's KQJx when declarer ruffs at trick 1. I think the risk is greatest in the majors, so I would choose a minor. At MPs, I'd go for the small club: that requires only that partner has a club honour, or that dummy has AKJ and declarer has some clubs, to be safe. I would forgive a partner who led anything except a small heart, even if a small heart was the killing lead on the layout.

My objection to the SBU approach is that it places the burden of UI on the non-doubling side. For example, consider the start 1NT-(X). By EBU rules, this is alerted if anything other than penalty. That way, the opening side have information; they can then play their system after 1NTX without worrying about UI. However, if it's silent and could be anything, there's the trap of always having to ask: many pairs play something entirely different over a distributional double (including whether pass or redouble is stronger). It seems to me that the burden of dealing with UI should be on the side that makes the call. I know that, as a player, I find it much easier when oppo describe their agreements clearly, and announcing/alerting is part of that. The rules should support that.

Either a slight overbid of 2♥ (16 HCP, all of which are working; a good first suit, and Ax in partner's suit) or a slight underbid of 2♦ (partner will bid majors up-the-line with 4-4 and a weak hand, so we're unlikely to miss a heart fit). Neither of these has a flaw as big as an off-shape, honours-in-long-suits, aces-and-spaces, non-lead-directing 1NT with a gaping hole in the form of a small doubleton.

Maybe S has Qxxx/J9x/xx/Qxxx and thinks that his hand is worth approximately nothing? N didn't open because... he's comatose?

Start is easy: 1♣-1♦ Then the overcall; at which stage E wants to show a good raise in ♦, so 2♠ looks right. W has huge extras, and clearly needs to bid something GF here. I'd think 3♥ fits the bill. E then thinks "well, I've only shown 14 HCP in this shape and I've got a well-fitting control-rich hand", and might well Keycard. At that stage, W has to work out what to bid, but I think 6♦ is reasonable: you've got an 11-card fit; partner might hold ♦xxxx but that's unlikely for a straight Keycard auction. It's the only thing that gets the hand across. At this stage, E says "If partner can bid 6♦ without the AK, I can surely raise to 7 with both of them".

Out of interest, what would a 2NT response mean? I've played: 2m: limit raise, F3m, denies 4cM 2N: GF raise 3m: preemptive The advantage here is that you have more discernment in your limit raise auctions, and you can show stoppers up the line after 1m-2N (especially useful at MPs)

1/2: a lot depends on whether responder is a passed hand or not. If passed, all bids are natural and to play. If unpassed, we play: 2♣ = 5-card Puppet-ish (including weak takeout in a minor) 2♦/2♥ = transfers 2♠ = range enquiry or GF+ ♣ (opener rebids 2N min, 3♣ max) 2N = ♦ transfer (3♣ superaccept) 3♣/3♦ = semi-running suit However, we rarely transfer with 7HCP and a 5-card suit: the transfer is very weak or inv+, unless it has extra trumps. We also play compulsory super-accepts. As Art says, once you've opened a super-light 1NT, you should rarely try to find a better partscore. 3: no, we can have a 5-card major (due to our 2♣ response structure), and responder can show 5-3 majors with a GF hand, so we rarely play the "wrong" game when appropriate. Every now and again I'll open a 9-11 NT on xx/xx/xxx/AKQxxx, and it's even more satisfying on a 9-15.

Thanks for the replies, all - I was E, and realised after bidding 4♦ that it had been one of my worse calls that evening. To be fair to NS, all they did was ask us to agree the hesitation and reserve their rights, and they did not call the director at all. I posted here for verification that my pass was ethical/legal after partner's hesitation.

One of the difficulties of a wide-ranging 1NT is that it's more dangerous to invite (as the minimum is lower) but more necessary to invite (as a 12-count wants to play game opposite a maximum 10-13, for example). That's why you can open a wider range facing a passed hand.

Conversely, if you have a pair who play a complicated artificial system and there's one player on the other side who goes on tilt against such things, make him suffer it: it'll weaken their partnership trust for the session, and that's a good way to swing IMPs.

