PhilKing

Good suit - check Good shape - check Good spade holding - check Decent values - check Space consuming - check Oh wait ... Seriously, 2♣ is absolutely revolting, and I would not do it even at favourable.

Trick 1. If that was slow, then it's out of order outside the USA.

I can only count 8 tricks. :(

We know East knows the layout. If he has AQ9x South can't have 3 diamonds, that would give West a good six-card spade suit! (This is not completely true, since 3♣ should be a psyche, but if 2♦ showed a good raise I would just have bid game, since I actually have clubs). Your argument seems to be "I stopped playing bridge because I knew East would never play slowly with 6 diamonds" when every piece of objective evidence said the opposite. I do not doubt that you would have made without the hesitation, but I have a different threshold for Sewogs than Nigel. FWIW I 100% do not think it's OK to play a slow falsecard, so I would give a PP to East.

I hadn't got around to answering, but it had not occurred to me that diamonds were not 1-6.

See above.

I'm going for a slow pass.

Yep. The seven club calculations become a little complex, since you are going several down when the clubs are 4-2 without the jack dropping. The toy scenario suggests that 7♣ would be the right punt if it generally only goes one off when failing. It is only about a 50% contract, but since you have plenty of company when the "normal" slams are also one off, it would then show a huge profit at matchpoints.

Once North decides to bid a slam (and I agree South should manufacture a cue), you can play 5♥ as key card. The system rule is very simple - in auctions where you cannot bid RKCB at a normal level, five of the suit above our agreed suit is "Sand Wedge" RKCB. As an aside, I disagree that 4NT is a sign off when 3NT was not bid.

I tried running it as a a toy game scenario (please note: a toy game often uses silghtly arbitrary assumptions to reach a solution, so do not get too hung up on the assumptions unless they are way off), and 6♣ doesn't come out too well even if it is assumed to be a 75% contract! I treated 3NT and 4♠ as the same, even though 3NT is better - essentially I just treat them as winning when the slam bidders (surely the vast majority of the field) do not succeed. The point is we know 3NT is better than 4♠, but we want to focus on the advisability of bidding 6♣. My inititial scenario has the 6NT "all the marbles" punt as the clear matchpoint winner. This is a well-known Woolsian situation, but the results were still a bit of a shock. For the purposes of the toy game, the assumptions were as follows: 6♠ and 6NT were regarded as equal contracts (50% for the purposes of the exercise) and would make or go off at the same time. 6♣ was deemed to be a 75% contract, and would make every time the other slams made. All slams would go off one when they failed. Try not to get bogged down in the details of when this is not true. 3NT is deemed to always make, the number of tricks being irrelevant. Putting this together, it seems likely that most people will be in slam (say 75%). I ran the numbers for a 4 table duplicate where there are 4 unique contracts and got the following simple scores: All slams make: 6NT 6 6♠ 4 6♣ 2 3NT 0 Only 6♣ and 3NT make: 6NT 1 6♠ 1 6♣ 6 3NT 4 Only 3NT makes: 6NT 2 6♠ 2 6♣ 2 3NT 6 Since the first scenario occurs half the time in the model and the others a quarter, the scores for the first scenario are doubled leaving these scores: 6NT 15 6♠ 11 6♣ 12 3NT 10 So "going for all the marbles" is the clear winner. The results are somewhat skewed from reality in that there is no field in which a quarter will get to 6♣ but this particular toy game is just analysing this aspect. Using the above assumptions, even if 40% of the field were in game, 6NT would still be a tiny winner over 6♣.

Wolff's mantra is "too dangerous is not a reason to pass," which he stole from Mike Tindall.

Yet for some reason they call it Hamman's Law. ;)

If I had a pound for every hand where I bid like a convention obsessed bean-counter I would be a much richer man. The reality is that all bridge players are guilty of bidding in a robotic manner from time to time, but each individual instance is just that - it does not define us. :) I don't really get the criticisms of the overcall. It has good playing strength and controls, and if the issue is whether to try and outbid them in hearts, now is a good time to get the ball rolling. What can happen that is that bad? I'm not saying it can never go wrong - maybe partner will drive slam with some huge misfitting hand, but in the vast majority of cases it will work fine. If partner bids 3NT we can bid 4H and if partner has a fit, we have a great hand. The downside of passing is that we often give ourselves a blind guess on the next round. Say it goes 4♠PP, now we really want to back in with 5♥. But how can it be right to gamble at the five level but not bid at the three level? The Italians make overcalls on hands like this and worse as matter of routine (I have shown a couple in other threads), particularly at this vulnerability. As I have said before, just overcall and let nature take it's course. And yes, if partner raises to 4♥ and then doubles I am bidding 5♥ for sure - the auction screams that opener has a void heart. They are at red!

Possible auction: 2♣-2♦ 2♠-2NT 3♣-3NT 5NT-6♣ 5NT is "pick a slam" - there is no way I would settle for game with the West hand. With a bit of imagination both players can visualise that the hand may be more or less as it is, and if you take away the spade jack, playing in clubs is even more vital. Of course, if openers reds are switched we are in the wrong spot. The Kokishian solution is for opener to bid 4♦ over 3NT to show the heart shortage, but that has dangers of its own.

We don't need that much luck. Any 4-2 break is OK as long as the ruff with the ♣10 holds. So it feels like about 75% to me.

The evidence suggests that North is possibly a bridge player, but South is a convention-obsessed bean counter.

I play it as an OK scattered min with a 6-card solid major.

I would pass. There are a lot more off centre hands that should be allowed to double in that auction, and none in the original one. Vulnerability also matters - I have been persuaded that it is right to play this double as takeout at favourable vulnerability, since there is a higher chance that they will make, and our saves will be more worthwhile. At all other vuls, I play a double of 4♥ as more cooperative, but promising tolerance for spades unless very strong.

Defence can play one round of hearts early to break up the ending, but in practice a decent declarer will get out for down three most of the time.

Sometimes you need to know the strength of the opposition, but on this one I double regardless, and I wouldn't regard it as horrible playing imps.

http://www.bridgeguys.com/Conventions/GorenBiddingSystem.html I don't like quoting an indirect source, but these guys seem to have read the books concerned.

My guess is that if your only two choices were 4♥ and 6♥, blasting slam would be the better option. Without any fancy agreements, I quite like 5♥ if partnering a good player.

In the USA since the 1930's. It is part of Culbertson and Goren (which became Standard American). The European style of playing it as limit only made started to make inroads from the late fifties. Even BWS did not adopt the invitational treatment till at least the late 80's.

This hand is a good example of the advantage of not playing weak jump overcalls at red - by playing 3♦ as a hand that would open 1♦ and rebid Three, partner will give you more leeway when you overcall 2♦. The real truth is that, even before I had changed to the agreement above, I had become too scared a make a weak jump at red more than about twice a year. Anyway, I would overcall 2♦ regardless of system.

I have been thinking about this quite a lot and on question has really stuck in my mind. Why has it been raise in General Bridge Discussion? It should be in General BBO Discussion subsection imo. B-)