PhilKing

I have given this thread FIVE STARS!

If you think the 1♥ response on board 4 is bad (it is), you should see their slam bidding. Regarding the correct response with a weak 3343 or similar, the advantage of 1♥ is that you can pass a flexi Herrmann 1♠ advance - I'm surprised you did not know this.

Nice to see that you bought yourself in the auction!

Quiz answers: 1. 1♦= Strong Club 4CM. ♠A975 ♥K94 ♦3 ♣AKQJ4 Partner holds: ♠QJ4 ♥87632 ♦QT75 ♣8 If you bid bid 2♣(as did Nickell), partner rebids 2♥, which you pass for +140. If you bid 2♦ (as did Katz) partner jumps to 3♥, rightly or wrongly, which you raise to Four - two off. 2. 1♦= nat ♠K654 ♥AKT7 ♦63 ♣AKQ Partner holds: ♠JT2 ♥953 ♦Q92 ♣8632 Grue did not pick a good moment to raise to 4♥ - down four. Partner will obviously pass 3♥ and rebid 2♥ over 2♦ (which is the correct technical auction imo). 3. 1♦= nat ♠AKQ8 ♥AJ4 ♦J87 ♣A82 Partner holds: ♠743 ♥K862 ♦Q43 ♣973 Stark bid 2♦, and partner contented himself with a conservative 2♥, which went one down. 1NT is the winning choice, and with no impletion pard should let that go. Seven tricks are the limit as the cards lie. 4. 1♦= Precision ♠AQ974 ♥KQ98 ♦A3 ♣K2 Partner holds: ♠J ♥765 ♦KQ7654 ♣JT3 Palau sniffed out a winning sequence here - he bid 1♠, and over 1NT from partner, bid, 2♥. It continued 2NT-3♥-3NT, which made when diamonds broke. In principle, partner is unlikely to hold three hearts, but the opponents lack of bidding indicates the odds are somewhat higher. Also, the stronger we are, the more likely partner is to introduce a three-bagger. 5. 1♦= Precision ♠K42 ♥AKQ75 ♦A63 ♣Q5 Partner holds: ♠J86 ♥JT32 ♦J2 ♣9742 Fantoni bid 2♦ and passed 2♥. Drijver jumped to 3♥. Eight tricks were the limit, so cue and pass (or raise to 2♥) wins again. 6. 1♦= Precision ♠AQ3 ♥AK2 ♦A63 ♣KQ64 Partner holds: ♠7652 ♥QJ94 ♦9 ♣T532 Welland cued 2♦ and jumped to 3NT over 2♠ - presumably he took this as a positive move. Partner's 1♥ bid looks like an error - if he responds 1♠, we might use Justin's flexi sequence to reach a pretty spot (and Welland could still have use that route as it went) - 1♠-2♦-2♥-2NT-3♣-5♣! It fails on the lie, but that's life. 7. 1♦= Precision ♠QT2 ♥AKJ7 ♦K8 ♣AJT5 Partner holds: ♠A43 ♥9632 ♦JT976 ♣2 Most roads lead to 4♥ here. Martel chose the straightforward 3♥ raise. If you cue 2♦, partner would probably bid 3♦ - natural. 8. 1♦= Nat ♠AKJ ♥AK5 ♦83 ♣AK753 You cue 2♦ and pard bids 2♥, what now? Partner holds: ♠98 ♥QJT43 ♦J65 ♣T92 You have follow through with 3♣ now - partner will probably bid 3♦ and you can now give delayed heart support. Demirev simply raised 2♥ to 3♥, which we can see from other hands could easily be a 3-3 fit. Anyway, all roads lead to 4♥. 9. 1♦= Nat ♠AJ75 ♥KJ4 ♦J8 ♣AQJ2 Partner holds: ♠T64 ♥632 ♦T762 ♣K93 As has been pointed out, the hand is a bit weaker than it's point count. Alex Gipson bid 2♦ and reached 2♥ - two off on a sightly inaccurate defence. This would be a good hand for the Rainer Herrmann flexible 1♠ over 1♥.

Nobody in the history of bridge has got a good result by protecting with a weak NT here. Disclaimer - the above is not true, but it's pretty abnormal not to play 1NT as 18-19 in both sequences (assuming a strong NT).

