PhilKing

This ain't a 2♣ opening. I like to open 2♣ pretty light, but I have a yardstick - game is basically cold opposite a perfecto 3334 with one king AND I have a bunch of high cards. I would probably bid 1♥-1NT-3NT pass. For me 3NT show 19-21 bal with 6 hearts and responder will probably drop. Given that we have decent play for grand, the answer is that responder maybe should move - the two aces are huge. But I would need to do a sim to prove it.

It's actually standard in Acol for 3NT to promise 3343 or 3334 12+ to 15-, so pard has an easy removal. 3NT is a slight overbid in that we have a bad twelve, but I prefer it to 2♦ because every time we reach game, we have leaked less information, and there is no sensible partscore auction in Acol once we exclude a 2NT response.

I'm pretty sure this is incorrect - it's obligatory to just blast into exclusion and hope for the best! B-)

I think this line of reasoning is crazy. In fact you should have a meta agreement forbidding inferential use of meta-agreements. They are for analagous or defined undiscussed sequences - not for apparently logical inferences. My subjective impression is that Exclusion RKCB loses an average of about 5 imps per use worldwide. It's the most error prone gadget out there right now. And since most of us use Stayman with 4H and a longer minor, your inference about spades is flawed to start with.

Not unless you need 15 tricks for a grand slam. And yes, I transposed the heart honours, but the point about answering honestly holds.

I don't see how a meta rule can really apply. If you wanted a specific rule that the side kings count in situations where our trump fit can't be that big, then that's fine (although I think it is folly, since it is surely an accident in waiting). Besides, partner could have: ♠Axx ♥AJxx ♦AKQxxx ♣- On which he just wants a straight response.

Baby steps. The truth is we would probably both double with a 4441 with a stiff club, but let's get there one card at a time.

AQxxx is the only downside, since AQxx is not really possible.

I'll take the under - it's pretty much a nailed-on recipe for disaster.

My brain switches off at 90 degrees. :(

North would (or rather should) play the 9 from K9x, K then 9 is doubleton. Obviously, declarer fluffed his lines by not putting up the jack at trick one.

You know there is a 0.001% chance that the oppo have both passed, right?

Just treat it as "natural" but accept that double makes few promises about clubs (for example, with a 4432 12 count, you can double 1♦ with no guilt - lacking a major, partner can respond 1NT without a stop). Other sequences are unchanged, so opposite an overcall, 2♦ is a raise. Pass then diamonds is natural, of course, as are any single jumps in diamonds.

I quite like 2NT as natural or a 3♣ opening - that's the proper way of doing it.

Take care when pronouncing on game theory. Say I lead the ace 100% of the time, regardless of my trump holding. If declarer plays me for the trump queen I therefore win half the time - the same as your GTO strategy. The same applies if I never lead the ace. But the truth is you should not use game theory against someone you can out-think. Most GTO strategies are a stand-off, so there is little point trying to use them. Against someone from the "they must have the queen" school, just lead passively when you have the trump queen and bang down the ace when you don't. Yes, that means I lose 100% of the time if declarer reads my strategy, but we should strive to beat GTO - not to achieve parity. Besides, by trying to achieve GTO, we lose on hands where it was simply right lead an ace, and in truth, I am from the "your auction sucks, so I am banging down an ace" school.

I must be being a bit thick about two-way Stayman. I always assumed you used 2♣ when all you wanted to know was whether partner had a major (then pass, invite or bid game). Bidding 2♦ (over which opener gives very precise responses in most schemes) just because you have game values is clearly crackers unless you enjoy the challenge of playing against double dummy defence. 2♦ should only be adopted when you need to conduct a thorough exploration.

This reminds me of the Burgay challege match, but without the $100000 prize. :(

Hang West high!

Spades and a minor.

Yep, we lose in that scenario, but gain in other ones (not just when partner needs to know we have three low). Say partner has AQxxxx and declarer KJT - if low promises an honour, declarer can rise and block the suit (I've seen that one more than once).

I would go so far as to say this was not a matter of system failure, you basically made a bad lead. Leading low is clear even if partner is confused. However, a bright partner may notice that since you never raised diamonds, you are unlikely to have Hxx, but you would not lead the suit with a stiff. But yes - change the agreement while you are at it. "Where we have shown 5+ cards in a suit, lead low from xxx when we have not raised the suit, and top if we have raised".

Generally speaking, people who play Acol with weak NT can't afford to respond on trash, since partner will raise to 2NT with 17 (disaster) and raise to 3NT with 19 (catastrophe). Also, we have to be wary that lefty has a strong NT in his range more than is the case elsewhere, in which case coming in will be hugely minus ev. When he does not, we usually get a second chance by passing - he is unlikely to pass, since a minimum balanced hand with five spades tends to open 1NT these days unless the suit is decent, and since we are looking at the AK, the chances of that are much reduced.

I don't think cue bidding to show a standard take-out double is remotely sound, but that is not relevant the point I was making.

The most important suit for responses to 1♠ to focus on is hearts. 2♣ = 4+ ♥ GF or 6+ inv+ 2♦ = other GFs, denies 4H or 3S 2♥ = good raise It's doable. You can get some good concealment over 2♦ where opener can bid a "catch all" 2♥ and subsequently never reveal hs shape. This is a work in progress, but you heard it here first.

The problems come when they are in 4th seat. It goes 1NT(mini) pass 2♦(transfer). You can double immediately to show a good all-round hand, or you can pass and double to show a take-out double. You also have the option to make a direct overcall to show solid values and a delayed one if you just want to compete, and you even have a direct cheap Michael's cue available. Against a direct weak take out, you have way fewer options. This is slightly balanced by being fractionally worse off in second seat. I'm amazed the "must not play transfers over a mini" brigade did not make their case more forcefully. Perhaps, they thought quoting a few big names was sufficient.