mfa1010

East should insist on his solid suit. It can be no surprise to him that his club losers sometimes have to be discarded on winners in the majors. 100% east. He should bid 4♦ over 3NT. Then 4♥-5♣ and east can respect partner's decision after that - he has shown a mountain.

Say some pair agrees and explains any of their 1-openings as "5+ cards". Inevitably they will have an impossible hand for this system and have to lie and open a 4-card suit. Would that be misinformation even on the first time it happened? That is an extreme and unlikely example. But it has similarities to the actual case. EW have devised a system that can't handle a normal opening hand with a 1-suiter, since: That is not a coherent system. There is no bid for a 12-15 onesuiter. Is it ok to agree to play it anyway, inevitably having to lie and then just explain "sorry opps, I had to lie, there was no bid for [this very ordinary hand] in our system, so I just had to show a suit I didn't have"? "Partner didn't know, since we haven't discussed this particular problem". I play precision myself and I'm therefore interested in this dilemma. Many pairs play a very destructive style against 1♣, where the focus is almost entirely on making it hard for us to bid. That is perfectly legal. But do the precisioners, we, have to tolerate the situation above? Where it almost seems like having an ill-defined system is a destructive weapon itself? Usually having an ill-defined system is bad for the pair using it, but this is much less clear when the focus is mainly on destruction. The main objections is that the bidding side is after all closest to know the exact content (and holes!!) of their own system. And it may be hard or impossible to prove that a "misbid" on a hand that just didn't fit was fielded, since partner just tended to stay a little flexible in the bidding and defense as always, that's all. Comments appreciated. (P.S. I actually love it when opponents launch their homebrew since they so often make desperate bids that go for a number. :P)

@ wank and blackshoe Yep. Unfortunately I can't get any closer as to what EW explained since this is second hand and it would not be fair to guess. I could easily have been imprecise already with my initial post (without knowing it).

NS's argument was a approx. like this: Even if there is an anything goes system policy against precision openings, there is no relaxation about disclosing requirements. NS felt that they should have been told that there was no other systemic option for a hand like the actual one other than to initially show a 2-suiter and then follow up. West said afterwards that he could also have chosen 1♦ (♦+ a higher) but felt that X would be more flexible even though clubs were worse than diamonds. I don't know if NS knew that EW were not a regular partnership. But they likely did overhear that EW were discussing their defense to 1♣ at the table before play.

South's thinking: After ♣A he "knew" that west must have the remaining ♣Qx. Cashing ♣K would make it easy for the defense. Playing small ♣ poses a problem to west, since rising Q risks crashing partner's K. Declarer knows that west doesn't know for sure that 1 club trick would be enough for a set.

Opposite you I would just pray for it to make. I would pass 4♠. Most hands with an 8-bagger would open 4♠. And there might be a problem outside trumps also.

[hv=pc=n&s=skqj973hadtcakj98&w=sahkqt943dkq2c752&n=s62h875dj9875ct43&e=st854hj62da643cq6&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=p1cdp1d4sppp]399|300[/hv] EW are underdogs in this match and not regular partners. Just before the 12-board match they agreed to play west's homebrew defense to precision which east knew but only have played a very few times. The defense includes DONT-like bids at the 1-level and 1♠ showing "13 cards". X of the precision opening was therefore explained as ♣+another. Declarer won ♥A, played ♠K to A, won ♥ return, drew ♠QJ where west pitched a heart and a club(!). Declarer then proceeded to cash ♣A and play a small ♣! Down one. Upon request west explains that he is in trouble about what to bid over 1♣. He can't show a onesuiter except for jumping to 2♥. But with a strong hand that is not ideal, so with his regular partner they have agreed to X and then bid hearts to show this hand type (strong 6-3). It's unclear how much of all this east knows. Adjusted score? I was not at the table so feel free to be harsh on either side.

