PhilKing

Standard raise to 3♥. What are you waiting for? 10 HCP?

Slow = strong simply does not work, since if partner chooses 5♦ over 4NT, your correction to 5♥ is consistent with hearts and clubs weak. Playing my way, a corrrection to 5♥ is ambiguous (hearts weak or clubs and hearts), but that cannot cost. In another 15 years I expect to achieve a consensus.

Raising to Four Spades is hard to fault, but if pard has KQxxx and the club ace, I prefer to be in Five Diamonds. I don't think I would bid Four Hearts on your example hands.

Auction 1: Step one = RKCB with zoom (step 1 = void, step 2+ RKCB responses) Step two = artificial try, invites cues step 3/4 = own shortage Auction 2: It's important NOT to show anything whatsoever if you are minimum, since it will merely help the opponents. The solution as discussed in a recent thread is to play a variation on serious/non-serious, so 2NT shows any non-terrible minimum and 3♣+ show extras and pattern.

4♥ PAG. Partner's 3♠ shows, of all things, spades and a reasonable hand, so it's time to wheel out the dreaded pick a game cue bid. 4♥ by partner would have shown a slam try and a control - it's not pick a game, since he by-passed 3♠.

I think you may not have got my meaning - over my second double, anything other than 2♠ shows a game force.

There is no difference whatsoever in the strength promised by 4♠ and pass here. Why? Because some of our weak hands are willing to stand for 4♥ doubled. Imagine ♠AQxxx♥xxx♦QTxx♣x and we can see the fatuous nature of playing pass as extras. On the other hand, I do agree that 4♠ shows a minimum hand, albeit one with no desire to defend. The only thing that would set up an FP is a double of 4♥ from either side.

I like double. Partner bids 2♠ with any 0-4(bad 5). Anything else is game forcing. And he can pass or bid 2♠ with the dreaded 3433 depending on his texture. I'm passing 2♠, of course.

Convert the lin files to pbn files by opening them in bridgecomposer. This is a cheap program available from http://bridgecomposer.com/ It displays the hands in an attractive and easy to read format (but with DD analysis available if needed), and is better for non-techies like me who have not managed to get Richard Pavlicek's converter to work. And you can write any comments on the bidding underneath each auction.

For those of us who play 3♠ as non-serious over 3♥, the spade control issue is a total non-problem. Over 3♠, 3NT shows a spade control and anything else denies one. Obviously it is better for 3♠ to show a control on the hands where we happen to have one, but on all the other combinations we have saved a step, so in the long run it evens out. On the example hand, opener should bid 4♥ over 4♣. He has shown a suitable minimum with 3♠. I think it is nuts to combine non-serious and last train on the same hand. 4♦ should show, of all things, a control in diamonds (as well as a spade control).

It is somewhat better to do it the other way round - splinters show minimums and a raise shows extras (with step 1 asking for shortage). The point is that there will be one combination where you automatically go past 3NT, which is fine when we have extras.

No - Sweden have done far too well of late. The last thing we need is P.O. passing wisdom to TNG.

It's irrelevant. If you are playing on-line, it's pointless trying to ban someone looking at their notes. Therefore it is best simply to allow FD as well, which at least speeds up the process.

Whoah! Let's go back to trick one. It looks like we have already misplayed it. We play low from trick one and South plays ... Whatever South does we can block the suit. Whenever, South plays the queen, we win. If South had AQTxx, he would play the ten, then the queen. Assuming South has AQxxx, he has nothing else (no overcall), so in practice the hand is just cold unless South has four clubs.

This auction was not the problem, since partner can bid grand with a trick source, but there are plenty of hands whre you can't make slam where we could have consulted partner.

If it's a guess, then maybe bidding exclusion was nuts.

You are correct - filled up with good spot cards. Andrew Robson popularised it as a bridge adjective to differentiate ♠T9♥QT987♦JT98♣T9 from, say,♠32♥Q5432♦J432♣32. The former hand has impletion. There are not many obvious modern words that really fit the bill.

.

Ship it.

That makes sense (and is bridge), but it has no application to this hand.

I've got a better rule - "don't support partner for no reason whatsoever with 2-card support." Here was a hand last night where never supporting worked perfectly: http://app.pianola.net/Results/Session11122/Travellers/26 Auction: P P 1♦ 1♠ X 2♣ 2♥ P 4♥ All pass Partner led a top spade and switched to the ♣J for one down. It was let through four times out of five at other tables. This is my idea of normal bridge, but it breaks your rule. If you want to raise 1♥ to 2♥ after both opponents have passed with ♠KQJxx xxx xxx xx, fine. But it ain't bridge. If partner rebids a minor and you give preference to hearts, they will doubtless assume you have two, but so what? Your hand is worthless unless partner has some spades, and biddin, of all things, your best suit, will help focus on that.

I was going to mention that the bidding made it extremely unlikely that the opponents have a heart fit. That being so, one can assume partner would bid a four card heart suit unless very long in clubs, so 4H6C+ was virtually guaranteed, so you can count 13 tricks. I think North should have bid 4♦ over the second double on their actual hand, though.

Try this: http://www.bridgebase.com/intro/installation_guide_for_bbo.php If it works, they can do the same.

I doubt it. Partner won't have a stiff spade that often. Also I think the upper limit should be lower, which will accentuate the difference (4-8 hcp shapes: 1-3, 5, 0-5, 0-5). I don't think an automated computer sim is best - you have to look through the results by hand, since when partner is impleted, he should often just insist on hearts if he is 5-5 (QJTxx JTxxx) and sometimes even when he is 5-4.

That's what Kickback already is. Redwood is a subset of Kickback.