I have a fairly large file consisting of hands where the final contract was two something doubled. When that resulted in disaster without anyone doing anything particularly ridiculous, two general themes dominated: 1. We had not explored our full offensive potential. 2. One player had a void. Both of those considerations are present here. Against 2m, partner should be able to pass my double fairly speculatively, since the cost of being wrong is low. Yes, double could be right, but I think such double are a massive long-term loser.

I have modified the quiz to include a follow-up on number eight.

I think you need to pose this as a separate opening lead problem.

OK, from my shiny new database, here is a quick quiz on this area. All auctions start 1♦-X-Pass-1♥-Pass. Vulnerability was never particularly relevant, but include variable answers if you want. 1. 1♦= Strong Club 4CM. ♠A975 ♥K94 ♦3 ♣AKQJ4 2. 1♦= nat ♠K654 ♥AKT7 ♦63 ♣AKQ 3. 1♦= nat ♠AKQ8 ♥AJ4 ♦J87 ♣A82 4. 1♦= Precision ♠AQ974 ♥KQ98 ♦A3 ♣K2 5. 1♦= Precision ♠K42 ♥AKQ75 ♦A63 ♣Q5 6. 1♦= Precision ♠AQ3 ♥AK2 ♦A63 ♣KQ64 7. 1♦= Precision ♠QT2 ♥AKJ7 ♦K8 ♣AJT5 8. 1♦= Nat ♠AKJ ♥AK5 ♦83 ♣AK753 You cue 2♦ and pard bids 2♥, what now? 9. 1♦= Nat ♠AJ75 ♥KJ4 ♦J8 ♣AQJ2 Some of you should remember one or two of these hands. Full hands will appear in due course!

Speak for yourself.

But how does that increase the chances of taking more tricks in 5♣? Magic?

All vulnerabilities (so I guess that means you have misunderstood ;)) Just to clarify, 5♥ immediately would be a full-blooded slam try, 5♥ via 4NT is more competitive. Pass then 5♥ shows approximately this, and Pass then 5♥ via 4NT shows a weak hand.

Pass. Double is OK on values, but the way I play double here, partner will pass way too often (he is only supposed to pull with good shape). I will remove a double to 5♥, which I play as stronger than going via 4NT, since if partner can act again, slam is not that unlikely.

I play transfers there, but they start from 2♦.

He's been called worse.

South's argument holds no water. North holding heart shortage does not increase the potential number of tricks - in fact it almost guarantees a telephone number. The only chance of not going for a mountain is to find North with a holding that helps us set up the suit.

I hate 33(43) so I would pass a balanced 19. Either partner has 4 spades and chose not to act, or lefty has a concealed 4-carder for his 1NT bid, in which case he probably is not fooling around. Either way we are going nowhere.

At pairs I would bid 1♣-1♥-3NT-6NT. At IMPs, Fluffy's auction looks about right, but it is possibly too technical. Exploration is overrated. Once we dismiss the likelihood of a grand slam, we just want to bid a small slam with minimal information leakage.

Can't we just agree that when declarer physically has the rest, he isn't confusing top tricks with a Spearmint gum wrapper, a ticket to a 1995 Take That concert and a Gary Lineker World Cup 1990 sticker?

Beatrix - I advise looking up what SAYC stands for before you make a bigger fool of yourself. I am pretty sure you have never actually played it, and if you are half the player you think you are, you never will.

Up one. It's just nonsense to believe he would deliberately lose trick eleven in order to save his winners for tricks 12 and 13. Unless he said "I am deliberately going to stab myself in the face", I would give him his three top tricks.

Declarer claime two off - he never said he was losing a spade. His claim never broke down, and correct me if I'm wrong but he has a 100% line to avoid 3 off.

Which bit of "he claimed two off" are we not getting here? If he needed to take a successful view to secure two off, then we would rule against him, but he doesn't - he has two top tricks (and three on the lie).

Welcme back - and try and avoid making medical history in the future ...

The way I see it is he claimed two tricks, and in taking those two tricks he will make three. I am not saying that there is a law prohibiting losing finesses or any other unsuccessful play being imposed after a claim, but the guy is just aiming to take his top tricks. "Doubt" is supposed to be resolved in the favour of the NOS, but there is none here.