PhilKing

I may be being a bit thick, but isn't the ♣T an entry?

I think Vampyr means a jump to 3♥ over 1♠.

I may be being a bit thick, but isn't Q98xxx a stopper?

But you are not making a free double. If the next hand passes, partner needs to know if you can beat 3♦, otherwise he is screwed. How does he know whether we have a 4225 20 count or something else? I'm not saying the double shows long diamonds - just that we have 3♦ beat for sure and that we have a very good hand opposite which partner can pass if broke but compete with any reasonable hand, including in diamonds! Partner should be able to play me for a good 1444 or similar and not go far wrong.

I'm not entirely sure you two (BenL and SteveM) are actually in agreement, but I am sure that a double of 3♦ should be for penalties. Were I in possession of a very strong 4135 or similar, I would pass and then double 3♥ for take-out. Now on this particular hand, I expect 3♥ to go off, but I do not long for a method geared towards doubling them into game and beating them a trick.

.

Whereas partner will love bidding 4♣ on five small.

"But I had 20 ..." explained the Walrus as he entered -1100 above the line.

Well assuming 4♦ is kickback, I could bid 4NT as more cooperative slam try. Partner could have Kx x Qxx QTxxxxx. But it's a bit speculative, so I will have to just settle for five. Partner's spade and diamond holdings are just as likely to be the other way round, and I can't find out.

I feel no love for this hand. Pass looks good.

A short sim came out strongly in favour of 2♣ and show 24+ bal when compared to the other popular actions. I say that speaking as a 1♦ opener (although in my system partner almost never passes 1♦ for obscure reasons). Believe or don't believe (if not, do one yourself). I don't have the exact details, but 1♦ was catastrophic unless you routinely respond on balanced filth and treating it as 22-23 was OK for games but caused too many missed slams.

In the other room the stiff diamond will be on lead, so teamates will be down 50. And South should play the spade jack at trick one.

The hand is an open book. 1) West tried to sign off in three, and the lunatic in the East chair has driven to five. At best 3♥ shows a game try playing retransfers. 2) East signed off in five, so there are (at least) two aces missing. With partner marked with a stiff trump, they strongly rate to be outside trumps. 3) Since we have the KQ of clubs, we can infer that East has the ace, so even if partner lacks the diamond ace, he will get in with the ace of trumps. If partner has the stiff heart king, that is genuinely unlucky. 4) We strongly suspect GAME will go off. After all, we have four tricks if partner has the diamond ace. Not doubling means we rate to gain only two imps when teammates bid game. To punish them we have to double. 5) Partner is on lead. We need to wake him up to get him to find our shortage (yes, I know the supposedly blameless ox in the North seat led the wrong ace). Give West ♠xxx ♥Axxxxx ♦xxx ♣x and this could be the most important reason of all. The nightmare scenario is that we concede 5♥ on a club lead yet four is defeated in the other room with the singleton on lead.

What's wrong with it is that you can make about 14 or 15 tricks opposite a dead minimum with the right honour structure. Whether partner is max or min is not particularly relevant (although grand will clearly be laydown if partner accepts). It's just a hand for setting hearts asking for key cards (various methods are available). As Manudude pointed out, as long as partner has the heart ace, you can just bid grand - there is almost no way you do not have 13 tricks.

I played weak NT and over 1 with a forcing NT with Rosen in the early nineties (basically Kaplan/Sheinwold with frills). 1♦-2♣ was not GF and we would open 1♣ if a 1NT response to 1♦ was going to screw us. It was fine. Martel/Stansby still play it (though with NF NT). Anyway, the Italians don't open 1NT with five card majors, so their major suit openings including all ranges of balanced hands. They seem to do OK. Same applies for transfer responses. They work fine independently of NT range. I think transfers can clean up some of the issues involving the clunky raises to 2M that weak NT and 5CM tends to involve, since you can have two different ways of raising a transfer response to two. You can and should play completing the transfer as forcing in order to facilitate this.

Why the hate for South's double? It looks like a rather good effort to me and is based on sound logic and a healthy disrespect for the auction.

I would have rebid 2♠, expecting partner to have 3-5 in the majors a lot of the time. That's partly because I don't think one ever doubles and bids 2♥ on a one-suited hand (it's better imo to have no gap between a simple overcall and double followed by a jump when holding six hearts, so 2♥ here denies six). I'm expecting game to be decent opposite three spades and a useful non-min and that partner will pass with 2542 19 counts and similar. I think inviting with 3♥ is too much and misdirected.

Yes, I think 3♥ is forcing after a free 1♠. But ...

If I remember correctly, partner has mis-sorted their hand.

Lead the jack? I wasn't serious lol, but if East is likely to be short we pin stiff T or 9 and West may cover erroneously (in a vacuum it loses to stiff A,Q,T or 9 in West). And as for line B, we are only playing the 8 if the 5 appears. And that is only because, on simulation world, the suit could be 5-0. Context is everything.

Oh lol - missed they were passed hands. Pass quicker!

I've no idea what the problem is, but I guess the answer is "run the jack". If West covers with the queen, consider ducking, but at that stage I would probably ask what contract I was in, what my hand is, and what the bidding was.

This looks like a good hand for Finch "pro".

6♣ - Irish slam try. Part of my vig for punting slam is that I keep grand in the picture and another is that they may find a phantom save. Sometimes you just have to take a chance. We are conditioned not to do that in the slam zone, but why not? Here there is no room to explore, but I would suggest that there is a more than even chance that that it will turn out well one way or another, and if partner has: ♠Kx ♥- ♦KJxxxxxx ♣xxx We have hit a homer.

I like it, but I also quite like the trump cue thing.