Jinksy

Hmm... I guess if there's a clear flow you go against it, otherwise just position yourself firmly on the wrong side of epistemology.

Given that you didn't bid NT yourself, he should be cautious - you wouldn't have preferred 3♦ unless you were either missing a club stop or had a very trump-oriented hand even with one. Depends on your bidding style. If you bid or rebid NT on all balanced hands, then P almost certainly has 5♦ (unless exactly 4144).

Partner's hand, as well as I can remember it: Ax Ax AKJTxxxx x So the challenge is to somehow get to 7♣ after partner 'sets diamonds'. We haven't got any relevant agreements about how to switch suits, but I thought a direct bid of 5♣ over 3♦ might show basically this hand - one that has all its offensive strength in clubs, and not enough in diamonds to be guaranteed an entry to clubs unless they're trumps.

Absolutely. Playing it the unusual way round, you get to call it 'Diet Kokish'.

This came up in a friendly event where no-one really cared, but I wondered if I'd be penalised for this in a real event: [hv=pc=n&e=sat643hk84dq3cq86&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=ppp1d1h1s2hp(tank)pdppp]133|200[/hv] MPs. 2♥x went for a hojillion points and a top for us. I thought my double (competitive, showing values, though I think P took it as penalty) was clear enough to do it even after P's hesitation, but I showed by hand to S while she was waiting to put down dummy, and she grimaced in disgust :P If it had been a real tournament, with an actual director call, what would the result be?

Our agreement is a suit that should play for no more than one loser opposite a void on the most likely trump split, and, near the boundaries, a hand that has no suspicion that another denomination would be better (though you might grudgingly stop in 3N). I would think of AKQxxxx as a borderline case.

After an auction such as (1♦) X P, what meaning would you ascribe to the following (henceforth uncontested) sequences a) as what you'd consider standard pickup partnership stuff, and b) would you choose to play in a regular partnership (if different)? 2N 3♣ 3♦ 3M 2♦ 2M 2♦ 2N 2♦ 3♣ 2♦ 3♦ 2♦ 3M In particular, which bids are forcing, which (if any) preemptive, and which constructive NF? Assume their 1♦ opening is just a standard naturalish bid.

[hv=pc=n&s=s32hj432d3cakqj97&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1dp2c(GF)p3d(Setting%20suit)p]133|200[/hv] IMPs. i) Do you agree with your 2/1 bid? ii) Having got here, what's your next bid? iii) If you bid 3♥, p will bid 3♠. (both bids showing a fragment in the respective suits). What would you do over that?

Don't like 4♥. If partner has xxx in clubs and you have to ruff with the long hand, you'll probably need a 3-3 trump split (assuming P is a min). Presumably 2S was forcing at least past 2N, so opener has already eschewed the chance to bid NTs once - bidding 3N is hardly going to promise a double stop, so P will still have time to pull if he happens to hold a small doubleton. 4♠ seems too optimistic opposite a known misfit. Even if opener has the magic AKJxxx in diamonds, and otherwise the same hand as he has, you still need a bit of luck to find the twelfth trick (and diamonds could still split 5-1). Meanwhile, if opener has eg - AKxx AJxxxx AKx, you're already in serious trouble at the five level. (also, how strong are your reverses? If they can be less than West had, East's bidding looks a lot worse)

Would you feel differently NV? Or the same at any vulnerability? And what range would you recommend instead (given that the upper limit will be a bad 7)? I've so far found it goes pretty well if you just assume responder is near max, since his a priori odds of having less than, say, 5 are so low - and lower still given that opener is looking at (say approx) an 18-point hand and a nine-card fit, and neither opp has been able to act.

Ta. Just a sanity check. Everyone in the room (inc me) reached 4♠, which was a poor contract that required (and in fact had) trumps 2-2 with K onside.

[hv=pc=n&e=saqt94hqj9d4cakj6&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=p1sp3sp]133|200[/hv] IMP pairs. 3S is preemptive, with 0 to a mediocre 7 HCP. [ETA] We also play mini-splinters, so P cannot have shortage and 5+ points.

What are all the 'other' voters on the first board leading?

I don't know, but I think you can safely assume North has fewer than 4 hearts.

If you've seen this before, please don't spoil it :P Hand 1: [hv=pc=n&w=sat43hk52d542ck73&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1dp1hp1sp3d(inv)p3nppp]133|200[/hv] Hand 2 [hv=pc=n&w=skq2h4dt9642ct642&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1dp1sp1n(15-17)p3nppp]133|200[/hv] IMP scoring. What do you lead to each and why?

Yeah, that's why I wondered if people would act differently as an unpassed hand. [ETA] I guess the argument here is that normally when you open on a 4 card suit it's for a weak hand seeking the lead, and planning to pass any non-forcing bid from P (or conceivably rebid 1N). On those hands the Moyesian should still play adequately, whereas on the hands where P is strongish, and consequently has 5+ hearts, raising his suit is more likely to get us to game.

On the hand, we would have ended in 2♥ regardless of my call, so he certainly wasn't resulting.

8xxxxx Kxx Axx x Unfavourable, playing Rubber bridge(!), basic system is 2/1 gameforcing. You're first in, and resisting the devil on your shoulder, pass it to P. He opens 1 heart, which comes back to you. Your call? I remember being surprised relatively recently that on a similar hand with five (somewhat better) spades, virtually all the stronger player advocated bidding 2♥ - even playing a Kaplan inversion that would let you show them all with one call. Here I raised hearts, and my partner (a vastly stronger player than me) said 'you've just got too many spades not to bid them'. (we weren't playing Kaplan inversion) Do you agree? The principle seems unchanged - after 1♥ 1♠ / 2x, 2♥ is now going to substantially undersell my hand - but is the risk of losing a 6-4 spade fit (or 6-3 if partner sees fit to raise on three cards) now a bigger factor?

Almost as good as a weak 2♦ ;)

Maybe not 'risky', but it rates to be a worse part score than 2♥ - partner must be odds-against to have 4+ diamonds, and sometimes even with 4, the hand will play better with the long suit as trumps.

Even if I have that agreement, I'm bidding 2♥. Bidding 2 then 3 spades is a 'come double me' auction, and my spade suit is nowhere near robust enough for that. I'm much more interested in playing undoubled than getting to the best partscore.

I rarely play MPs, but my instinct is to bid if they're NV, since taking them one off is unlikely to score well. Less sure what I'd do when they're vul. (But I'm a conservative SOB in the constructive auction, and wouldn't have opened that a 15-17 NT)

It looks more competitive to me. I wouldn't expect P to pass unless he had an unusually good DOR (defence-offence ratio :P).

To what end?

You've split Q3a and b, and skipped the actual Q2 :P Oceanss: On the actual Q2, I would bid 4♥. On everything else (possibly including this), I agree with Timo (MrAce).