twoshy

Impossible, opener would have corrected to 4♠ with a singleton ♥.

Even if our very strong LHO was worried about 12 tricks being taken after a second round duck, why wasn't the ♠T returned? We then wouldn't be able to rule out ATx opp Qxxxx. Of course, it is quite tough to lead from ATx. Depending on how LHO perceives us, the defender could be angling for us to... - Take a safe finesse into RHO - Take a vacant spaces finesse into LHO (though I have no idea if this applies, re: dave_w's argument) - Play for the drop in diamonds - Finesse (or not) in clubs, our jack being located elsewhere - Finesse (or not) in hearts - presumably some others, too! This is way too much for me, so I'll just play for the drop, as I would have done after seeing the ♠T on either the second round (Txx/AQxxx potentially) or the third round (ATx/Qxxxx potentially). Enjoying the discussion, cool hand.

1♦: prefer 1♣, though it's mostly irrelevant. 1♥: prefer 2NT, not too worried about partner not being able to completely pattern out. I really like the fact that partner immediately knows he has a fit if he's 55 or 64 and we've got our range narrowed. However, chances of forgetting are such that 1♥ is definitely understandable. 1♠ and 2♦: not much to add, except just out of curiosity, how do you rebid over 2♦ with a 4252, no club stopper? For the next bids, I prefer 2NT (responder raising to 3) or, failing that, responder bidding 3♦ over 3♣. I'm assuming 1♦ - 1♥ - 1♠ - 3♦ would have been a slam try for diamonds, yeah? If so, the delayed 3♦ shows light slam interest or a choice of games. This is relevant inasmuch that opener is 4144 or 4054, and if he's 4144, he definitely wants to suggest NT. If his range is 11+, he can bid 3NT or 4NT. A range of 11-16ish for 3NT feels gross. Just cut the bottom off the range and throw them into the 2NT rebids, in my opinion. (Maybe opener's 3♥ or 3♠ over 3♦ have some nuances that I am missing but I would normally treat them as, respectively, a good 4144 with a big heart honour and 4054 cuebid for diamonds.) Edit: yeah I'm definitely missing something, since we should be able to get to spades somehow. Maybe 3♠ is natural with a 4054? This is tricky. Not going to go into bids above 3♠ since it seems like it was off the rails then and the earlier bids appear more relevant. However, 3♠ is interesting. I think it's fair to assume that partner won't think you have 4♠ given he insisted on XYZ. My pard and I haven't discussed it but I'm sure we'd both take it as "I'm raising clubs but don't get too excited" which allows 3NT to remain in the picture. Not sure whether that's better than 3♠ to show three. One slight advantage of your method is that it makes bidding the 52♦ game or slam easier when responder has a suitable 3523 (nothing in hearts, sharpies outside) opposite 4054. I'd have to choose between rebidding 3♦ or 3♠ (showing 4♣). (Edit: the bigger advantage of getting to spades on a cash-top-minors-and-cross-ruff high layout may be close to a wash, assuming I know how to bid over 3♣ - 3♦, which I can't say with confidence!)

Don't worry, there wasn't much effort. I don't normally play partner for something he can't hold ;) Anyway, this isn't the auction for mantras. We could hold Qxxx, AKJxxx or KQJx, Axxxx. We have something in between, so let's try using our judgement. 6♠.

Let's rule out the possibility of partner having equal length in the majors. That just seems silly when it is easy for partner to make an accurate raise on the first round. The normal hand types for spades-then-hearts with genuine heart support are a bad hand, a limit raise (or close enough), and a GF hand. We should ignore the hands with 5♠ and 3♥ since partner would prefer to play spades. That leaves 5♠ and 4♥ versus 4♠ and 3♥. Even for 5♠4♥, I still don't know why partner wants to play in hearts, isn't he happy to ruff a diamond while pitching a club on the long heart? Besides which, he could have cuebid to make our life much easier. I'll play partner for 4♠3♥, which is even more likely given that partner has a poor ♠ suit. I probably want to know Fluffy and partner's initial response with 4-3 and a GF, but I don't care that much since grand is going to have handling issues in the 44, especially if bad breaks are lurking. Oops, I missed the main part of the problem: play 6♥ or 6♠?

