Jinksy

I don't see any point in opening this hand 1♥ third in, esp favourable. I'm probably opening 2, and maybe 3, depending on how much the opps look willing to be pushed around. We can't imagine game opposite a passed hand unless he's max, good fitting and with a side shortage, in which case he'll surely look at it even after a preemptive opening, so why give the opps extra space?

Plying Acol, I would not consider 3♥ over 3♠. As MrAce said, you can try 2N with values in all the suits or invent a 2m bid on most hands with a gap, such as AQ, Axxxxx, KQJ, xx. With AKx, AKxxxx, x, Kxx, I wouldn't be sure what to bid - 3H seems tolerable (but prob doesn't play that much worse opposite responder's actual hand than the 9-card spade fit), but I think I'd prob still bid 2♣. If partner gets excited about my 'side suit' I can always put him back into spades later (and it feels like less of an underbid than 3♥).

5♠. Even if we're not playing WJSs, it seems like RHO is showing a fairly distributional 2-suiter. If we both have double fits, we can probably make 5♠ and they might be making 5♥.

I'll try A♦. I doubt the king will be in south's hand, and if P is something like 5-6 in the round suits, he might be 1-1 in the others, or 1507, 2506 etc. I don't want try the other suits first in case he's the latter and I blow an entry to my hand. Underleading an ace is presumably the killer lead for some reason, but too subtle for me.

One benefit of 1N I don't think anyone's mentioned is when they have the spades, which is more likely if we have a heart fit. Conceivably 1N and 2H will make our way, with 2S making their way but only biddable over hearts. Am I right in thinking that the 1♥ openers are mostly doing so because of the texture of the hand, rather than because they think it's too weak? I can't imagine not upgrading this hand if playing strength were the only question.

That was my first thought, but then I wondered why P shouldn't make that decision if in the pass-out seat and known to be very weak. I would have thought doubling suggested better shape or values?

Seems unusual to play X as diamonds there (I mean, I know all the LOLs do it, but I think stronger players use it most commonly as a values-showing X when the opps' NT is weak)

In any case, since when does asking for the trump Q show all the controls? Can't we ever have hands where we think it's necessary to make small slam a good proposition?

See? Aguahombre's easing you in with more of them ;)

Clubs seem to be behaving well for them, and I doubt the heart split will embarrass them, so I'll also guess they're making. I'm guessing we'll be more like -1100 or -1400, but I still like the odds.

Then this seems as good a time as any to ask how you continue after the wide-ranging NT? Do you have special responses to distinguish different strengths of invite? Or do you just bid game/sign off(inc pass) as frequently as possible?

It's one of the few things I'd call 'standard' to play 2N as natural here, though ranges differ. I think most strong players play 1N as about 11-16 (I don't know how they deal with this, it's just the impression I've formed from seeing a few cards), so on normal overcalling logic it would seem appropriate to play X-then-NT as about 17-18 or 17-19, then a direct 2N as the next step. (that is, that's what I'd assume undiscussed. Don't know if it's a sensible agreement)

If the standard is so low, couldn't P just have a penalty double based on good clubs? Maybe they're in an 8-card fit. If I have to choose between playing the opps for insanity and my p, I know which one wins me the post-mortem.

Wouldn't dream of anything beside a heart. If a lead out of turn means that's prohibited, I'll go for a diamond, which is almost as passive.

Yeah, I just meant that if the logic works for them in general (which I'm not particularly doubting), it seems odd to single out a particular case - at least without providing reasons why the bid in that case would be better used for something else.

4♦ is horrible. We have no interest in playing this hand in anything other than clubs.

On board 1, I feel like E had a clear 2♦ bid - I'm not sure exactly how strong a UCB that lets you out at the 2-level should be, but if a decent 8-count isn't enough, I think we'll be under- or overbidding opposite such hands frequently.

Are we going to find out the other hands and/or results?

All invites are trying to hit a narrow target.

I've been away from the table too long, and apparently have become a shuddering heap: 1) 3♥. Game only seems odds on if P has spade shortage, but he seems the most likely person at the table to have spade length. 2) 3♣ looking for 3N, then 5♦ when I don't find it. P rates to have a weak NT, so I'm more concerned about overbidding than underbidding (I do like mikeh's argument for splintering, but I'm writing down the views I formed before reading other replies - also if P does have a weak NT, I can easily imagine 9 tricks on a favourable lead being the limit) 3) Pass. I don't like it, but I feel like most of the time when 3♠ is making we'll be playing in 4, sometimes doubled. 4) Pass. Again, don't like it, but at this vul P could have all sorts of junk. It seems unlikely that we'll find a game significantly better than 50%, and quite likely we'll find one significantly worse. 5) Probably 3♠ to regain some self-respect, but honestly at the table I'd prob pass. Game feels more likely than on the others, but so does going for a number.

2♠. I don't expect P to have responded on total junk at this vul, and if he did, maybe he'll pass my force anyway.

Maybe Robson? :P

I would lead a ♥ and have opened a ♦.

Where's this data published? They don't seem to have a new book out.

At MPs, this seems like a wtp 2♥ to me. At IMPs it's trickier, but with this soft a hand I think I'd bid the same way, since it's probably less encouraging than 3♣ (and there's a decent chance they can cash 5 tricks against us in any contract).