This time I agree. :)

I disagree again. There are 8 3-1/1-3 breaks but only 6 2-2 breaks. this is not true That expression is starting to annoy me a little... :)

Sometimes when the first two or three posters have agreed to something this happens even when it is a close problem. Not that I accuse anyone of not stating their true opinion, but perhaps people who agreed were quick to post and peopled who disagreed didn't care to challenge the unanimity. I think it's far from clear to bid. ♠Qx is very dreadful in many ways. There are losers all over and there is a singleton to lead against 4♠. If we catch partner with 'stuff' in clubs there will typically not be enough total tricks to warrant a bid. It also matters if partner is a believer in OBARs. But it's easy to say all this when the full layout has been posted, of course. I'm at least an ace short of bidding Michaels on the first round. I really think it is an enormously losing strategy to bid Michaels with such a hand, but folks can have their styles in peace for themselves and I'll stick to my own.

Well, I disagree. If we run the Q to the K, then we should play to drop the J next time. We are analyzing a 9-card fit. K to Jxx is one specific division, and so is KJ to xx. The specific 2-2 is more likely than the specific 1-3.

6♦. What gnasher and ken said.

I think your double was a little too aggressive. You have made a fine 2♥ on a 10-count, but there are not really any extras. Give me ♠A instead of ♠Q, and then I think it's fine. This doesn't change that partner is responsible for the bad result when he didin't pull the double. He should be expecting 3-card support for spades, so with a 9 card fit it is not a big issue that his spades are mediocre.

Best heart play is ace and another. Running the Q wins in symmetrical cases except that it has an extra losing case when K is stiff behind the ace. An alternative line in trumps is low to the T and then run the Q. This is marginally worse in theory, but in practice LHO sometimes rises K from Kx. If we claim that it is just a mistake to rise K from Kx, then we should remember this when we have to play the suit for no losers. Say same hand with ♣Kxx in the closed hand. It is twice as likely that LHO has ♥Kx than RHO has ♥K, so maybe the best line is to go for a swindle and play small heart T2 to the Q instead of banging down the ace or running the Q.

5♣ first time. What was his thinking? That the hand was too good for an immediate 5♣ and therefore it was better to bid 2♣ then 4♣ after some nonscary bidding by the opps? Or?

5440 can be ok for a double, but on this hand I prefer 1♠. Then maybe (1♣)-1♠-(p)-2NT (p) - 4♣ and I don't know where it will end. Perhaps in the poorish slam, not sure.

Hmm, seems my plan is to find east with the ♥J, since that would end all my worries.

Really? Seems tough to sacrifice a lovely 4♠ heaven to facilitate slam bidding just a tiny little bit. Maybe it would then be time for the famous 6♦ leap?

Ruff, ♣ to T, ruff heart, ♠AK and then clubs. If west has three spades and enough hearts we can make it. He has to discard on the clubs but we will ruff the 5th and ruff a heart back for our 10th trick hopefully. West could be 3523 or 3424 for example.

4♥. I don't like a style with huge pressure on partner to find a raise. Give him ♦K and we are already about there. I would have thought that the idea behind 3♥ was to get the diamond suit in, not to bid 3NT. Maybe that just underlines that I don't really understand 3♥. If partner bids 4♠ natural over 4♥ I would be delighted, since it's not like my heart suit plays well opposite nothing from partner, so he will surely be right about getting out of hearts then.

I think mikeh sums it up very nicely. 1♠-2♠-3♠ is not a frightening sequence and partner can sensibly play us for something, which is what we have but not more. There will typically be a hole in the club suit and having only a singleton is a liability since we risk 4-1 offside and getting whacked in 5♣. We could raise if partner's aggression factor is <= 3 or something like that.

There is also 3♠ fitbid as an option.

I'm a big believer in NF bids in competition here. I think it is bread and butter. The opponents bid and raise to 2♥ and we want to compete with 2♠ over that. It is a little silly if we can't rest in 2♠ then. I'm used to playing transfer advances after they raise. The biggest downside is not the extra space for the opponents but the loss of the takeout double. This loss is so great that it is far from clear if transfer responses are worth it. Many strong hands that ideally want to bid a forcing 2♠, but can't do that because it would be NF, can bid like this instead: 1) Bid 2♠ anyway. Even though it is NF, partner can bid if he has something. So minimal goodish hands can often live with 2♠ being NF. 2) X and then bid spades (3♠ or 4♠). This handles mtvesuvius' hand. Show spades but still some flexibility. 3) Cuebid and then bid spades. This stresses the club fit and thus shows more clubs and less spades than (2). This route could be considered with OP's hand type.

1♠. Nothing to be ashamed of there.

I would pass.