PhilKing

Because you want +1400 rather than +1100? We have enough points to suggest there is quite a high likelihood of it going all pass. How many points do you need to actually start worrying. 25? Besides, even when North is bidding, it will generally be 3♣ (which South will pass), and South will also pass a transfer to hearts. And partner will play us for less when we "balance" with double.

The winning action is for West to say 4NT (the obvious bid). That will probably lead to 5♠ doubled -650 for 1 imp in.

Yep, that way, we can play 2♠ as a one-round force, so North can cue 2♠ with 44m and say 11 points and still stop in 3m. For me 2NT shows <14 in response to 2♠. Having said that, with length in spades, South is not close to a GOSH.

West was right not to ask about 2NT even if he strongly suspected a cock-up - why wake up North? The imaginary director should be reprogrammed. However, West has an obvious double of 2NT regardless. After all, if South has a tactical 2NT with long clubs, he has six tricks against a run-out to 3♣ for +300, and may not beat 2NT by more than a trick. Passing is utterly ridiculous! Otherwise, I guess we could go for 2NT-X-p-p-xx-ap, for -3400, which is the result N/S arguably deserve. North passing with a four count is not unreasonable, but I would be somewhat concerned that he landed on his feet. Maybe he had been there before (except he does not exist, obviously, except in that A-ha video).

♥Q doesn't just gain when declarer holds the mythical Txx in hand and Kxx on the table. Sometimes you just hold the trick when declarer does not cover from Kxxx in dummy and Tx in hand. He may not even cover with KTxx in dummy and xxx in hand. It can also gain outright with Kxx in dummy and Jxx in hand when we build two heart. A club is basically betting on "standard" losing layouts for declarer. We want declarer to hold the heart king and we need to build a club trick(s) before declarer can build or cash tricks in their most likely long side suit (obviously diamonds). And if partner has nothing in clubs, it will usually be fairly safe. It avoids blowing either red suit. A diamond bets on .... Sorry, I got nothing! A diamond would probably do well in a sim, because when partner has Qxxx, declarer can just pick up the suit with a backward finesse, but in real life he needs help from the opening lead, and we can't fool the computer with the ♥Q.

I did a short non-dd sim (32 hands) which suggested that partner was able to accept/reject very accurately. In my method, I can invite and still stop in 2♥, which is obviously ideal.

Does it? If we were not allowed to invite, that would be true.

Just a 2. The committee pointed out that it was better to use redouble as Shapewood. Oh well, there's always next year.

You need to play optional Shapewood to solve this bad boy. 3♣-X-4♣(Shapewood)-P 4♠(max, middle shortage)-P-4NT(remainder ask)-P 5♦(trebleton spade)-P-6♣-AP Slam is down with the pointed suits reversed.

2NT 3♦ 3♥ 4♦ 5♥ (1 or 4 auto 6 ace reply for minor) 5♠(Spiral) 6♦ (Q♦, K♠, no ♣K)-7♦ Available in over 30 "equivalent" two-suited auctions.

To qoute Nigel: ♥Q = 11 all others = -111 If it's good enough for Moriarty ... BTW I don't really mean it, but the hand has a certain historical resonance for me.

3 out of 4 back of envelope. The one I was at table was small slam but can't remember exact details (over 20 years ago) except wrong lead was made. Now if you are arguing that back of envelop could corrupt the sample, you may be right, but it's clear-cut enough not to be an issue. I have looked through my top-play database (now almost fully searchable) for counter-examples without success, but it only has about 11k hands in it so far (target at least 30k).

My experience suggests that without the double, it is one of the rare times it is correct to lead a trump versus a grand. It's all in my unfinished work "The complete book of opning leads versus seven-level overcalls and openings". Declarer is gambling with ♠AKQJTxx♥-♦-♣AKJxxx, and dummy has two black singletons. I described a hand recently where John Hobson opened 7♥ on ♠-♥AKQJxx♦AKJxxxx♣- in cases dummy had two singletons and they failed to lead a trump. But this time lefty failed to double with T9xxxxx trumps and his partner sacrificed in 7♠ :ph34r: .

Fed up with passing - this time I double.

Well it's been right the four times I have seen this situation in 25 years, so I am just hoping for the run to continue. Eventually, diamonds will be 5701 round the table, but not until the year 5701, I hope.

2♥-x-Pass-3♠ All Pass If playing Lebensohl, North bids 2NT followed by 3♠ to show specifically four spades with a direct jump showing five. South "must" double, 2♥, despite the non-classic shape. You will get eaten alive if you do not come in with hands as promising as this.

A club is 100% clearcut. But only because I've seen it all before. Declarer has spades and clubs.

Of course not - jumping to 6♦, which rates to make at least 80% of the time, would just be plain silly! Playing in "Minorwood" is far preferable. :P I was merely demonstrating a point. Imagine a world where we took away all your favourite bidding toys and you just had to use judgment. You would just raise to 6♦, right? Now obviously 4NT is better, but even when you are missing the diamond king, you will sometimes get lucky.

Presumably 3♦-X-6♦ and 3♦-X-4NT have been reserved for some other purpose, rendering the problem insoluble to mortals.

It doesn't in that sequence, but I play similar to the JLogic way whereby 4♠ just shows almost all minimums and may have two spades, and 4M+1 is RKCB for the major with 5 key cards (for him it is RKC for the minor and should be 6 ace). You can't get me to sign off with that hand!

FWIW I don't think that is technically correct. If opener holds: ♠AQx ♥Axx ♦KQJTx ♣Ax When partner transfers to spades and bids 4♣, he wants to key card for spades only, since we may make seven opposite ♠KJxxx ♥Kx ♦Ax ♣QTxx. Key card for the minor by either player, or major suit RKC by responder should be 6 ace (in my case I make auto responses of 5♥ plus), because we rarely have enough discards not to need both kings.

I am on tilt.

Double. And if partner bids five of a minor, I am raising to six, because playing for exactly 11 tricks is too wild a gamble.

I don't see the point of the high priority for the transfer cue, which essentially serves no purpose. This hand type can be dealt with better by doubling and then cueing, particularly after 1♣ where you need room to unravel partner's hand types as well. 2♠ NF is the only way of playing in ..... 2♠. It rates to be your best spot opposite a weak NT, and partner is not barred from raising or bidding 3♣. Partner should always remove with a stiff spade IMO.

Presuming this is part of a transfer scheme, it's not great for GF hands with 5 spades. Try this tweak: 2♠ = nf 2N = clubs 3♣ = diamonds 3♦ = 5+ spades GF (the extra step allows partner to fudge with 3♥ and bid 3♠ to show support). 3♥ = inv with six spades or full slam try six spades 3♠ = transfer to 3NT Double followed by 3♠ is also GF and suggests a club fit. It works the same over 1NT but 3♠ shows an extreme take-out double. Between the original 2 choices, I would double. Under the partnership options, it is a clear 2♠ - you can't flounder around at the three-level with this hand. If did, I would continue with 3NT, which rates to be as good as 3♠ if partner signs off.