PhilKing

Warning! Dangerous misquote. The advice was that you are worth one try if the perfect minimum would make it laydown. The corollary is that if you need a perfect maximum, do not even make a try.

Bacca, do your aces always get cracked when playing on Stars?

Without a listed agreement to the contrary, whatever else would it show, if not a game force with 4 spades? Having said that, I prefer to play a jump to 3M as forcing, but that is not mainstream. Lacking agreement I would have to go down the cue-bidding route, not wanting partner to pass an undiscussed jump.

It's what I do - so obviously yes. :blink: It's a little trickier after 1M-x, but it's still fine. In my view, you get much more in the way of natural defined auctions. Making strong hands cue again is no hardship.

He sounds like the bridge equivalent of Phil Hellmuth. :ph34r:

It is possible to play jumps as promising five-card suits and about 8-10 without having to respond at the one-level with monsters - play the cue bid as f1 9+, just asking partner to bid 4-card suits up the line. With a minimum double (up to 14), just bid the lowest suit. With 15+ do something stronger. Over a simple suit, responders change of suit or raise is also NF. For example, 1♣-x-pass-2♣-pass-2♥-pass-2♠ shows four spades and is non-forcing. Both players have to jump again or cue to set up a game force.

I'm heartened by the fact that nobody could actually bring themselves to click the Pass option in the poll. It's a bit like when people say they are going to vote for the LibDems, but come election time never do.

I was wondering about that - I was thinking of giving him quite a bit of time anyway in order to summon up the courage to duck, but not enough to have second thoughts. B-) Also, the chances of ♦ Qxx offside are very low, since that gives West specifically 5432 plus one higher spot.

Works for me - the Schizophrenic dog-walker explanation was correct.

Assuming defenders play correctly, and ignoring break even winning combos (West holding K9, Q9, K97 and Q97), the situation is simple. Running the jack gains when West has K7 and Q7. Low gains when West has stiff K or Q. The tie breaker is KQ doubleton with West, where running the jack wins. The rest is just noise.

Some of them have insta-responded. :blink:

Perhaps knowing what our hand is would help clarify things. Still no actual constructions for the RKCB hand, only theories, the schizo dogwalker being my favourite.

This is a strategic are where one approach will work, for arguments sake 10% more often than another. In most situation, the better player will be doing something that is always or overwhelmingly better. I've looked through every available Vanderbilt, Spingold and USBC swing 3NT hand post year 2000 from semi finals and onwards over the last year and I have seen one striking example of a pair reducing variance: Meckwell play a very ABC 4th highest lead style versus 3NT versus most teams, and I strongly suspect this is a case in point. They defend better than almost any other pair, so reduce trick 1 variance. The edge for making a better theoretical lead is perhaps less and certainly more variable than the edge on subsequent defence. I might have another look to see if they vary it up a bit against top European teams who are more inclined to lead from weak holdings.

Ah, OK. I got one other component of your structure wrong as well. I was reading the 3m via 2S auctions as inv, which they are not.

Trouble is, that requires one or both opponents psyched and partner missorted. Occam's razor suggests the 8-3 explanation or partner had his hand mis-sorted, since it requires only one comedian. Perhaps he though he was 4333 and now realizes he is 7330.

They are and they have. Since declarer's hand is somewhat unknown thanks to partner's inspired bidding, even a non-moronic East has a problem discerning whether declarer has AKQJxxx KJx x Ax or not (a complete minimum). What is he supposed to do with xx Axxx Qxxx xxx? After all, rising ace only works because we lack a Two Club opener.

They were probably just reducing variance - their edge in other areas was so large, playing in the eight card fit was a sound tactic, since that is what everyone else did.

I assume the bidders are flushed with confidence for their RKCB interpretation and are willing to absolve themselves of blame when it inevitably goes wrong. What do you think partner has?

Yep. It's pretty standard in some English circles to play the Two Spade then Three Heart sequence to show the invitational six-card suit (transfer and raise forcing, hoverver Fido does it). There is an obvious reason from an information leakage POV to do it this way: over Two Spades opener just jumps to 4♥ with any max with three hearts without any faffing. This way responder does not have to tip their shape before the lead. If 2♠ could conceal a slam try, you could not do this.

I've done a few of these over the years, and my favourite hand to give (I won't tell you why yet) is: ♠- ♥AKQ ♦A ♣JT9876543 Partner opens 5♠ and the next hand passes. WWYDAW?

Playing weak no trump, pass with 12-13 with this pattern. You'll thank me one day. With 14, rebid 1NT and hope to live. The trouble with 1♦ followed by 2♣, is that you play 2♦ on a 4-2 fit instead of hearts on a 4-4 (5-4) fit when partner is 5422 or 5521 with 5-9 points. Pass in no panacea, but will produce better results on average. As an aside, I strongly recommend the Garozzo 2♥ response to either minor showing 5-10 with 5-4 in the majors. Playing this, 1♦ then 2♣ is fine, since we now won't miss hearts often. It also facillitates better continuations after 1m-1♠-2m.

I can imagine partner, with drool running down his chin and a mad glint in his eye, revealing: ♠KJTxxxxx ♥Jxx ♦xx ♣-

When it's your best chance by far, yes. South should bid 3♠, of course.

North played you. The idea that they would run is a joke.

Perhaps partner had their hand missorted when they failed to bid game.