PhilKing

3♣. Psychic long-suit try. Easy.

"Informative" posts couched in this way are fair game imo. It's immoral not to flame them.

Misread his line somehow. Seems to cater for same as mine.

Yep - better. Caters for ♦Qx.

Feels like I should be able to ruff one heart and squeeze West without the count, but there might be some nasty guessing involved over whether East has Qxx or Txx in hearts. Oh wait. I can overcome all guessing by drawing two trumps ending in dummy (finessing the jack) followed by a heart to the jack. Then I can arrange my ruff, draw the last trump and make with a simple squeeze. I just need West to be 5521 with the spade king and not the diamond queen.

I'm betting removing would be a really big loser in a sim, so I guess that means I am happy with the auction.

But partner will have trouble guessing the level. :(

My personal favourite is the 4-9 3NT response. Solid.

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/60718-modified-step-response-to-2c-opener/page__pid__732065#entry732065 Not "at the table", but surely a five-star contender if it did!

I don't really know how many times I have to say my point is hypothetical. My point about "details details" was simply saying I think it's irrelevant to discuss whether x is better than y by 2% without seeing the first card.

I've done a search (including equivalent 4♥ sequences) of my top-level hands database which now has over 20k hands in it (including the recent legendary Bathurst demolition of North American bridge), and all the auctions are super-rare: 1. Jump to six of a suit DNE 2. 5NT DNE 3. 5♠ DNE 4. 4NT, followed by a raise to six DNE (once in competition by Versace for a cheap 6/5 sacrifice). 5. 4NT, followed by 5♠ DNE 6. 4NT, followed by 5NT DNE 7. 4NT, followed by bidding 5♥ over 5♣ DNE 8. 4NT, followed by six of a new suit DNE Conclusion: Any gumph that is not analogous to other situations should be incinerated.

My point was hypothetical - I was just highlighting a position where one might use actual bridge inference to depart from the maths. It's irrelevant whether my analysis is correct or not, since I have not played to trick two since there is no trick one. Maybe they discard: 1) A quick ♣J. 2) A quick low ♠. 3) A lightning ♦. We are going to have qute a few possible scenarios to suggest in a case where West has no idea of our shape, and my view is that the discard will almost always be honest. Now it maybe that in all these cases you still go for line one, but I would rather see trick one first. I think you are in danger of defending the indefensible. Your argument appears to be "I am going to do x regardless of the discard", which would be fine if every scenario had been explored, but then I feel some workings would have been included in the original answers.

Yep - I am booting this one for the final draft. The trouble is, I will end up with 5♥ over 5♣ as a GS try with both minors, else the auction does not stack up. It must show 0355 bringing hearts into the frame - you know it makes sense!

Details, details. Let's say the above is all correct, is that any excuse for the terrible analysis in this thread? OK, it's not terrible in that any of it is wrong, but you know what I mean. West may give his hand away. Let's say he pitches a club in tempo and then tanks and pitches a spade. I am just flat out playing him for a 3055 WITHOUT the spade queen now (obviously this is complete fiction - I would never have the guts). But that's not the point - we MIGHT sniff out the lie of the cards(and we might not), and that has been completely ignored.

.

Critical situation is when he is 3055 and the squeeze line does not work. At trick one he discards a club painlessly and at trick two, he tanks, because he doesn't know a club is safe. Discarding against 7NT is not easy, but it helps if declarer does not even care what you discard or how easily you discard it. Sadly that seems to be the case here (not you - everyone). We've had analysis of how to play it if they have to follow anticlockwise, and a fair amount of maths, but none on what has actually happened. Now we may well fall back on the maths, but we should be better than that.

For me, this double is "cards" and should probably be pulled about one time in three, so West is about on the cusp of whether to pull. East hallucinated before doubling though - he has a straight choice between 4NT and 5♣. 4NT shows a good 5♣ bid here, which I think he is worth (just), even though on a bad day you will go off in game.

The overcaller has heard a simple raise - whether he bids game is beyond my control, but is rarely aided by a 3♥ bid. Basically, I expect them to bid game more often than not, which is why all the passes are so misguided - we often need the lead. Edit miscounted spades.

FWIW, I don't don't think West is allowed to just say "having none" and turn over his card at trick one. He doesn't know we don't have four clubs, so I feel I am entitled to see his discard and continue appropriately.

OS is played at trick ONE. Playing OS, if you discourage the lead, it means you can stand the obvious switch (clubs in case one according to the Granovetter rules). Since we can't, encouraging is advisable playing OS.

Many? No. Walter Avarelli won 12 world titles, the first when he was 44.

No idea. But it may be because I don't. Then again I did not start a thread entitled "OKB 2/1", or make the mistake of reading past paragraph two of your link.

I might be being a bit thick, but are they not allowed to bid game if I pass? 3♥ is simply the obvious bid, it's just is not particularly dangerous and has several ways to win. Yes, it could lose, but highly unlikely that it will propel them into an otherwise impossible to reach game. I'm staggered by how many people want to bid on what is effectively a fitless balanced five count, but give them a nice 6-5 and they go back into their shells.

I'm still seething about this auction from Tuesday. Playing rubber bridge (£30 per hundred) with a large Swedish chap who held: ♠- ♥KQJx ♦QJxx ♣QJxxx We started: 1♣-1♠ 2♣-2♦ Now it continued: 2♥-3♣ 3♦ and I now failed to diagnose that he had a triple hearts stop, so we finished in 5♣ off three aces (I held AKQxx xx Kxx Jxx - I could bid 3S but could not see how 3NT is ever right eg xx Ax AJx KQTxxx). I'm firmly in the camp that thinks it shows a very good 2♣ and typically Ax or Axx heart rebid rather than a hand that somehow can't decide between two obvious bids.

North's pass over 3♣ is a wild gamble. You are going to get doubled almost never, and need very little for game. It's not so much the hands where partner has four hearts (which is a very small target when partner passed over 2♣), it is hands such as: ♠Qx ♥Jxx ♦Axxxx ♣xxx Where partner lacked the shape to double. It's not too specific - partner is likely to have a few points and that shape given the lack of a cue raise, and partner will pass 3♥ if less suitable. Also, we may well end up defending a club game or 3NT, and I may need a heart lead to beat them. If we pass and it goes 3NT pass pass, you are going to feel pretty sick, right? As for South, I would not double. One person's ideal shape is another's balanced pile of rubbish, I guess.