PhilKing

You can play "sand wedge RKCB" after cue bidding past 4NT. Here you bid 4♠ cue (4NT for me since 4♠ is kickback)-5♣-5♠(sand wedge). It's called sand wedge, since it's a recovery shot. Partner responds as if to key card. Oh, and West 200% - 100 for missing small slam and another hundred for the grand.

I would not assume a stranger would have adopted my solution yet. :( The hand is a textbook example of how bidding 4NT on this hand is a fail - partner chooses diamonds, so we don't get to follow through.

For historical reasons I bid 5♦ - slam try of course. I believe there was an article on this in IPBM back in the mid 90s ... B-) 5♦ via 4NT is weaker. The trouble with 4NT then 5♦ as the slam try is that partner will pick diamonds with 45m, so you plan never gets executed on precisely the hands you need it to. 4NT should be pick a minor or a bad 5♦ bid - that way partner can never cross your intentions.

I prefer doubling first. For me I have enough to then bid 2♥. I prefer overcalling and then doubling with 3541 3532 3631 etc (denying 4 spades, in other words). For the heart overcallers, spade length is ambiguous after doubling back in.

One of the trouble with bidding 4♠ kickback is that you may miss slam. If over zero you ask for the queen, you may go down when he has it and make whe he does not. Once you drive the five level you may as well go to six rather than guess to stop on a pinhead (once one decides not to bother consulting partner).

Er, as I recall, you asked if OP had "pre-loaded the question" by lumbering us with the "trap pass" - your words. You stated it as a question, so naturally I assumed you wanted an answer. I said he hadn't, which is clearly an "assination" of some mystery sort. I had no idea of how small a minority when I did it, though. I can't guard against 620 versus 300 all the time. Might one tentatively suggest that is a loaded question? But partner does not have to reopen with a double with an unsuitable hand. If he reopen with 2♥, I will bid 4, for instance. By passing I get useful untainted information. 2NT is truly sick. Much of the time whe he doubles, we can't make game or can hold them to three tricks when we can.

Why would declarer draw trumps? And why would you exit with a heart? And why wouldn't declarer claim when you exit a heart?

I just did this manually for Beijing, for instance, weighting each pair's performance according to strength of opponent. Obviously that is not perfect, since various opposition may have been playing predominately weak/strong pairs, but it is much better than nothing, is quick and requires no programming. Now you are a selector, you should be able to access the relevant document. I guess for judging pairs in the Premier League, you need something more sophisticated though.

The edit feature is a wonderful thing.

Oh dear. You make me very sad for some reason.

I play West for ATxxxx xx KJ Qxx. Win the diamond and play a club. West cannot play the queen, since you just duck. Win the ace and exit a spade without cashing hearts. Hang on that doesn't quite work. He exits a low club, and when I cash the hearts he jettisons. But I can cash the hearts first and West is sort of one suit squeezed in clubs. He has to keep them both and now I exit a spade. Then if he tries to get off play with the queen I duck. If he plays low, I play ace other and make the last trick with a spade. Back to 9 tricks with only 9 on top.

Assuming partner is not an absolute drooler, he will encourage diamonds when he holds no high card outside diamonds and notices he has the spade nine. Is that enlightening enough?

Had.

What card does East contribute on the second diamond? And does West promise 6 spades?

There's a common hole in a lot of the defences suggested above - when we show 5-4 in the majors, partner can basically either sign-off in three or bid game - he can't invite. What is he supposed to do with eight or nine points and a modest fit? You end up with defences that are worse than playing nothing. In the "nothing" defence, you would tend to double on all decent hands (pass and double weak take out) with next double take-out. So you generally start (2NT)-x-(3m), and partner can make a responsive double or bid 3M invitational with a five-carder. Starting with double gives partner the otion of making a voluntary action over 3m, which exposes the principle weakness of artificial preempts. Direct actions with poorly defined ranges force partner to bid and thus remove our ability to invite. Playing the "nothing" defence also gains when partner passes our follow-up double of 3m when we had 54M and a decent hand. Now obviously the "nothing" defence is also terrible, but there are several solutions that solve the range and suit length issues trivially.

I don't know if partner has: ♠xxx ♥xxx ♦Tx ♣ Qxxxx Where I need to just give partner his ruff. Or: ♠xxx♥xxx♦QTxx♣QTx Where I need to switch to a low trump, with or without cashing a second diamond. I don't agree with the lead. I would have led the ace, but it's a bit of a reach for partner to discourage with QTxx. I'm not a fan of king for count. Against major suit games, I've been toying with leading the ace from AKX and the king from AKxx and giving attitute in both cases - it works a treat here.

I would pass over 1♠ for sure and I am willing to bet I am not in the minority. You can expose the psyche by bidding 3♦ on the actual - that shows a penalty pass of a spade, as does 3NT and as does 2♠. If partner is 4504 he now knows they have psyched and can bid 4♦.

Having opened 2♣ (bleh), I would pass over 4NT (encouraging). I like partner to be able to bid 3♠ light, so I can't underwrite slam. He can have AJTxx and out the way I play it. If partner rebids 5♠ I can go 6. Usually he will also be fairly short in diamonds, since I expect East to have a better fit, so I really need partner to have the ♠A and the ♣K, in which case he should now drive to slam. But in practice I will punt even over 5♠ and hope he has the heart jack. As it is, he doubles the run out and we grit our teeth and pass. Anyway, it's a random individual, so punting slam is reasonable.

Yep, I also play 2♠ as 0% forcing.

This is tough, but seeing as you only post once every 18 months, I'll give it a go. ♠A. This may be wrong, but at least I get to see the flop and I hope to have a winning option at trick 2. ♣A is also reasonable.

Frequency schmequency - it's utility that's important. The trouble with splinters is that the range is too wide - you could have enough for game with anything from 15-22 points. Basically, the Zia gadget picks up the slack for hands on which you would splinter with about an ace less. The good 46 hand sometimes qualifies (Ax AQxx x AKJxxx where partner drives slam on Kxxxx), and you can always splinter if it does not (I recommend bidding your actual shortage so that partner can evaluate his hand. :)) I played 4♣ as a good 46 for over 20 years, and whilst it never worked too badly, it did not score too many goals. Playing 4♣ as a rock-crusher HAS scored quite a few in a much shorther time frame - sometimes from getting to a great slam but also by staying out of Five. And I know that if I opened 2♣ on this hand, it would all go pear-shaped: 2♦-3♣-3♠-3NT and I would go down with 6♥ icy. I just can't bring myself to open 2♣ and rebid 2NT. All the potential continuations makes me shudder.

So partner signs off in 3♥ and you bid 3♠. Does he cooperate with xxxx Qxxxx Kx xx? With an apparent two-count, surely he signs off again, yet grand has a lot of play.

Yep, train with Qxxx or Jxxxx and a random king. Qxxxx plus something drives.

Zia introduced me to a useful gadget here - 4♣ over 1♥ says you have a cold slam opposite a minimum non-terrible response. It comes up quite a lot, and this hand is a perfect advert for it. If partner signs off, you pass, since it's a cry for mercy. Partner would drive slam with ♥Qxxx and ♣Qxx and nothing else, for instance.

I would normally pass, hoping for 300, 500, or 800. At the dreaded MPs I guess I should bid 3NT.