VM1973

Well, you know, at one time I was playing with a very good partner (life master several times over) and I had an auction that went like this: ...................Me 1♥-DBL-Pass-1♠ 2♥-Pass-Pass-Pass Now it turns out that 2 hearts wasn't a great place for us. I didn't think it was my fault - after all, I had 5 spades and 6 points so I was, I thought, very minimum and I also felt that I had showed my hand with my first bid. However, my partner told me that I should have bid again because my first bid didn't show any points at all - zero. He said, and I remember this very clearly, "Anytime you have an ace more than you promised, you should take another call." Now maybe he was wrong or maybe it was a generalization that doesn't apply in all situations, but I will tell you that as a rule of thumb I have yet to see it go wrong.

I respect your opinion more than the others because you actually broke out a calculator instead of just making a knee-jerk rejection of the idea. In that, I salute you. Although others have attempted to correct your assumptions, I think your assumptions are fine. Let's run with them. We are assuming 34 empty spaces, 13 of which belong to my partner. Into those 13 spaces we must fit the remaining cards, so partner should hold: 1.15 spades. 3.82 hearts. 4.97 diamonds. 3.06 clubs. Total cards: 13 Of course the same logic applies to LHO so he will hold (we are assuming) the same shape. So now we can calculate RHO's shape. 5.71 spades 2.35 hearts 3.06 diamonds 1.88 clubs Total cards: 13 Assuming these numbers are accurate (which I don't claim, but I assume you are claiming) then: A. Partner probably doesn't have an obscene number of diamonds. B. If we get doubled, clubs will probably be a safe runout. Of course you might argue that just because partner has on average 5 diamonds doesn't preclude him from having 6 (or 4), but the same argument could apply to hearts. Just because he has on average 4 doesn't mean he might not have 5 or 3. Am I masterminding the hand a little by ruling out, perhaps unfairly, a contract of 5♣ or 6♣? Yes, maybe I am... but in matchpoints generally even with a minor suit fit you want to play NT.

Partner's proposed hand: 13 HCPs. My hand: 16 HCPs. Opener's hand: 13 HCPs. Total: 42 HCPs. Maximum in Deck: 40 Maybe we can reach 42 if we count 10s as 0.5 points? I believe this scenario requires LHO to hold a Yarborough. Apparently the odds of that are 1827 to 1. Considering this is matchpoints, I'll take that chance.

If we assume that West is rational and he is leading hearts from ♥9x or something that must mean he is broke and is looking to find his partner with something. In that case the ♣A and ♥K must be with RHO and we're probably screwed from the start. But as JLOGIC said (and I didn't consider) maybe there are pairs in 6♦.

I agree with the others that 3♠ is a fine call.

You have 16 HCPs (assuming you believe in that system). Opposite partner's hand you might have game. Where might that game be? A) 3NT B) 4♥ C) 5♣ A 1NT overcall caters for A) and B). Might it go horribly wrong? Might I go for a zipcode? Of course I might, but it's matchpoints. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the spade opener doesn't have 5+ diamonds. I'm going to place him in the 0-4 range (average 2). That means my partner probably has 5+ diamonds. I'm betting there's a stopper in there somewhere.

You just can't leave the party in peace, can you? The question is not whether I make slam opposite most 4♠ calls, the question is if I am safe at the 5 level opposite most 4♠ calls and the answer, I believe, is yes. That answer means, to me, that I owe it to myself and to my partner to make a forward going, exploratory bid. You will note that I didn't say, "I have an ace more than I promised, so I must bid 6." I will note, however, that if my partner had held: ♠Axxxx ♥xxxxx ♦- ♣xxx then I think that hand has reasonable play for 13 tricks opposite mine.

It seems like the "obvious" lead on this is a spade considering that's your weak suit. If that is led at other tables then most declarers will have little difficulty in scooping up 12 tricks. I'll put in the ♥Q at matchpoints. If it works, I'll have time to knock out the ♣A and get 12 tricks. If it doesn't work, I'll need to hope that other tables got a similar defense. At least I can hope that East can't continue to attack the heart suit because of the ♥10 in hand.

I wouldn't have opened the hand. I'll bid 4♠ now. I assume partner has more than just an opening hand to overcall. Something like: ♠AKQxx ♥xx ♦xx ♣AQxx Lose 2 diamonds and probably a club. Of course if partner has ♦A then you can probably pitch diamonds on the good hearts. My answer would be different if I expected my partner to overcall any preempt on a bare minimum opener.

Depends on what you mean by "light style." Would he open 4♠ on: ♠109xxxxxx ♥x ♦xx ♣xx for example?

I'll try 1NT.

First of all, the hand was annoying because the slam is cold. I even had an extra trump at the end. And no, I don't buy the "I'm sorry there's nothing you could have done. Don't worry, you'll have company..." line of thinking. Nor did ZPs solve my problem as I said ... even assuming partner has 25 ZPs you don't automatically come up with the magic number for a slam. I've decided, after some thought, that it was my fault. I held an Ace more than an opening hand. For those who doubt that or suppose that it's because I am calculating using ZPs I should point out that: ♠KQJ97 ♥A ♦8654 ♣AK5 = 17 HCPs + 9 length points = 26 (Rule of 20 to open... 6 points better). So, as I said, I have more than an ace more than an opening hand. I've decided the best treatment is likely to be what was mentioned elsewhere recently... the reverse cuebidding where instead of bidding the suits you control you bid the cheapest suit you DON'T control. So a 5♦ bid saying, "I'm thinking about slam, but I don't control diamonds," would be the foreward going action likeliest to lead to the slam as North has that suit covered... in spades (literally and figuratively).

