Statto

1st call double, far too good for 1♠. 2nd call 3♠...

Pass. Two boss suits and partner yet to act. I might be able to come in with ♠ later, tho will need to be careful red...

Be that as it may, I think I'll still bid 3♥, then see what happens. If partner bids 3NT, I'll leave it in, it should have chances. What's the worst that can happen, white v red? B-)

I play Benji Acol with some partners which has a similar ladder structure. Discussion has suggested upping the higher echelons by about 1HCP, starting with the 2NT opener. A combined 23 HCP makes 2NT "safe", but only if they're distributed between the hands, affording some play. If they're all in one hand, you're often endplayed and have communication problems. A balanced 25 HCP opposite a yarborough will rarely be able to make 3NT. But we digress... :rolleyes:

The wisdom I've received is that opening 2NT on a 19 count is generally not recommended. 6 controls would be about average; it's more likely to be the fillers and spots that would make the hand stand up to scrutiny B-)

It's not just about looking for game. Leb will help you know what you're doing in competition. And this could well be a partscore battle. I know South has not raised to 3♥, but perhaps they felt no pressing need to just yet. And I know it's no excuse, and other methods may be better, but playing Leb in all these situations is easier on the hippocampus B-)

It wasn't very clear to me at the time, I hadn't worked thru all the permutations. What did seem to stand out was: I can afford to lose a ♦ as well as ♣K; dummy's trumps are precious and I probably can't afford to use one simply to set up the ♦. If that was pattern matching then I may let my subconscious play a few more hands in future :rolleyes: But if RHO will usually falsecard with 9x or 9xx, I suspect this isn't the best line...

+1, but don't use them as recklessly in 1st seat as 3rd B-)

If Phil keeps posting good starters... :rolleyes:

Got the t-shirt. Convinced partner that it should be Leb, as we still want to differentiate hand strength in this situation.

I'd like to vote for S2000Magic as best newcomer. Was something or somebody missed in the nomination phase?

I usually only play 2/1 in a strong ♣ context, which makes things a little easier, as the forcing 1NT is now 8-12 rather than 6-12, and opener is limited, so there's less temptation to shade a GF hand. We might hear on the grapevine that the 6-12 1NT range is a weakness of 2/1, but that should not deter us from using the system properly. With the OP hand, I've flattish shape, only 2 card ♠ support, and by no means certain of game. I'd bid 1NT to find out more...

1) 2♣. I'm not selling out to 1♠ and hopefully partner has some length there. 2) Double. If partner doesn't have a defensive trick in sight but has some ♣ length, hopefully they'll pull to 3♣.

Not sure a complete cross-ruff is the answer, with a round of trumps already played, unless you're relying on the ♠ finesse, but agree with rising with ♣A. Then I'd play a ♦ and duck it, no matter what...

So if partner had something like ♠AKxx-♥xx-♦KQxx-♣AKx, this is the only way they could bid, as they couldn't have made an inverted 2♦ response to start with. Ok, I'm kind of sold on the 5♥ cue, as it should also be fine when partner was actually interested in a ♠ slam... I was originally going to reply something along the lines of: I'd cue 5♥, if it's wrong, I won't lose the post mortem. But then started thinking more deeply. If it's right to go on here, it means it probably doesn't pay to think too deeply B-) Be interested to know what partner's hand actually was, once all's said and done... :)

It depends when you take the ♥. If declarer has ♠KQx-♥Jxx-♦Kxx-♣AK10x they've just given you an opportunity to defeat the contract by taking the ♥ immediately and playing ♠, where playing the 9 is better than playing the Ace to prevent an (extra) overtrick when declarer started with 4 ♠. (I know this is IMPs, but they still count.) But that looks like a mistake by declarer, so I now prefer playing partner to have ♦K...

Would a splinter have been available and chosen with such a hand? Or might they just have bid 5♦ over 3♥? Or perhaps afraid of playing there and missing a slam, only taking it 2-3 off. Could partner in fact be interested in a ♠ slam? If so, with a small doubleton ♥ they'd have bid 5♠, and with a singleton ♥ a keycard ask would be more likely. So if this is the case it again points to a ♥ void and wasted values, partner having something like ♠AKQJxx-♥-♦Kxx-♣KJxx or ♠AKQJxx-♥-♦KQx-♣J10xx. In the former we probably want to be in 6♠ (and can't make 5♦), but in the latter, the 5 level is the limit. Did our opening promise 4 or 3 ♦? Could partner have started with an inverted 2♦ with such a hand? It's probably a slam try in ♦ or ♠, and it's a toughie. I'm still passing, but much more tempted to cue ♥ now I know more about your methods, in case 5♠ is making when 5♦ is off, or this is all partner needs to know (my original instinct was in fact to cue ♥), but if partner is interested in ♦ this more or less commits us to slam. Pre-empts work B-)

That's where the jump shift thing (fit jump or solid self supporting suit) comes in. Partner can't have that hand if they'd have bid 2♠ with it in the first place. Edit: deleted final sentence, 6♦ would make with the ♥ marked.

The ♥A will prevent an immediate force if played in ♠. If played in ♦, we'd (presumably) be able to ruff an opening ♥ lead, keeping control with ♥A, so I wouldn't say it's not working B-)

Partner's bid seems to be looking for a ♣ control, and we don't have one. Partner didn't use 4NT, so is probably void in ♥ and if not must be missing both top ♣. In either case they don't have ♣A. At least one of ♠, ♦ or ♣ is likely to be breaking badly. All in all, this makes slam unlikely. Partner is probably 5035, 6034 or 5044. It's probably quite close which of 5♠ or 5♦ is better, but with a likelihood of more trumps in ♦, I'm with the passers.

If declarer started with 4 ♠, there doesn't seem to be much we can do unless partner has 2 tricks, which seems unlikely. Let's assume declarer started with 3 ♠. If they are looking at 6-7 tricks in the minors, the ♠ trick already won, perhaps a ♠ to come, plus another (the ♥), they may never need to play ♥ again, and we won't get to make our ♠. So I'd rise with ♥A and play ♠9, hoping to cash the ♠ when in with ♦A which we inevitably will be. If it turns out declarer had 4 ♠, we'll now have overcards in ♠, so declarer can't make any more than the 2 ♠ tricks they were originally entitled.

Are encrypted lead-directing doubles legal?

I like the 1st 2 quotes on MrAce's sig, perhaps drawn to them because of the size of the pic (previously nice pic of truck, but filled up the whole screen, now large for another reason, tho perhaps a bit un-PC [aside: I don't want an argument about PC, please don't go there]) ;) Scanning thru this thread alone for other nominees: Free, jillybean, SimonFa, Lurpoa. So that's 5 for you. There must be more, as I'm sure I've seen others with good one-liners... B-)

So, what was the lie, and how would our chosen lines have worked out in this instance? :unsure:

Thanks, appreciate the mention; I've managed to make 80 posts without saying anything completely daft, but I think the other candidates are stronger :) Most of my +1 votes seem to have come from So just sharing the lurve with a +1 for the above post ♥B-)♥