ahydra

If I wanted to force to game I would bid 4C (splinter), but I think the hand is not quite worth that. I'd bid 3S. ahydra

What system? If standard (SAYC/acol type), then 2C. If you deem your hand good enough to GF, as is most likely, then you plan to rebid 2S over a 2D rebid from opener. If 2/1 then 2C if you think the hand merits a GF, else 1S. In both cases you might choose 1S if the clubs are really bad compared to the spades, e.g. ♠KQJx ♥AQx ♦x ♣85432 ahydra

Use the hand diagram tool. If on a PC, it appears in the full post editor's toolbar as a spade symbol, and is very self-explanatory to use (except I keep getting mixed up between Rewind, which deletes everything, and Previous which deletes only the most recent bid). Once you click "insert diagram" a code will be inserted into your post, where you can then cut and paste it wherever you like in the post. ahydra

playing Acol 5cM 1S-2H (nat, 10+) 3C (nat, 15+, GF)-3D (4SF) 4C (5-5 at least, unsuitable for NT)-4NT (RKC in clubs) 5D (0 or 3) - 5S (asks for help in spades) 7C (you betcha) - 7NT (5S, 5C, 2H, 1D) I suppose from North's point of view, 7NT could conceivably require two 3-2 splits which probably makes it against the odds - imagine the same hand without the two black jacks. But life is too short. ahydra

I would expect the cuebid here to show 18-19 BAL(ish) with no stop or a big hand with a heart fit, perhaps unsuitable for a splinter. For example AKx Kxx AKJx xxx or A KQJx AKQxx xxx. Either way it is GF. 2NT is 18-19 BAL(ish) with a stop. If playing weak NT then 2NT becomes 15-17 (15-19 if partner made a 2/1). The cue however still shows the upper range and is GF. ahydra

Stephen's answer covers the constructive bidding situations*, but perhaps the most common situation is probably competitive bidding, where it normally shows two places to play rather than Blackwood. Some examples: (1S)-4NT: pre-empt both minors (1S)-X-(4S)-4NT, (4S)-4NT, (4S)-X-(p)-4NT, and the like: two places to play. Partner assumes you have minors, and if you in fact have hearts and a minor, you correct the wrong minor to the next suit up that you do actually have. 1S-(3H)-p/X-(4H); 4NT = strong, 3-suited takeout, very shapely so not suitable for X in case it is left in (as will often happen). For example KQJ10x - AKxx KJxx. Note that if responder had instead bid a suit or supported spades then 4NT would be RKC for that suit Of course, opening 4NT is normally defined as specific ace ask (or a pre-empt with both minors). Also of note is that a common agreement is to play a direct 4NT response as regular Blackwood rather than RKC. 1D-(1H)-4NT, for example. Responder probably has a weird shapely hand and just wants to get to the right level of slam in his suit. * I would also add 4SF default rebid situations like 1D-1H; 2C-2S*; 3D (no S stop, no 3H)-4NT = not RKC for diamonds, but natural and quantitative. ahydra

My style is pretty close to LOTT and perhaps considered conservative in the modern game: raise to 2 = 3 cards, something like 4-9 HCP. Can be 4 cards if the hand doesn't look great, e.g. 4333 or too weak for a mixed raise. raise to 3 = mixed raise: 4 cards, something like 7-9 HCP, rarely 4333. Can be 5 cards if 5332/5422 (or at unfavourable vul where 4MX rates to be too pricey). raise to 4 = 4 cards with lots of extra shape; or 5+ cards, normally with shortage. UCB = 3+ cards, 9+ HCP. New suit = F1 by UPH. Normally 5 cards but can be 4 at the one-level. Jump new suit = fit jump or splinter depending on agreements A lot of experts move the mixed raise into a jump-cue e.g. (1D)-1H-(1S)-3D, and the raise to 3 is now much more like what you describe, LOTT on fit but perhaps only 2-6 points. These kind of approaches - splitting out the mixed raises, and possibly other inventions such as transfer advances (so you can differentiate between a "bad" and a "good" raise to 2) - allow you to pre-empt effectively while still limiting the range of advancer's hand such that overcaller has some idea if game is possible or not. With opening bids getting ever lighter you do need both! On a side note, I'd suggest throwing away any teaching resources that use "total points". :) There is no substitute for visualisation. ahydra

These were my choices too. Admittedly I haven't looked at possible layouts of the hearts on the first one to see whether the J or the small is better. ahydra

If playing transfers, is XX also transfer? If so how do you tell partner the opponents have made a mistake and you can likely cash in? ahydra

West's double is understandable but perhaps dubious with no controls and a working 5-count. Still, on another day one of East's clubs is a diamond or heart. ahydra

You can sort of combine the options - start by ducking the heart, win the e.g. heart return, spade to the A, claim if 1-1, else ruff a club, SK, crossruff a bit and hope for Axx in clubs to drop. I was looking at this but couldn't get it to work - though that was on my phone with about 3 hrs sleep. Let's try harder: The end position would be ♦AJx opposite ♠x ♥ - ♦x ♣K. This requires a decent amount of effort as South has to become the long trump hand and is very short on non-ruffing entries. You start by ducking the heart, win the heart return (say), spade J to Ace and we assume West shows out. Now club ruff with S9, SK, heart ruff small, club ruff high, spade to 8, but North still has one trump too many, and South two clubs too many. :( ahydra

