PhilKing

I'd bid 4♥ in order to keep my partner's mits off dummy. :ph34r:

If you have ♦s and ♣s and a very good hand you can: 1. Double with lots of high cards. 2. Jump to 5♣ with 55+ with good playing strength. 3. Jump to 4NT if your are 64/74/75. But if I have: ♠- ♥KT2 ♦KQJ98 ♣A9876 Then I want to be able to bid 4♣ non-forcing. This hand was not chosen entirely at random - it is from the Year End Swiss teams. The auction was slightly different in that partner responded 1NT, but the point is that after a raise to 3♠, you have to be able to get stuck in without partner hanging you. A total of 31 pairs sold out to Three or Two (!) Spades whilst cold for 5♣.

3♣. I think this should be non-forcing, but partner can bid on with the right hand.

Slow 3♥. B-)

Well that's better than double closing the auction. :P

Most decent players in the UK play 2♦-X-Pass as showing diamonds, so that is completely insane. 3♣. It's time to walk the dog!

4♣ is not even forcing in my book.

I guess I spend too much time discussing these things with TT. This would be a minimum SJO.

It can stand for whatever you want, but if the North hand is not an acceptance as a passed hand, then there is not really much point playing them as anything other than "c".

Sometimes you have to ease off. It's a bit like when East Dillon battered West Dillon 37-7 in season 5 of Friday Night Lights (American football of course. For anyone who hasn't seen it, IMDB does it a massive injustice by rating it 8.7 out of 10). Apparently they should have gone soft late in the game. But personally I wouldn't, since the Panthers had it coming. :angry:

I play these, but it's just a question of range. My system definition, when bidding 3m vulnerable, is that I have a hand that would open 1m and rebid 3m, so this is a decent max. But what's the point of playing it as invitational if you don't want to bid 3NT with the North hand? But it just comes down to partnership agreement. Obviously North has a 3NT bid even if you play them a bit weaker. I think 2M should show quite a bit less, but 3m should be kept up to scratch. Since we are only really inviting 3NT, and contracting for a minor with a constructive hand already necessitates taking 9 tricks, not trying 3NT when you have a reasonable shot is just losing bridge.

It was a little bit Dan Harrington. :P The Well was very insightful though, and should be a required read for any young (or young at heart) player.

I decided to open up this post for old times sake. I might be being a bit thick, but I don't see how a club lead beats it. I just win and play two rounds of spades. If South wins this, I can cash winners and crossruff. If instead North ruffs and plays a second trump, I can establish spades. Since the only danger is that both black suits are 4-1, this seems an obvious line.

This way we get the worst of both worlds - when partner has ♠xx, he pulls and we go minus against nothing, and when he is short, he leaves it in and we concede 3♠x. :(

I think this is broadly correct. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/58737-minor-suit-slam/page__p__708653#entry708653

[hv=pc=n&s=sqj7ha943d932c865&w=st3h7652djt8caj97&n=sak985hk8daqckqt2&e=s642hqjtdk7654c43&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=pp2cp2hp2sp4cp4sp5dp5sp6sppp&p=hqh3h7hks8s4sjs3c5c7ckc3s9s2sqstc6cac2c4djdad4d2s5s6s7h2c8c9ctd7sad5d3h5skd6d9dtcqdkh4cjdqhth9d8h8hjha]399|300[/hv] This was the second slam swing from 1957. The contract was awful, but made on the spectacular line found by Chiaradia (use the next button to see what happened). Yes the defence erred, but the reinforces how much better the Italians were.

[hv=pc=n&s=skq52hqt93dj765c3&w=st6ha87dkq92caqj8&n=s7hkj62dt843c9642&e=saj9843h54dackt75&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=p1sp2cp2sp3dp4cp4hp6cppp]399|300[/hv] Belladonna's chose a heart, which would probably be considered standard these days. The singleton spade lead was ineffective. And the advice to lead singletons was attributed to Garozzo, but it does not really stack up considering that the spade bidder bid slam over 4♥.

Or lead directing. ;)

I expect partner to have a 16 count here approximately 1 time in every thousand.

These days slam bidding is pretty accurate - I did a study of a quite a few top events and the percentage of bid slams that make is certainly upwards of 70% and seems to be improving year by year. My guess is that the figure is over 80% over the last few years, but it somewhat depends who gets to the final if we are just looking at the Bowl. However, even if you go back to the early days, conducting a p&l for slam bidding is not that simple, since often it comes down to the lead or play. Take the first slam swing from the 1957 final. The auction at both tables started: 1♠-2♣ 2♠-3♦ 4♣-4♥ At this points, one player jumped to 6♣, the other checked on aces and then bid 6♣. North now had to find a lead from: ♠7 ♥KJ62 ♦T843 ♣9642 Just to clarify, the 1♠ bidder is on your left. Your go ... The point is Belladonna made a lead that beat slam, whereas his counterpart did not, so the Italians would still have gained if they had stayed low. Anyway, I will show the full deal in a day or two. On the second slam hand from 1957, partner opens 1♠ and you hold: ♠KJ95 ♥AT ♦AK ♣AKJ95 The "don't bid any slams" strategy was not infallible, even then. Both players drove to the cold grand. The third deal is an absolute cracker, and I will try and post it later.

What about 65 or 56? At what point would you crack and bid? Lets try a random one off the top of my head (lets make it weaker because we have 11 cards) - are you recommending pass on say: ♠AQT9x ♥Qxxxxx ♦- ♣xx

I think it is a pretty neutral decision whether to try for game or not, but my guess is that pass is a tiny winner in the long run. Just to clarify what I believe to be the standard acol style of raises, if partner has only 3 trumps they should have a ruffing value and should have a maximum of 8 points, and if they have 4 trumps they can't have more than a decent 8 count. The point is that a minimum strong no trump is expected to pass the raise, so raising to 2 is not particularly strong.

You could make a decent cast for a diamond or the heart king, but I think a trump lead is right.

You ask the question, but regard answers that say you are barking up the wrong tree as hostile. The fact is, almost every top pair in the world plays Stayman and transfers, regardless of range. But probably you will ignore this post and only accept ones that pander to your whims.

I am staggered by the number of votes for double. Yuck!