PhilKing

Eliminating is soft. I win on table and play a spade at trick two. East does not know we are not 2245, so it's hardly irrational for him to dive in with the ace from AQxx since we could have ♠KJ ♥AQ ♦AQxx ♣KQxxx. In fact I rather expect him to fly ace. If he plays low, I play the nine, of course.

.

The drawback is when you are dealt 108642 or K9753. I believe this is still illegal in England and the ACBL. It was perceived that people just signalled slowly when they were dealt the wrong cards to give clarity.

If you are going down the take-out after redouble route, you can assign pass followed by double to show a 4333 pattern with 10+ points. Note: this should apply only after 1♣ and possibly 1♦ as well depending on suit length promised in a 5CM system. In your (Acol) framework, it makes sense opposite majors as well. There is another issue to clear up. Playing take out doubles, it makes sense to reverse the traditional meaning of pass and pull being strong, but the issue is a little complex.

I'm not sure partner's carding is consistent with that - at best he's been extremely unhelpful. I guess it depends. I think 3♥ is OK with a 7-4 if partner lacks the club jack, although I would bid four myself.

I'm going to guess it is non-forcing.

Sorry to chop out the middle bits, but these paragraphs encapsulate the crux of the erosion issue. The others involve judgments that are independent to the ignored question. One can get overboard whether one plays 2/1 or not. Partnerships who do not play 2/1 face the same decision over whether to drive game with a 12 count after, say, 1♠-2♣-2♦ or 1♠-2♦-2NT. One could argue that they face worse problems if opener can rebid 2NT on, of all things, a balanced minimum hand. My reworded question, naive or not, was when does a non GF 2/1 fair better in this regard? Now, I may be coloured by my own agreements, which allow opener to pass 1NT with a 11 up to a poor 13 if balanced (and 8-11 medium twos solve another issue) so we only 2/1 with a good 12. But my contention is that 2/1 GF makes it no harder to stop.

FWIW I doubt there is much correlation between being a good declarer and solving this kind of problem correctly (unless the key is discounting the chance of a decent West holding AJTx).

I like 4♥ as a splinter (usually void), so I guess there is a difference with 3♥ ...

How does saying it again make it true? 2/1 makes it easier to stop low in some cases (available on request). When do you allegedly get higher?

If only I could have persuaded you to play invitational transfers ... The NT v M decisions become trivial.

Play 1NT as natural or weak with clubs - that frees up 3♣ for ... Er, strong?

Only if you are a respected player. B-)

By "poor" I meant "cold on the bidding". Take away the queen.

Yuck!

Not me. I play exclusion for major suits only. I think exclusion is icing on the cake and splinter takes precedence. When we are in a minor suit auction there is less often room for both.

My mistake was responding to this bit at all. :unsure: I am worried that the inference that I deny a king by bidding RKCB will, for some inexplicable reason, not filter through to partner. Now maybe you and I would both bid 5♥, but many would not (a further irrelevancy, just for your pleasure - I would not bid 5♥ because that would be Sand Wedge RKCB). With - AKxx Kxxxx AQxx I would expect him to bid 5NT (odd + void) over RKCB, and grand will be rather poor. Anyway, it's all rather academic, since I don't expect partner to have anything of the sort given the lack of competition.

Jack is presumably running a DD analysis for each sample, potentially based on flawed assumptions, so it does not follow that the line is correct.

Bad vugraph players? B-)

If declarer has ♠Txxxxx ♥xx ♦Qxx ♣xx, he really should never go wrong, since as has been mentioned, we could just exit a trump when we hold the ♦J. However, if that is his hand, he has already carved the play - he should have drawn trumps before playing a diamond to avoid the problem. So I will just play ace and another ♣ (not the queen, since I don't want to give a moderate player the idea that I have AQJ in case he is trying to place the ♦ jack by counting the wrong thing) - it is matchpoints, after all, and declarer still has time for another error.

I don't play it in this auction - 4NT is just showing a slam try for me. Besides, if I bid 4NT (RKC), I am not hugely confident as to how to proceed after a 5NT reply. I have merely transferred the problem. I think I would like to have the ♥K to invite grand, and I would do so by bidding 5♥ playing standard methods. In fact, I am virtually obligated to cue any relevant feature, since partner is unlimited. I could reverse the tables and ask what is the downside of 6♦. Good trumps, good hand, nothing to cue.

I think a few of the replies are obsessing about missing grand slam unnecessarily. If we jump to 6♦, partner can raise to seven when he has the deck.

I suspect you are right, but this way madness lies. I would rather have a consistent simple agreement (ie double is takeout of the major) than strive for perfection and screw it up.

I ran a fictitious simulation for this auction, and the chances of being able to transfer to diamonds and jump on the second round were exactly 9% - those pesky opponents interfered on the other 91% of hands. And when they did not compete, we simply gave the opponents a road map. Show the fit first, then worry about showing your side suit later if need be. Hopefully, we need never show diamonds at all. If partner ends up playing in, of all things, a spade contract, he will not thank us for helping them find the best lead and best defence.

Cliff notes?