I tend to agree with the definition of frivolous as meaning meritless, silly, nonsensical in context and further note that the Latin word it's drawn from means trifling or worthless.

Out of curiosity, since partner was 2-3-4-4 why didn't he open 1♦?

I meant the likelihood a priori of any given hand occurring. From http://www.durangobill.com/BrSuitStats.html we learn that the chance of holding the following pattern is: 4-4-3-2 - 21.55 percent 5-3-3-2 - 15.52 percent 4-3-3-3 - 10.54 percent So if you've been proceeding on the assumption that your partner is usually 3-3-3-4 when he opens or rebids 1NT then I will tell you that this is against the odds.

I guess I don't get it. So I'll just ruminate a little. You got a top. That should mean something. You figure you're cold for 11 tricks opposite partner's 7 count (♦A, ♣K). Since he's opened (theoretically 13 HCPs) surely there must be two more kings (or the equivalent) in there somewhere. Shouldn't that be worth 2 more tricks? You have 43 ZPs opposite partner's promised 26 ZPs that puts you at 69 ZPs so statistically you're cold for 13.4 tricks. Partner's most likely shapes are 4-4-3-2 or 5-3-3-2, both of which are more likely than a 4-3-3-3 shape. If partner has ♦A and ♣Kxxxxx that's probably enough for 7NT and he must surely have something more than that in the hand. Edit: The only way 7♥ beats 7NT is if you need to ruff diamonds in dummy. So you'd need partner to hold: ♠QJ10x ♥Jxx ♦AJ ♣Kxxx Except he can't hold that because he'd have bid 1♠ over 1♥ and even if he did there must still be play for 7NT considering clubs might go 3-3, you might have a squeeze, or you could fall back on finessing the ♦J. Anyway I don't get why 7♥ is safer than 7NT. Couldn't hearts go 5-0 or a club lead get ruffed?

First of all, I don't believe the West hand should open 2♣. He has 4 losers and 4 QTs and I believe when a person opens 2♣ they should either have a large balanced hand or more QTs than losers. I would simply open 1♠. Opposite that (playing 2/1) I'm sure East can make a 2♥ bid and you should be off and running (assuming, of course, that you don't get a 5♦ call by the opponents somewhere). Additionally, assuming that West does open 2♣ regardless and 2NT shows 5 hearts and 2 of the top 3 honors or something like that, surely this hand is worth more than that. Can't West call 3♥ over 2♣ to show something like this?

I'd say 90% South. You can criticize North for bidding the way he did because his honors lie under the heart opener, but still it's hard to look at 4-card support for your partner and not raise.

Is 2♣ game forcing over 1♦ in vanilla 2/1?

You're right. I'm sorry... I thought when the original poster said: "Appreciate your thoughts for both a pickup partnership and any relevant special treatments you may have with established partners." that he was inviting me to share any relevant special treatments I may have had with established partners. My bad.

I think you should have the agreement with partner that over 1♥-2NT (unusual, minors) that 3♣ and 3♦ are cuebids and you can work out exactly what they mean. I think I used to play 3♣ showed a limit raise or better in support of hearts. I think double should be for takeout. I think a double of 2NT should be penalty-oriented showing strength in one or both minors. Edit: I think we played 3♦ as a mixed raise.

I like it. I don't like the 1♦-1♥-3♦ bid as this hand is too strong for that but that doesn't mean I want to bid 1♦-1♥-4♦ either!

I'm assuming that in "vanilla 2/1" you are using strong jump shifts. Assuming South opens 1♦ (why wouldn't he) and North rebids 3♣ showing a real club suit and at least an AK above a minimum opener (19 HCPs / 36 ZPs) that it should be easy. 1♦-3♣ 4♣-4♦ 4NT-5♣ 0,3 with the ♣K and ♦K counting as key cards and it should be pretty easy. Using ZPs South will count his hand as worth 38, opposite partner's 36+ and will reach 74, which is supposedly worth 14.4 tricks, which is about right I think (5 clubs, 5 diamonds, 3 hearts, and the ♠A = 14) so plenty to spare.

I'll bid 4♥ and pull the double to 5♣. Partner's most likely shape is 3-2-3-5. I have to assume that partner's double shows extras and since I have a full opener, we should have a reasonable shot at 5♣. (28 ZP/7 losers LTC/13 half-losers MLTC). Since I'm forecasting 19 trumps on the deal that means I'm assuming 4♠*-2 (+300) vs. 5C+5 (+400).

Ok. [hv=pc=n&s=sat876h632dJ76ck9&w=s54hakjtdk543ct42&n=sj93h9865daq108c876&e=skq2hq74dt2caqj53&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=1n(12-14)p2cp2dp3nppp]399|300[/hv] Happier? A) Surely you cannot claim that South should hold off on the first club and even if he does, dummy is still on the board with the ♣10. B) South could easily visualize North holding ♥Q54 making his Smith Echo. Now for those who are being purposefully obtuse... the point should be that every convention has its good side... and its bad. I'm sure the convention works out wonderfully on some boards... but a clever declarer can also turn it against you. So playing the Smith Echo is not a panacea for all defensive woes nor is adopting it without its risk.