Partner should be better than Ax, AQx, AQJxx, Kxx, with which he would ask about our shortage since the ♣Q would not be sufficient for grand if we were 1525. Could partner have AKQJ, AQx, Axx, Kxx or something similar, where he can count exactly 12 tricks and just needs something extra from us for 13, so we should bid grand? Or could partner have AK, AQx, AQJxx, Kxx? I don't see why not. I pass. Edit: On second thought, hands of the same nature as that 4333 (no ruffs needed for 12) might bid 6NT since it could survive a bad trump break. I think that is even more reason to pass. This is a tangent, but I think it's important to have a general try for grand available. General extras are very easy for opener to assess and express. If responder can just bid 5NT with my 4333 example hand, you can pass in relative comfort on the actual auction. As another aside, can you show both shortages (hence 6-5 either way) if partner asks over 3♥? I'm assuming that partner could have found that out, keycarded (using 4♠ instead of 4♦, say, though 4NT is also fine) and partner would no longer be asking about kings (we're 6-5!) - he could just ask about the club queen and we would respect his decision. His decision to not follow that route could be because 2♥-2NT-3♥-3♠-4♣(=one shortage)-4♠ is RKCB for ♥ and is too high to ask for both ♣Q and ♦K, so I'm not sure if any negative inferences exist.

Na, Rainer's intended auction included the 2♥ rebid with 2♠ by responder. Just verify it based on who is asking for key cards ;)

I like your bid of 5♥. I would take ♠A, ♦A to throw ♠, ruff ♠, ♣A and ♣Q, throw ♥ on ♦K, ruff to hand, claim 12 or 13 if ♣ were 32, else try to cash ♥AKQ and exit a ♥ with ♣KT left for last two tricks.

A pair at the local club have played this base for a few years. I don't know if they picked it up from somewhere else, though. (New or highly modified systems crop up all the time in NZ.) Anyway, the only bit of their system I've paid much attention to is the 1♠ opening. They play 1♠ as 12-14 and 1NT as 15-17. The argument seems to be that it is more important to right-side the strong(er) NT on a partscore hand, since the balance of HCP is more heavily weighted towards opener. Granted, it is more likely for the partnership to want to play 1NT opposite a weak (or 11-13) NT, but wrong-siding 1NT will not be as bad when responder has 6+ HCP. There is also much less information available to the defense compared to 1NT-P. Minimum responding hands can introduce a bit of randomness by passing 1♠, too. If 1♠ is doubled to show a normal penalty double of 1NT, then there are more ways to find the correct spot; the weaker range is more likely to get smashed. One of the disadvantages with opening 1♠ is that the opponents have an extra way to intervene via the 1NT overcall. (Assigning meanings to pass-then-act is too dangerous when 1♠ is often swished.) Also, the opponents can act after passing with marginal hands should 1NT come back to them, although I'm sure this isn't a big disadvantage. It is neat to be able to bid 1♠ P 1NT P P 2m natural, though. The main point of all this is that opening 1♠ has more to gain when the hand is weaker.

Hard to believe this is an A/E problem when both East and South were on crack.

MrAce said most of it. To add, the fairly common agreement that partner advances with 2♦ on most hands with 32 in the majors is very useful for this sort of situation; there'd be no need to choose between missing spades or playing a 43 instead of a 62. (The downside may come when you shy from overcalling with 44 in the majors.) Even without this agreement, I'll start with 2♣ before passing 2♠. Missing spades seems likely to be more costly.

We have a below average 2NT opening and a slightly better than average heart holding. Why exactly are people redoubling?

Bermuda Bowl: 1. Netherlands 2. Israel 3. USA 1 3. Poland 5. Italy 5. USA 2 5. Iceland 5. China Venice Cup: 1. China 2. USA 2 3. USA 1 3. France 5. Germany 5. Netherlands 5. Poland 5. Sweden Senior Bowl: 1. Poland 2. USA 1 3. Indonesia 3. Netherlands 5. USA 2 5. Japan 5. Bulgaria 5. Italy

It's a good point about unblocking ♣, which should certainly be done if LHO's first ♥ is the 9 or T, guaranteeing nine tricks. It is also just as effective when ♥ are x-AT9x with LHO having the ♠A. So it looks like we're down to the only losing case being x-AT9x with RHO also having the ♠A.

