PhilKing

I'm not suggesting bidding by numbers, but North has six losers according to the original LTC pamphlet, since you have two more aces than queens. Leaving aside the LTC .... Good controls - check. Decent shape - check. Good honour structure - check (the spade holding has improved). Hand will play well (guesses will probably be easy) - check. ♠Axxx♥xxx♦KJx♣xxx is a decent game on the bidding and benefits from all four of the factors I listed.

How silly of me not to think of that hand.

I need an "other" option. You need a mixed raise after 1M-X. FWIW, North's evaluation was fine.

I have a monster, and should have bid 4♦ on the previous round. However, things may have turned out for the best, since I can catch up with 4♥ now. Slam is possible and game highly likely.

No double no trouble.

Maybe you asked the wrong people.

QFT

You could stop playing conventions with little merit since they have absurdly wide ranges. It seems to me you are focused too much on trying to bash bunnies - just a thought.

Just pretend you are playing 1$/2$ poker and raise the size of the pot. Nobody playing "Benji" will come up with the correct counter (if there is one) more than one time in two.

I think teacher was definitely right a few years ago. Nowadays, three card major leads are becoming more popular, so it's pretty close. The hand is still instructional, and to my way of thinking is more so because of that. Bridge is not a textbook game, even though knowledge is important, and set hands should reflect that a bit more often.

If it has not been alerted, you know that it's a mistake to ask, right?

First version looks pretty tidy and powerful to me.

People who play that system are usually weak. B-)

Just bid 5♦ immediately. Invariably, the ox on the left just trots out their suit at the five level, which is exactly what you want.

Only if we can lead from the wrong hand. ;) I quite like the bid though, but not as much as 6♣ - psychic exclusion RKCB to stop the lead. So I will join you in voting for "other".

The 3♥ rebid was just horrible. Even if my partner had persuaded me to play 3♣ as forcing (which would take some doing), I would still pass. We'll probably end up defending 3♠ which needs tight defence to beat.

I doubt many players would have the imagination to pass 4♠, but you are theoretically correct - partner could have ♠JTxxx ♥AKJ ♦QJx ♣xx. That's the kind of hand partner should have. Some go further and say partner is barred from having an ace and a king (so ♠JTxxx ♥AQJ ♦QJx ♣Jx). There is an argument that suggests you are just being too pessimistic, but partner has told you they have a terrible hand for slam, so you have to trust them. Even if partner had only 11 points, a jump to game is just not on holding AAK. After 2NT, the auction should go 3♠-4♣-4♦-5NT(GSF)-7♠.

Partner's possible shapes are: 5323 6323 6313 I think the first is most likely on the grounds that the the 63 hands would often bid 3♥ (or 3♠) over 3♣ to keep other strains in the game. So when partner does have six spades, his spades should be weak and his hearts strong. Anyway, 4♣ is indeed the bid under our nose, over which 4♠ should be, of all things, natural. If partner raises 4♣ to five, I will pot slam. Over 4♠ I pass.

Yep - a few top pairs and various other thinking players. B-)

You probably know my answer from last year's multi thread which featured a remarkably similar hand. 2♥ then 3♦ can be used to show this hand (an invitational red two-suiter). I just need one card in diamonds to make game good, but I can't really blast it. Assuming partner bids 2♠, you don't need 2NT as a relay. You can play it as a puppet to 3♣, so I think all hand types can be sorted. 3♣ is still available as p/c. All strategies that do not give partner a chance to value their hand are worth of the dreaded Nigel 5 out of 10 imo. :ph34r:

Double then 3♦ shows that hand for me.

Wow - that's a battering. I logged on to watch the last set and they were showing the 3/4 playoff. :(

You lost your bet. I've explained in 927 recent threads that I use these sequences to show flexible hands and not one suiters. With an ordinary 6223 I would reopen with, of all things, 2♠. IMO doubling in case partner is stacked is nuts. Anyway, I would not double on this hand, because it is not strong enough to pull 2♥ to 2♠ (I would if the red suits were reversed) - but it unambiguously promises 4 clubs. If you don't want me to tell you that, that's too bad.

Double >>> 3♣. I'm not saying I would double, but the point is you can double and remove 2♥ to 2♠ to show a 5♠ 4♣ and extras (and catering to the unlikely pass, and hands that insist on hearts). Reopening with 3♣ shows, of all things, a bunch of spades and clubs - probably 6-5.

I hestitate to mention Bayes', but if we hold 5 clubs and 6-9 points, the chances that opener holds 2 clubs goes way up from the modest headline figure. The first point is obvious: the presence 5 clubs in our hand reduces the odds that partner has club length. The second is more subtle: if partner has club length, there is a somewhat greater chance that RHO will have a hand that wishes to intervene. So when you decide to jack it up with a raise to 3♣ on such hands, don't be surprised if partner continually shows with a balanced hand with two clubs. My experience strongly suggests that you need 6 clubs for your weak raise when playing short club. One caveat - the chances of holding two clubs is greater in my style since balanced hands with 4 or 5 diamonds also open 1♣ when in range. Anyway, you have been warned.