PhilKing

Given that you agree that most partnerships are not on firm ground, how can you say that 3♥ is logically forcing? To me it seems clear that it is non-forcing by default. Partner has shown a good hand with hearts and we have raised it to three, showing, of all things, a raise to three. There's no point sitting there waiting to see if partner passes your so-called forcing bid when you have a completely obvious raise to game. I just don't see why 2♦ in response to the double should be forcing. Let's go back to basics - partner's cue bid starts life as about 19+ with three spades (say KQx Akxx Akxx xx). 2♦ simply says that we think it may be right to play in 2♦ when partner shows a good hand (Kxxx xx xxxx xxx for instance). If we want to force we can do so by either jumping or cue bidding (an alternative approach is suggested by Karlson), but 2♦ is non-forcing as far as I am concerned and is consistent with holding no points whatsoever.

Because (as bid) you have a raise to 4♥ - so far you have shown a zero count. You now know game is on, and there is no reason to believe 3♥ is forcing. Don't show a mouse when you have a moose.

This reminds me of the hand where McCallum/Shuman got water boarded for passing RKCB.

Yep - it could possibly be that buckle heads like giving reprimands.

Membership of the "we are at red so we must double them" sect has been in decline since the late seventies. You often have to bid game speculatively in competitive auctions, and for this to set up a force is just horrible.

I don't think this is how tricks are formed.

FWIW I do not believe WesleyC is being as naive as is perhaps being assumed, but I do not agree with the approach (the outcome has some interest, in that it hugely favours bidding, where I would assume the actions were close, even with a bludgeon sim). One has to weigh the stated limitations of the sim accordingly, and he sets them out clearly. Personally, I would always go for a human-filtered sim in cases like this.

I don't agree that we all know that. I don't recall ever making a UCB on a strong hand with no fit.

No. In my view, jumping to 4M denies 2 aces. Doing so with three would be rather strange.

I think with shapely hands, it is way more important to start showing our suits than it is to give a point count. Here, I think it is folly to upgrade the hand to 19+ in order to not describe our shape. Just bid your suits in their natural order and let nature take its course.

One high card (the club ace) is enough to set them with a ruff if their clubs are 4-3, and we are beating them on raw power when partner has two aces or a working king. The distribution on this hand is an outlier. My guess is that they will go off about 2/3 of the time. On partners's hand, if I had accidentally passed in first seat, I would double 1♦ and then bid 3♥, and I am not just resulting.

There's been a lot of wind passed on this problem considering that we never found out whether it is match points (easy pass) or imps (where partner would never do this).

It would not occur to me.

2♦ - the warning signs are there. It feels like partner's most likely shape is 4513, so 2♦ should be the best spot.

The variants in which West has three clubs give East three trumps and a singleton (not to mention the 6 card diamond suit in one case). I don't think either case is likely, and West holding 4 spades is way against the odds (and if he does I can still make it, albeit only by an unjustified DD line). I'm more worried about how top play it on a club lead (which may be a singleton), but I will rise with the jack and hopefully East will give count. I will overtake and play accordingly. There could still be a nasty ending in which the club blockage rears it's ugly head, but it is too early to tell.

It's matchpoints. Unless the diamonds come in for 4 tricks, we have only 9 tricks in 3NT. Given that (as you mentioned) West probably has 6 hearts (no raise) that is somewhat odds against. Give West a 2632 or similar and 4♠ is the matchpoint winner. Make him 3622 and we will make an overtrick. That being said, it's pretty normal to reach 3NT. But I rather suspect that there would have been no post mortem unless spades were 5-1.

4♠ looks a pretty decent spot as well, and will often outscore 3NT.

It's probably just as well that the biggest font allowed is a 7.

6403 would be just fine. And 5413 is also OK if they have a mountain (which they obviously should) - ♠AQTxx♥AKxx♦♣AJx is a sub-min where slam is decent.

It's difficult to come up with a good answer now, because we blundered in not bidding 3♠ over 3♥. But perhaps it has worked out for the best. By bidding 3NT, we strongly suggested, of all things, a double stopper in diamonds, and that will affect how partner views any continuation. Anyway, having got myself in this pickle, I bid ... Six Clubs! If 4♣ was not natural, I guess we are about to find out.

FWIW, I understood this.

The frightening thing is that anyone would believe that, having overcalled at red, we have extra values.

I play something almost identical to this - I like the invitational hand going through 2♦ and having two main ways to force (plus a few other specific ways). It's ostensibly not for those who like a simple system, but it can be done in such a way that shares common principles with many other sequences.

Anyway, it's pretty clear to cue and give up if partner can't bid 5♣. 4NT is absolutely crackers.

About seven out of ten.