PhilKing

I would have done more as North, although it is very poor. We have at least two tricks for partner in clubs, and the heart queen is often worth something. Playing total points, Seven Spades is the best contract.

Both actions were horrid, but North underbid by about half a trick, whereas South underbid by about three.

That makes sense. 28.4%.

I agree you are a bit strong for 3♠. The recommended Rodwell defence in fourth seat is to double with a take-out double of either major, so you basically double with any decent hand unsuitable for other action. It's a little risky, but the theory is that South's next action tells partner which suit you were making a take-out double of. There are some elements of ambiguity if South removes to a number of hearts, so partner's double is for take-out as well (this is more important when you are doubling 2♥ and South removes to 2♠). If we are talking about what is standard, I think you made a take-out double. After all, what would you have done with a 1444 shape? But you had your bid either way and partner misread the subsequent bidding, which made it clear that was not the case.

We did an excercise along these lines in the junior squad back in 1989. There was a list of 20 doubles that we we identified the meaning, then marked out of ten according to how take-out we felt they were ("eg game try double, 8"). Pretty sure Gnasher and I agreed on most answers, but times change. I think this is about a three, if ten means "never left in".

I would like to ask West what he thought was happening, although it's pretty clear he didn't think anything at all. N/S tried a bit of smoke and mirrors, but it was plain to see what was going on if West had tried to reconstruct the missing hands.

Depends if you would bid 3♣ on ♠AQJxx ♥xx ♦KQ ♣AQJx. Partner can have: ♠Kx ♥Qxx ♦xxx ♣Kxxxx 4NT is available as a spade cue, and it's what I bid on the hand in the OP.

It plays a bit of zoom poker on Stars after it has finished analysing the Frank Stewart column.

Land of the free.

1NT.

I would start by playing it only when you have shown two guaranteed eight-card+ fits (no exceptions). You could add in the hands where the second suit is known not to be facing shortage at a later date.

I am pretty sure I knew what I meant by the phrase "strong balanced, unwilling to commit to 3NT." I just didn't have in mind an exact percentage of hands I would double with and pass the double with. But so what? At the table I would have had to choose, albeit without access to the best modern research (or a slapdash 30 minute excercise in this case). I ran the sim partly because it struck me as unusual that you would recommend bidding four-card suits up the line over the double, which had not occurred to me. I didn't write down any results, and because I don't use a "proper" simulation, the criteria are almost irrelevant. I just set a wide overcalling range (in the playbridge hand generator) so as not to miss any inferences (eg there was one 5-6 hand) and then came to my own conclusions as to whether each hand was a candidate 3♣ overcall. I didn't bother analysing more than 32 hands, because I don't like the sight of blood. The chances are I will just double and pass quicker having looked at a few hands. And I'm only bidding 3NT with a 5+ card suit (which could be a major).

Not sure. I'll generate some hands and see if any rule of thumb suggests itself. In my case 2♣ is GF and double of 3♣ would be 5+ no clear bid, positives ultra light in comp. ..... Didn't spend that long on it. On a small sample it was massively best to just double basically all strong balanced and float the double if balanced.

I play a simpler version than Kantar where we just aggregate the queens, so the responses are exactly the same as RKCB. If we have the queens of both suits, we count it as 1 ace. If we show 1 key card, the step asks for either trump Q.It can be as simple as that. It's not the technically correct method, but it works fine. After 3♠, I would certainly play 4m as 6 ace, but it's obviously not mandatory.

The chances of such an auction being of any use must be close to zero, because: 1. It's incredibly likely we have a slam on here in the first place. 2. If we do, it's because we have a perfect secondary fit. 3. If we double, we lose our chance to find the secondary fit, when partner, of all things, accepts our try by jumping to game. 4. When partner turns down our game try, he will never have what we need, so any further moves are futile. I have never seen an auction like this at the table, and I probably never will.

Nobody you need worry about - he died in 1769.

1. Strong balanced, unwilling to commit to 3NT. 2. I would bid, of all things, the suit I intended to when I opened.

When the nutty professor suggests "standard", he is probably right! I fully expected two different types of 6 ace RKC, one of which would involve the spade jack.

I have to agree with Ken here. The number of bizarre "solutions" for what is basically a non-problem is quite staggering. Personally I would never play 3m as 5422 any range, but if I did, I certainly wouldn't feel any urge to reinvent the wheel.

3♦ is a matter of style. I am forced to do this in one partnership, but I don't care for it for several reasons. I would raise to 4♦ as North, but you should get these notions of minorwood out of your head. This is not Minorwood! (You can choose to play any bid how you want, of course, but it's not according to Hoyle.) If you choose to play it, and I strongly recommend that you don't, it normally applies after finding a fit. Some of us who play lots of relays play 4m as RKC after finding out partners strength and shape, but that is somewhat different.

I don't think double by the 2♣ opener should be take-out.

Of course it's possible to play them as two way, but why on earth would you? You could play 4♣ as 7-way if you wanted. Natural isn't best here, but multiple options are, by their nature, more difficult to handle and can end up wasting room. The problem here is that the "standard" way of showing a slam try over 3♠ is 4♥, which leaves no room for cues, which is what you are yearning for. The solution is to invert the meanings of 4♣ and 4♥ so that 4♥ (the idle bid) shows five clubs and 4♣ becomes the slam try. Now you get room to cue bid back, but retain the integrity of the bids that show a long minor. You lose room on the club hand, but it's way less frequent than wanting to agree partner's suit. Show fit as low as possible, then explore.

When it goes Pass-1x-Pass-Pass it is implausible that you have a genuine two-suiter given the lack of action, and if so you can just bid your highest suit. Hands with 10-11 balanced have no such luxury and are way more common. No ones pointing a gun at your head though. But with Qx Axx xxx KJxxx I would certainly bid a happy 1NT if a spade came round to me at any vulnerability and I like partner to give me game with a decent 13, playing for the "Haggis sandwich". Yes, you could double, but that just does not work for me.

OK, I'll start. 2♣ strong 3♦ natural 6♦, all others don't know, but mostly absurd. Guessing 4NT was the old black.

Yes. Did you even get to page 2? He plays it as 10-12 bal.