xxhong

My own sequence: 1S 2D 2S(extra, 6 spades) 3C(6 D, also denies S fit) 3D(D fit) 3N pass Standard: 1S 2D 3C 3N

It is a very nice treatment if used properly.

Looks like you need to return a low spade to remove dummy's SA as an entry to his diamonds. Declarer may hold something like xx AKJxx QJx AKx, or x AKJxx QJx AKxx, or xx AKJxx QJ AKxx, SK is bad, because partner can be squeezed in S and D later. declarer is unlikely to hold SQ, otherwise, it is quite cold already, especially after partner's pitch in S.

This is not a good 14, so 1D is quite normal. You need quite a lot from partner to make 3NT, like AKxx Jxxx x QJxx, so it really doesn't hurt to open 1D and rebid 2D here.

1D 1H 2D 3C(D fit and 4 hearts, bid 2S with 5 H) 3D(minimum) 3H(two way, either cuebidding H (later pull 3NT) or trying 3NT, usually worry about S) 3S(S value, worry about C) 3N

Responder's 3H is a mistake. Should bid 4D to show a hand with some values that often produces a game and no preference on majors. The double and 3S should show a really strong hand and semi-balanced or balanced in nature, at least 21 HCP usually. Any 21 HCP hands with 5-3-1-4 or 5-3-2-3 should be possible candidates.

LOL, a good one to show that 9xxxx isn't safe.

A simple EV calculation: the line of cashing HA: 5H making; 650, chance x (You drop HK) 5H down 2: -200, chance 1-x (You don't) 5H -1: -100, when HK finesse is on. (roughly 50%, can be slightly higher due to the bidding.) 5H -2: -200, when H K finesse is off. If we take the percentage that HK is on as 50%, 650 x - 200 (1-x) = -100 * 0.5 -200 * 0.5 x = 0.05088 If we take the percentage that east holds HK as high 75%. x = 0.08823 So it's safe to assume that if it makes 5H about 10 % of times, it should choose the line to drop in the risk of down 2. If we estimate the original chance to drop HK, it is about 26%. SO really, the computer makes a huge mistake here for not dropping stiff HK.

It is a 3NT bid to show 6-6. If you play 3NT as to play, then you may have a problem to show 6-6, in that case I might just bid 1S. 2NT then raise partner's 3 level bid should show a strong hand with 6-5. Also, I don't really like 4NT here. 4H should show a spade suit and quite serious. Hands like AKQxxxxx AJx xx -

Responder need a way to show a D raise with very mild slam interest. Opener need a way to show extra value and HQ. In my system: 1D 1H 2D 3C(D fit, 4H, gf) 3S(showing SA and extra value, 3D would show min, also, 3S denies H controls) 4D(even number of KC, denies CA) 4H(HQ) 4N(DQ) 5C(CA) 6N

Well, it's difficult to move for the second hand I think. The responder's hand really looks quite good. So the slam would be good if partner holds good hearts (AQxx or KQxx or AKQx) or good heart controls (HAK or HA, SA and a lot of tricks in C or D) and some tricks in D or C to pitch those hearts. In that sense, heart holdings from the opener are still the key to determine whether the spade(hearts) slam is a good one. So really, I still think that naturally showing 6 spades and 4 hearts can be good. The major failures of most sequences that failed to find 6S are that most hands just assume H is the best spot and you have to play in H, which is no good when opener holds only good H controls but no HQ. So in this sequence, responder really should show both 4H and 6S and make both options open. That's actually a typical problem of RKC, which has to set up one trump suit and stick with that.

One problem is that even when partner holds wastage in D, you still may like to bid 6S or 6H sometimes. For example: Ax AKQx Kxx Kxxx, Both 6H or 6S are cold, Ax AKxx KQx Kxxx, chance for 6S is excellent. So really, I don't think 4D is a necessary bid to find the right slam.

I did some testing in the gib bidding long time ago. I still remember in one case, gib sometimes bid 7 and sometimes just stop at 6. I think it will take a lot of hands to make the final result converge, perhaps hundreds for many situations and thousands for others. So Gib has no solid way to make the final result converge in many situations because the sample size was around 10 (could be less nowadays). So, I kind of agree that the intrinsic design is rather bad for gib bidding and a lot of fluctuations should be expected in situations that requires a large sample size. Of course, bbo usually says that this kind of random distribution would even out in a long run. One way to solve this problem is to do a large sample sized calculation when a simulation is needed and make a complete set of rules when the simulation is not needed. This is the way to minimize the simulations required. Also, the simulation can be run on a large parallel computer. Now as it appears, gib makes too many simulations and can often override the system rules with simulation results that might not converge at all.

Oh, I overlooked the relative position of the hand and the dummy. I though I was sitting behind the dummy. I usually take the bidding tray as the center.

For me, it's to make some money in money bridge rooms in leisure time.

Another possible hand is AKTxxxx Axx xxx -, here, cashing DA can be really bad.

I lead low D, D is a better suit and more likely to be useful. DK may also work sometime when partner holds 5 low diamonds. This 3NT can be based on a long club suit, in which case we have to attack really aggressively. For MP, it is slightly different, but I still think low D is a good bet because other leads are also quite dangerous.

Some would start from 2H for 5-6 shape. 1S 2H 2S(showing weakness) 3C(showing 5) 4C(fit) 4D(RKC) ... From 2C, 1S 2C 2D(showing weakness) 2H(natural) 2S(6+S) 3H(natural, 5-6) 4C(C fit) 4D(RKC) ...

Easy pass for me.

I may start from 2D for the first hand. For the second one, 7H looks good, although I may bid 5D over 4S with - KQxxxx AKQxx xx, so 6D perhaps also indicates a second round C control, like - KQxxxx AKxxxx x or - KQxxxx AKQxx Kx

I think J is asking to overtake. So it appears to me that with HKQ tight, I'd cash DA and play HQ next to ask for an overtake.

Well, speaking rudely only makes you sound even weaker. If you like a takeout double over 1D with those hands, bid as what you like. There was a typo in my original post, "bidding 2S" instead of "bidding 2H". It is people like you who make bridge becomes less and less popular.

A tough hand to bid as it appear. 1C 1S 2N 3D(4 or more H) 3H(4 hearts) 3S(6 spades, now set up S) 4C(cue, showing even number of KC for S) 4D(cue) 4H(cue) 4N(cue for SQ) 5H(cue for HK) 5S (enough, don't have HQ) 6S(CQJ are very important to pitch H under C) As it appears, responder should show his shape naturally and later use turbo cuebids to find a good S contract. After opener shows CK by 4C, responder should know that S is almost always better than H because he doesn't need to pitch partner's C losers under his S.

Kick back is a huge improvement over normal RKC for minor suit slams and minor suit grand slams. Of course, you need to know how to effectively use RKC first and need to define your strength well to apply this convention.

I think both jack and wbridge5 are much much stronger than gib. wbridge5 is even free for users to download.