Not so obvious by Bobby Wolff

A: 2♦: Does this hand meet the minimum requirement for a call of two diamonds? My instinct is that acting here, while technically very dangerous, is something that you will tend to get away with more often than not. If you are going to bid, do it confidently! Who is to say you don't have an ace or extra card more than you actually have? I might be more cautious when vulnerable at teams, though.

Your result so far:

A: 2♦: I would respond two diamonds rather than two clubs, planning to compete over two hearts by bidding my clubs. It is also quite likely that partner has a good hand with spades, in which case I will again be better placed to bid my suits in economical order if I start with diamonds rather than clubs. 2NT would be natural, not showing minors.

Your result so far:

A: 1♦: It is important to understand the logic of opening in third seat. While you can stretch to make a lead-directing call with a good suit and full values (say 13-14 points), you have no reason to assume that it is not your hand. So make the call you would have made in another seat -- here, one diamond. You might break this rule for an exceptionally good four-card major, but not here.

Your result so far:

A: 2NT: Normally the range of a one-no-trump response is 7-10, but this hand probably falls outside that range for more than one reason. The intermediates are spectacular, the spade cards are worth more than 3 points, and there is a builder in hearts for partner's long suit. I would stretch to a response of two no-trump.

Your result so far:

A: 2♣: I can see the argument for rebidding one no-trump rather than two clubs. The former call defines the range of your hand and avoids introducing an honorless suit; but in my opinion, 5-4-2-2 hands play better in a suit contract whenever you can find a fit. So I would bid two clubs, even though I sympathize with the other position.

Your result so far: