PhilKing

I think Paul has got this one right. North has used UI, but not in a way to take advantage. South's hand conforms with North's table feel that South was trying to shut him out, so bidding on is not suggested by the slow 4♠ in any way. Result stands.

Regardless of vulnerability, bidding game does not in itself set up FP. We are only in FP if we have shown the high-card values for game. Borderline cases are NF. My agreement is that competitive splinters, eg 1♠-(2♣)-4♣, do not set up FP, though that is not necessarily standard, and possibly not even right, but it fits my rules comfortably. It becomes more "right" when we are the overcalling side and splinter, I would say. So there is nothing about this auction that would suggest we are obliged to take action.

Well I'm going to go out on a limb and say Roger knew what he was doing when he rejected the possibility of a 5-4 shape.

Quacky hands are 4.7 times more likely based on my hand. I would not bid vulnerable on the hand you give.

RHO has a max of nine quacky points, so 5-4 seems rather far-fetched (maybe KQJTx QJ9x?). And if they are vul, almost inconceivable. Maybe they just guarantee 5-5 if weak.

I wouldn't change the booklet, I would just move on. It is designed to give players a basic framework - nothing more, so if you want to modify or change something, just do it.

There is a good case for playing weak jumps after (2♣)-Pass-(2♦). Whilst responder may be scrambling, he usually has the goods and need to find out about opener's shape. An example: ♠AKJ982 ♥JT4 ♦9753 ♣- Balicki bid 3♠ against Meckwell. The 13 imps he gained may be more down to the fact that his counterpart overcalled 2♠ and ended up defending 3NTXX up one. :angry:

The designation "T-Walsh" is unfortunate. It is not really a transfer. For the most part opener just rebids what he would have done over 1♠. A common meaning for completing the transfer is to show a weak no trump with three spades (a pretty useless method, but whatever), which will never happen when we have this hand unless the opponents are somehow barred from bidding. So I don't think T-Walsh makes much difference to the problem.

I ruff the third round with the jack and play spades from the top. I think this caters for most possibilities (including some of the 9x combos with East). East's discard may have some bearing, though. Basically, I am playing West to have Kxx in spades, the club jack and a heart honour (either will do, and I expect the defence to tell me who has the king). This seems a lot better than playing West for 2452 precisely with K9 doubleton. As you have worked out, if West had K9 Jxx AKTxx Jxx, East can prevent us enjoying dummy's club winner. In the ending, West gets squeezed in the round suits.

The chances of this auction taking place are very low (as is the 1♣-1♦-1NT OMFG-we-have-missed-our-spade-fit auction suggested by Siegmund), and I do not believe it is forcing in Walshe. I haven't looked for the reference, but the way I learned it: 2♠ = 3 trumps and a singleton somewhere (presumably in clubs), unsuitable for 1NT 3♠ = forcing If that is true, we can bid 2♠ and correct most removals back to spades. I did a short sim which suggested that responding 1♠ works constructively pretty much never. On one occasion it kept them out of a heart partscore, except if we did something really daft such as puppet to 2♦ over partner's 1NT rebid to let them back in. :wacko:

Partner not doubling 5♥ is really bad. Note that declarer had punted slam without a control in diamonds, and partner's failure to double 5♥ with even KTxx is poor imo if he has zero points in diamonds.

Appeals committee. :P

You are right not to be sure. It is possible to make it if West has: ♠K9 ♥J95 ♦AKT73 ♣J43 ♠K9 ♥K95 ♦AKT73 ♣J43 ♠K96 ♥J9 ♦AKT73 ♣J43 ♠K96 ♥K9 ♦AKT73 ♣J43 But a different line is required each time.

Rethink my previous slam-dunk penalty pass? :blink:

Partner should overtake because your lead could be a singleton (and is obviously never Kx). This position rather famously occurred in the Lederer a few years ago against a punted slam, and a good player did not overtake. :wacko: His partner was unable to continue. Low gives them a guess when dummy has the queen, declarer the ace and either opponent has the ten. As to the rest of it, declarer rates to have the ace here, but the jack with partner, plus the club king, will sometimes be enough to beat it. Our main chance is that pard has the queen, obviously, in which case a trick in either black suit will usually do.

Low diamond. If we had ♦Kxx, this would be a landslide, and the actual situation is not much different. Obviously leading the king would be ridiculous, since it saves them a guess. It won't even beat the contract when they have taken a complete flyer and pard has the ♦A, since a decent partner will overtake. Dummy is highly likely to have five clubs and has denied a minimum balanced hand, so it is time to get active. There is a significant chance that any diamond will be catastrophic, but I refuse to go passive with this hand.

.

Playing 6 aces is technically highly questionable. I can see the attraction - you want keycard available for both suits, but it is hopeless when responder is short in one of our suits, and it leaves ambiguity over strain, which hurts follow up bids (my eyes are still bleeding from reading the first response, for instance). Other solutions are available.

FWIW, I think it's right (love all at at MPs) to bid 1♠ against morons, but not otherwise.

I am going to play the hand on the assumption that righty is not a beginner. :wacko:

You may as well ask a dog not to bark. 325 loves that sort of stuff.

I don't follow. Why was one off 1NT a losing board? Were we doubled?

Yep. That's what I do. I can only assume I was on hallucinatory when I said the jump to 3NT showed the weak NT.

The hand you describe is sounding rather like: ♠Jxx♥KQJxx♦xx♣Qxx? It sounds a bit weird to me. Am I playing pard for: ♠AQxx♥Ax♦KQJxx♣Jx? I'll take my chances in 3NT. For me, 3♠: ♠Kxx ♥Axxxx ♦x ♣Jxxx I'm nailed on to have a stiff diamond, so partner can visualise whether a cross-ruff/scramble is appropriate. 3♥: ♠Kxx ♥xxxx ♦Kx ♣Kxxx It's pretty specific. 3♣ would be the same with five decent clubs and 2425 or similar.

Partner bids diamonds, spades, raises no trumps and now you worry about getting back to hearts? :o 3♥ over 2NT should definitely not show good hearts - it's a baby Bluhmer.