To compare the three lines: Playing a spade loses when LHO has the heart ace. RHO wins, sets up diamonds, and we take only 2+0+2+4. It always wins when LHO has the spade ace, even when he ducks. This line also works when East has both aces. Assume that the ♠Q holds. The ♥K follows, which RHO cannot duck (we play to the ♥Q then play to the ♠K if LHO shows out). However, he cannot threaten us in any suit, so we will have time to take 2+2+1+4 (or 1+2+2+4 if they setup diamonds, even with LHO having the spade ace). Playing a heart from hand loses to x-AT9x or void-AT9xx or H-AHxx (assuming no guess) when LHO has the space ace: they setup diamonds and we take only 0+2+2+4. If RHO has both aces, he must duck. Now we should play the ♠K, which almost guarantees the contract. (If it loses, set up the heart unless they give you the ninth in ♦, if it wins play a heart to Q then a ♠ etc). The only danger is AT9x in LHO, with the heart return setting up the fifth defensive trick. We still make if he started with 1462, though. Crossing to dummy in ♣ to play to the ♥Q is the most complex scenario. We always make if LHO wins, since we get 2+2+1+4. If LHO ducks, we also make: ♠Q wins (if it loses, we get 2+1+2+4 with the ♠K as an entry to the fourth ♣ or we have time to set up the second ♥ for 2+2+1+4) then a ♥ to the K wins. The only problem is when RHO starts with AT9x or AHxx. If ♥Q, ♠Q, ♥K reveals x-AT9x, we're down when RHO has the ♠A, since he can setup the ♥ before playing a ♦ through later. If he doesn't have the ♠A, we always make: if he wins the second ♥ to return a ♥ (essential to remove dummy's entry) we play two ♣ then a ♠ to the K. Best defense is to duck the ♥. However, the hand plays itself: cash both ♣ and advance the ♠J. LHO must duck, else we have the entry to table. When he wins the third ♠, he is endplayed; we take 2+2+2+3. More interesting is a H-AHxx division. Now RHO does not have the option of setting up a ♥ trick, so he must duck the second ♥. We are at this position: [hv=pc=n&s=sj5h7dq53ckj&n=sk7hj85dca53]133|200[/hv] We now play a ♠ to the J. If RHO has the ♠A, he must duck; if he wins, playing a ♦ through cuts the defense off from the ♦A (nine, maybe ten tricks if cashed) when LHO plays a third spade to knock the entry out of dummy (so we make on a stepping stone if 4162 but overtaking if 3163), whereas playing a ♠ will reveal LHO's count as the third round of ♣ is led from hand (endplay if 2164 by overtaking, cash if 3163, overtake and endplay either opponent in diamonds if 4162). LHO must also duck. Now we play ♣, overtaking if LHO follows to the third ♣, otherwise we have to guess whether to play a ♠ if LHO has the ace or a ♦ if RHO has the ace. Sometimes we will go down, but this is rare. Cliffs: ♣ to dummy, ♥ to Q, followed by ♠Q, then ♥K if those all hold only loses to x-AT9x with RHO holding ♠A or singleton T/9-AT/9xx with a misguess on who holds the ♠A when LHO is 4162. This is the best line unless I've missed something. Interesting problem.

As you can see, I don't post at all, although I do spend some time reading these boards. To downvote without giving a reason is not my style, but a silent upvote for entertainment or educational value feels reasonable. Anyway, when trying to upvote a post, I misclicked which led to a downvote. Unfortunately, it seems that votes cannot be changed once they are cast. I think that we should be able to change our votes as can be done on Reddit, YouTube or the like. Reputation may well be more significant here than in either of those two sites so there may be some intricacy I am missing, but if this seems to be a reasonable suggestion I would be grateful if it could be implemented, thanks.