Yes, I just realised that too. Any way one can save themselves the headache of figuring out what is comparable is always welcome :) ahydra

I would agree there's nothing comparable over 1H, barring some weird agreement like 2H being natural. Over 1S, 2H is comparable based on the subset criterion (10+ with 5+H being a subset of 5+ with 4+H). Not sure that X is comparable, as it includes hands with e.g. a long diamond suit but not enough strength to bid 2D. ahydra

If it is my partner you are referring to, then I can say for sure this is not the case. She is just slow. There are a couple of players who employ gamesmanship tactics at the club and I avoid them like the plague. ahydra

Matchpoints. They're vul, you're not. [hv=pc=n&w=sha97543dak64cq72&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=1h(4%2B)1s2c3s(PRE)]133|200[/hv] You play Acol (weak NT 4cM). Any of 4C, 4D, 4H or X (takeout) could be plausible options at this point - which would you pick? edit: ignore subtitle, sorry. ahydra

Matchpoints. You are vul, they're not. Good standard opps. [hv=pc=n&n=sthaqj853d9cj9752&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=2s(5S%204%2Bm)]133|200[/hv] 2S = PRE, 5S and 4+ in an unspecified minor If you pass, then how about now? [hv=pc=n&n=sthaqj853d9cj9752&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=2s(5S%204%2Bm)p3s(barrage)pp]133|200[/hv] ahydra

Matchpoints. EW are vul. [hv=pc=n&w=saq75ha8763daq5c2&e=sj642hj52d964ca63&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=pp1c(4%2B)d1d1s2c4sppp]266|200[/hv] NS system: Acol (weak NT 4cM) Result was -1, even with the perfect layout in trumps (Kx onside). Who might have bid less aggressively? Thanks, ahydra

With one partner I have the agreement that such Xs are for penalty, with the one exception 1NT-2C-(2S); X which shows hearts. Penalty makes a lot of sense since your trumps are over theirs. In this particular case, since you had spades I would have just bid spades, as if there was no interference. ahydra

We had a ruling tonight that left a bad taste in our mouths for multiple reasons. To give some background, my partner is easily distracted, extremely slow at sorting cards, and was also sitting South where she was responsible for the scoring tablet. This combination of factors mean that her first call on each board can take perhaps 4-20 seconds while she sorts cards, scores the previous board on the tablet and personal scorecard, locates her pen (written bidding in use), and refocuses. Of note also is that her overall tempo is generally slower than most - perhaps by a second or two per call or play. This particular board, which was the second in the round, her LHO was dealer. She was doing all the above things while the other three players made a call. She then examined her hand and, within normal tempo, made a call. The opponents however subsequently claimed she hesitated because of the total delay between RHO's call and hers. From what I remember, the timing was roughly 5-7 seconds before she considered her call and another 4-5 seconds before she made the call. I told the TD that I did not agree there was a significant BIT, citing the above behaviour as something that happens on every hand. Nonetheless the TD ruled that there had been a BIT, and said that a BIT for whatever reason still counts as one. Certainly there are ways to mitigate this, such as partner instructing others not to bid until she is ready; letting me score; and perhaps learning a more efficient way to sort (but old habits die hard). That may be, but is it correct to rule that there was a significant (in the L16/73 sense) BIT here? In particular, I am worried about those who are less able-bodied being put at a disadvantage if the circumstances of a delay are not taken into account. Thanks, ahydra

I would pass. It might make a difference if the suit was spades (so can get out at the 2-level) and if it was matchpoints. ahydra

The wording of Law 41B would suggest that (only) the leader's partner and the presumed declarer can decide if they want a review of the auction / an explanation of a call, or if they are happy to commence the play period. This Law does not make sense if - and indeed there is nothing in the Laws suggesting that this is the case - opening leader can deny them this right. Only once both the aforementioned players are happy to begin the play period should the opening lead be faced. ahydra

FWIW I suggest you don't assume the relevant players involved have agreements as to whether 3H is forcing... ahydra

You'd look a bit silly when partner passes with a flat KKK or AKK and you miss a cold game. Edit: this was in response to the 15-count hand Carl suggested should be passed. Somehow about 10 posts appeared in between. ahydra

IMPs, nobody vul [hv=pc=n&s=s74hj983dt95ca864&n=skjt8haqt5dcqjt75&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1c(2%2b)1dp3d(10-12)ppp]266|200[/hv] NS system: weak NT, 5cM, 1C = 2+. 3D is explained as 10-12 points with diamond support. ATB for -110 when we should be +140 (3H=). ahydra

IMPs. NS are vul. At one table: [hv=pc=n&s=skq8432h6djt72ca8&w=sthq3d53ckqj76543&n=saj765ht42dk96c92&e=s9hakj9875daq84ct&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=3cp4hppp]399|300[/hv] At the other table: 3C-p-4H-4S; all pass 4S went one down while 4H made 5, so we lost 8 IMPs. Is South a wimp for passing rather than 4S, or should one of EW competed further? (Yes, both tables should have opened 4C, but the auction proceeds pretty much the same from then on.) ahydra