melind0908

When I click the diagram it shows 4nt as being RKCB 0314. Your thoughts 'she was too weak for a quantitative raise' is inconsistant with the post. Did you think this was RKCB 0314 or quantitative? Still, I would like to say that the values in the East hand are primary. West does not need the ♠ J and adding the ♥ Q would make this slam vertually cold and make your hand 17hcp!. I also notice that 3nt making 6 gets 60% of the matchpoints. So if your interpretation of 4nt is that it is quantitative then passing is a LA (logical alternative). Disregard results. Evaluate your hand according to methods used. Is your hand 17 or a good 16? And if your interpretation of 4nt was that it represented RCKB 0314 then you must trust your partner and pass 5♥. You do not know the key card count and she does. I like the bidding in the post that suggests a texas transfer showing 6 hearts. Your hand does not go up in value, but, it does not go down either. Playing matchpoints you should opt for nt. If this were IMPs and vulnerable as you are 6♥would be a reasonable contract even with the bidding the way it is shown.

People learn differently. Some need the hands on approach, some need to read, and others will learn better from watching others. My personal learning style is to read from knowledgeable experts and watch their play (kibitzing on vugraph is a great resource for me). Still, when I play for the first time I do not always do what I know. Reviewing the hands afterwards helps to reinforce what perhaps should be obvious. This all reminds me of a learning program. Does anyone remember SQ3r? It is an acronym of sorts. It stands for – Scan, Question, Read, Recite, Review. Saying things out loud can be a strong learning tool.

A direct X as described here with several of my partners = We own the hand, so we either bid game or double whatever the opponents bid. So over 2D doubled I would bid the three card heart suit just to continue the auction. If partner has diamonds we may end up in 3nt. If the opponents stick their noses in again, a double by partner is for business. A double by me will be viewed as DSI (do something intelligent) which may be pass if partner has the diamonds.

And these last items. Declarer is not allowed to state a claim involving a finesse that is not proven nor can declarer state a line of play involving fewer tricks than those remaining. Should declarer, in a line of play discussion, state that diamonds would be finessed, that would be disallowed. And likewise should declarer state that the hearts would be finessed that would not be allowed all because the stated claim was for all of the remaining tricks. It seems clear here that declarer was counting on 6 diamond tricks from the top down.