It could, however, be that dummy's holding Jxx and opener has Qx, and the heart AQ are on table - at which stage they're clearly making; 4♥ is my call.

North's argument was "The slow RKCB suggests that W has a marginal slam try, rather than full values, and therefore suggests passing rather than bidding on". E admits to masterminding the auction but defended his bid to W as "If you were OK with me passing 3NT, you can't tell me 4NT is too low".

E-W are a first-time partnership; system discussion includes "2/1 GF, strong NT, 1430" - other factors are probably irrelevant here. Here's the hand and auction: [hv=pc=n&s=s7ht842dqt4cqj963&w=sq6hkj3da7cat8754&n=s98532haq97dj32c2&e=sakjt4h65dk9865ck&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=1sp2cp2dp3np4dp4n(Agreed%20hesitation)ppp]399|300[/hv] After the play, N calls you to ask whether E is permitted to pass 4NT after the hesitation, or whether in fact doing so is demonstrably suggested over other LAs (such as showing his number of keycards, leading to a doomed slam). E comments: "To be honest, I wasn't really thinking clearly when I bid 4♦. It was an atrocious bid on my hand, as it should clearly show something like 6-5 and a slam try opposite a misfitting minimum GF, especially as this is matchpoints. I decided to pass 4NT because I should have passed 3NT in the first place." W's comment was along the lines of: "I was considering simply giving preference to 4♠ but decided partner had to have a slam try to go beyond 3NT, and I've clearly got enough to go on if he's 6-5". Your comments and ruling?

While I agree with Frances' post in principle, and as an answer to the question as posed, I think it's less useful for improving. The fastest way I've found to improve is to schedule a full post-mortem the day (or two days) after the session. At the time I had the luxury of working in the same office as my regular partner, so after the Tuesday game we'd print off travellers on Wednesday lunchtime, and analyse each board including the good ones - OK, board 1 we got a misdefence and they let us make an extra overtrick for 90%; board 2 we gave it back by choosing 4M over 3NT; board 3 we defended well to keep the overtricks down; that was worth 65% because it wasn't fully obvious but wasn't a work of genius either; board 4 we stopped in partscore on a game board and got a deserved 0 - why? How can we fix it? - board 5 oppo were the only pair to bid the obvious grand, well, that's rub of the green... Even if you can't do that, it helps to look at any board where you score 20% of the MPs or less (or -4 IMPs, or...) Do this on good sessions as well as bad, and know where your advantages are as well. There's no gain in deciding your bad boards all come from preempting too aggressively if all your good boards also come from aggressive preempts, for example.

9-11 NT for me! Again, this is in a strong minor framework, but it means that your third seat 1NT can be 9-15 because you're not likely to be missing game (as a shapely 8-count would already have opened in first seat). The looks of consternation when you announce (or alert, or whatever; depending on jurisdiction) your 1NT range are classic.

4♥ seems unilateral: what if partner has KQx/xxxx/xx/KQxx? Starting at 1♥ gives us a chance to stay out of the cold-off game, or partner to double them if they get too high. There's plenty of other passed hands that have similar effects; we need aces and heart honours as offensive values, and by bidding 4♥ you're gambling on those instead of some soft values and a misfit.

Spade switch can cost: Q/AKQxx/xxx/Jxxx. Diamond switch can't pick up the suit but can give declarer the guess. This could (though more slowly) set up a suit for discards, but I find it difficult to construct a layout. Heart switch can save declarer the guess. Club continuation seems unlikely to work (e.g. xxx/AKQxx/x/JTxx, when it gives away the contract). I think a diamond is both safest and closest to what partner has signalled for. I play the ♦2.

I play split-range 2NT (I think most people do?) and even with the sixth heart I'm not *quite* upgrading this to a strong hand. 1♥ for me, but I'm rebidding ♦ at any level.

For what it's worth, I've looked in our system notes and it was actually campboy who came up with this idea.