PhilKing

1♣-1♦ 3♠-4♦(RKCB) 5♦(two + void)-5♥(queen?) 6♣(yes, and ♣K)-7♦

FWIW I think that 5 or 6♣ should show clubs over 4♦. Should 5♣ be forcing? There is a case for it, but it doesn't really fit in with my general agreements, so I would bid it on hand c) only - encouraging. On b) I would sign off in 4NT. On a) my choice is a bit of a shocker - 4♥ cue, which in a weird way rates to get the job done. Partner knows I am cueing a queen high suit, so I don't have the spade king but I am suitable. If he thinks it through, he can place me with something like the hand I hold.

If you splinter they won't double. ;)

What about your partners (excluding Sheehan)?

Yes. And his spades would be KT865 plus his diamond "x" can be an honour. Spade now. Oh, and I may have gone off at trick one depending on who was West. Not finessing makes us hugely exploitable.

You are in the beer contract.

I definitely splinter. If they get to, of all things, 5♦, I would like my partner to know that I have: 1. Good trump support. 2. Something resembling game values. 3. Short diamonds. If we splinter, partner can make an informed decision. We often have a choice between blasting and describing, but here we handicap ourselves by withholding information should they bid on. Why bother playing splinters if we are not going to use them here? I wouldn't be shocked if it turned out they were able to double 4♦ and reach game when had I just blasted I would have stolen the pot, but I don't think that's a particularly likely scenario. It's a "monster fit" scenario where we often need to prepare our side for the key 5-level decision. Maybe we need to bid five over five, maybe we need to double them and maybe we have a slam (true story - partner once held a void club in a similar auction). I don't know - perhaps partner will, but he won't if I don't tell him what I have.

What if we transform the hand by removing the heart jack.

Skid Marx (or is it Jack Simon?) is spinning in his grave.

But often it is right to cash the king first. In my experience, they then lead low with rare confidence forcing me to ruff with a trump winner ... :angry:

Recent auction at the Tollemache: 2♦(precision: short diamonds)-Dbl-4♥-Dbl Opener had a weak two in diamonds, of course, and did the honourable thing. He cheated and bid 5♦ on his weak two. Why was this honourable? Well, although it sullied his reputation, it prevented his partner from having to play in 4♥. Both contracts were booked for 1700.

But if they started with six diamonds, they will hop ♥A and come back a low diamond ...

I recently switched to a strong pass system. :ph34r:

I play this double as take out of clubs. Usually I would be stronger, but with perfect shape I am definitely in.

I was a host for nearly a decade at the only club in the UK where they played rubber bridge for decent stakes (as opposed to Chicago), so I can offer some guidance. The biggest single difference is non-vulnerable versus vulnerable sacrifices. -500 to save rubber looks like a great deal until you take into account that you are still 3 to 1 against for the rubber (and even longer odds if they have a part score as well). Game bidding should be very aggressive in general because partscores bonuses do not apply (the value of a part score is notional). Vulnerable against not you do not need to be as aggressive as you do at game all - game and partscore is an even stronger position, particularly against opponents who do not understand paragraph two. You can punt bad slams here if the match conditions dictate. There are other minor odds differences, but they are insignificant, and try not to bend it just because you have honours. Bidding strong hands with a partscore can be a nightmare, and I can't really help you that much in a few lines. But here is one "golden rule": raising to 3NT or 4M is NEVER a slam try - it simply means you have forgotten the score.

Yep. None of the above. The "drop dead" hands do not occur very often and it's no crime to pass. Hands in the 8-10 range are much more frequent and useful.

4♠ is the best spot opposite ♠KJxxx ♥xxx ♦xxx ♣xx, for instance. There are lots of variations, and it's not absurd to convert. But worrying about diamonds is bottom of the list of reasons.

When I played rubber bridge it was semi-standard, but it is inappropriate as an agreement for inexperienced players because of the anti intuitive treatment of new suits and contradictory treatment of one- and two-level responses.

It's a dangerous article in that is clearly written by someone who thinks they know a lot more than they do: Example 4. OK as long as you do not read the accompanying paragraph. Examples 5 and 6 are stated as fact but are a minority and contradictory (although not necessarily incorrect) treatment. Example 12. Correct, but please do not read the explanation. Examples 16 and 17 are frightening - a change of suit by opener apparently shows 12-14 - seriously? Yet a jump shows 19 (example 19). Pity the player who is dealt something in between. Examples 24-25. Correct as to the non-forcing thing, but I fear adrift in a leaky boat. Example 26. States as a fact something that a majority of experts would disagree with. Example 33. Oh dear.

I got to the same systemic position (opener showing 18-19 HCP specifically 4225 by the time we get to 4♠). We can all construct plausible auctions to slam, but what is the risk? I looked at a few hands (32) and my conclusion was that moving over 4 ♠ was a losing action. You get to some good slams, but occasionally reach a dubious six or go off in five. This was despite the face that I deemed a few of the 18 counts as being a downgrade (eg with lots of queens). I did not look at upgraded 17 counts, opposite which slam could well be decent and might well mean that moving is OK. I was initially in favour of bidding but am now convinced otherwise, though it's not a big deal one way or the other. I tend to bid with rose-tinted specs in this situation, but being more conservative is probably best. There was a similar board when we played Hinden in the last match of the premier league - ♠AQ7 ♥J865 ♦J4 ♣AJT5. Partner shows 18-19 bal 2452 and you decide to key card. You find you are off one plus the trump queen and stop in five which goes one off when trumps are 4-1 (flat board) partner having upgraded ♠K8 ♥A972 ♦AK872 ♣K7. In truth my system is at fault - one needs to get this hand defined much lower so one can ask or cue at a safer level.

I play it as penalties.

By my meta-rules I can jump to 4NT over 2♠ - quantitive, and that's what I will do. Similarly, doubling a 3-level preempt and then bidding 4NT is natural. There are other ways to agree partner's suit and ask for aces, but no other way to show a balanced powerhouse.

Now I get that 3♠ rarely gets doubled (likely only if West is dealt KTxx), but we are usually beating 3♥ by a trick on this hand, and it seems rather unlikely we are making game and odds against that we are making 3♠. Yes, we doubled with the intention of bidding spades - so what? We probably all agree the actual hand proves nothing. I would bid 2NT on partner's hand, which is clearly very pushy and my partners should be more inclined to bid on KTxxxx, since they know I am conservative with bad shape. But I think his hand is at best an outlier, and even then game is far from a lock, and more often than not, bidding will turn a plus into a minus.

At this point it's best to put your fingers in your ears and say "la,la,la." For on-line bridge, a post-it note stuck strategically on your screen also works.

Who leads a diamond from xxx, xxxx or Jxx on this auction? Good players tend to lead aggressively on this type of auction, I would say. I need to know who is West.