PhilKing

This sequence will almost never happen unless LHO has died mid-auction.

My gut instinct is that Jens Weidman would bid 3♠ on this hand, ignoring the mountain of evidence that partner is never 4135 and merely has a pile of seaweed. It would end with a severe write-down from AAA to junk status after a thin penalty double by RHO.

Plan the play on a heart lead. It backfires when partner bids 4♠ and goes for 1100 instead of 5♦ going for 200.

It's on my "to do" list to parse all the hands where one side played 1NT and the other played in three. I have all World Championship late round matches, Vanderbilt, Spingold, USBC, and Europeans since 2000 in searchable files, but I can only search for particular auctions, not for where the contract is different. Obviously no player in these events has ever downgraded a hand, and the differences will usually be down to range, but the results may still prove illuminating.

Did a separate sim (not dd sim, which I hate) for those and bad 11s opposite this hand fared poorly. Missing the 44 fit is not an issue after 1♣-1♦(hearts)-1♥-1nt(nf 4-4M) or 2♥4-5M weak.

In addition to the answers above, you could pass here (balanced) and pull a redouble to 2♥ to show strong bal with 5 hearts, not willing to play 2♦ redoubled. So 2♥ directly is unbalanced.

I've upgraded your rating accordingly ... :)

I find the quote to be very true. Most top UK players just don't downgrade, ever. I find their devotion to a method of hand evaluation devised several million years ago rather perplexing. Having said that, maybe Roger thinks the downgrade is so obvious he can't believe it is being discussed.

After a recent catastrophe, I now play standard Townsend here (I already played it, but had not informed partner). After 1♠-3♥: 3♠ 6+ spades including all very distributional hands. Could be (and indeed was) 6-6 for instance 4♣/♦ Cues agreeing hearts With 55 you just pass or raise hearts, of course. You can still get to the minor fit on freaks. If the 3♥ bidder now bids 3NT, there is no problem - 4m now shows a GOOD five-card suit, and at least 65. If partner bids beyond 3NT you could play that he shows fragments, but I would just play cues, personally. And don't bother playing anything conventional here - it just caters for the wrong hands at an unnecessary memory cost.

You don't always end up in no trumps. KQJ is often worse than AQx if we are in 4♥ when partner has two small, for instance. AQx can be opposite JTx(x) as well. I did a short sim (this hand opposite any 9-10, which is where the swings will occur) and 1NT was massacred. It came out slightly ahead with some racing luck when partner held a balanced 10 and we ended in no trumps, somewhat behind on 9 counts where we ended in no trumps, but was basically misere when we found a major suit fit. I'm pretty certain we would do better with AQx in this regard.

OK, if I'm playing this obscure "4♦ natural" treatment, I'll do that. But if it's wrong, I'm not to blame.

Partner is: a) Limited b) Has denied three spades c) Has shown a defined 1-suiter Some Luddites, who clearly just do not understand the modern game, have been known to treat this as a penalty double.

Stand on his chair and shout hallelujah.

If partner perpetrated the sequence you suggest to 3NT, I can bid 4♣ to show a club fit and then 4♠ non-forcing (typically Hx) over a red suit cue. The hand is too good for that though, I will bid 4♣ then 4NT to show a forcing ♠ feature.

If you are playing "Jeff's Elixir" as per the original guidelines, this is a 2♣ rebid. The spade/club two suiters that go through 3♣ are not 5(13)4. Rubens never recommended 3♣ on this pattern. On the actual hand, why on earth is that not a 2♠ raise, even if playing constructive raises?

They don't - they think it is a good treatment, and that the forcing no trump is a bad convention.

If you lead a two, it means you have led 3rd or 5th or maybe top of a singleton (of course a serious player will alert when he has led fifth highest, so you can use the rule of 10). And as a rule of thumb, partner should seriously consider winning the trick, or investing a card for the same purpose but with delayed gratification. As an aside, I do not believe you exist.Sorry!

I think the guy who opened 2♦ was North on this occasion and it seems like the mystery selector has a point ... :( And I agree about 2♣ - give me an extra red queen and it's now borderline, but I would still open 1♣.

For me 4♣ is not necessarily a slam try. I could have ♠Kx ♥Qxx ♦xxx ♣Qxxxx. If partner bids 4♠ or 5♣, fine and if he cues a red, I bid 4♠, non-forcing. Maybe he has: ♠AQJxx ♥Jx ♦AK ♣AJTx, or ♠AQJTx ♥xxx ♦A ♣AKJx which I gather from a recent thread many people still foolishly bid 3♣ on. Hands that want to cue spades have other options (4NT is a substitute spade cue), but for hands that want to give partner a choice of game, this is the clearest way to do it. And sometimes partner can now bid a slam no one else reaches when two black fillers was all he required: ♠AQJxx ♥x ♦Ax ♣AKxxx

I hate the 1NT opening, but not because of the concentrated values or wrong-siding reasons, which are unavoidable in the post-Crowhurst era, but because we are too weak. We have: 1. 4333 shape, which rarely pulls its weight. 2. KQJ tight in clubs, which is not worth 6 points. 3. No tens or nines, which can sway a tight decision. It's difficult to go wrong after 1♣, but that is by the by.

It could be right to play seven of a red on a 43 or 42 fit.

You can do better than "GTO". In the Europeans a few years ago, Gold/Townsend had the auction 1♣-X-XX-All Pass, which they took one off with the opponents cold for whatever they wanted. The opponents got it overturned on appeal, because they did not alert the first pass, which as far as I can see was natural and non-forcing!

I don't think partner should be inclined to remove with 15(34) or 1633 (same as gwnn).

When does the divorce from North come through? North's bid of 3♠ was brilliant, but all his other actions were insane, so it's hard to pick a winner. South's 4♥ was a bit delicate, but how can he tell whether North has a 1444 16 or a 0544 22? But I don't blame the method - I presume North is capable of butchering any auction on this evidence.

Yep, 4♦ same for me. But over a red cue, everyone apart from us can bid 4♠ with a control. :(