PhilKing

Opening 2♦ is a winner whatever it means. Richard Pavlicek has collected vugraph stats from the major US events and the World Championships for the three most common treatments. These are the figures for when one side opened 2♦ and the other did something else: 1996-2012 Flannery (109) 314-224 1996-2012 Multi (295) 701-656 1996-2012 Weak 2D (211) 552-388 The bracketed figure is number of occurrences, followed by imps for and against. Flannery gains the most per board, closely followed by the weak two. The multi lags a long way behind, but consider that the other table was usually opening a weak two and it is still a good figure. Multi adherents will also claim to gain more from being able to use 2M for something else.

5♥ asking in hearts would be quite a wheeze holding ♠xxx ♥Akx ♦AKQJx Ax. B-)

I would rather play both as penalty or both as take-out of spades rather than play different meanings.

3♣ over 2♥ should show this hand, but the world is not ready.

1♠ - I hope partner splinters.

This is more about divining who has the ♦8, which the carding is likely to have revealed.

I play Lennon - 2♦ shows six spades and four clubs, but 2♥ is natural.

The solution eluded some pretty good players here who knew it was a problem. I just said it in jest because of this thread: http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/58285-how-to-deal-with-new-forum-posters/page__st__20 Your point number two is applicable to all levels of player. But as far as I am concerned, it makes no difference whether you put it in "Interesting Bridge Hands" or "N & B". Back to the hand, clicking on GIB, I notice that playing the ♦A or K at trick two is also OK.

Squeeze? There is a chance of a common triple show-up squeeze when East is 2344 with, say, ♠T8 ♥Qxx ♦ T98x ♣xxxx. The position will reveal itself fairly naturally in the five-card ending without great card reading required. This assumes they lead 4th from 6 (though in true 3rd/5th I believe 3rd from 6 is correct when affordable). West is also tripled when he started with that shape. If he ducks two diamonds we have to cash the third spade.

Mods! Why is this problem in the wrong forum? :huh: :angry: :unsure:

If declarer has the ♠KJ (highly likely) and the ♣A, he is cold - five hearts, two clubs, on spade and one diamond. To beat it, I think need partner to have the ♣AJ or the ♣A and the diamond jack (I am assuming pard has the ♥K, obviously). If I win and play a club, we are OK in most cases. The ♣T should do, and I am toying with the nine. But maybe I should switch to a diamond, since if pard has the ♣AJ we should still beat them. I can also set it even if partner has the bare bones - ♠xx ♥Kxxx ♦xxxx ♣Axx - I did not need a jack in partner's hand, after all. Overtricks be damned - a diamond it is!

:ph34r:

That's OK - I have two fairly straightforward routes to 11 tricks now.

It's simple now - you have to play on clubs without playing a second trump. If West follows to the second club, finesse. If West shows out, win and ruff a club high, cross to a trump and lead a fourth club throwing a diamond. Claim.

I ruff and play a low spade to the jack. Does West show out? Assuming he does I continue ♣K, ♣ to the jack. I think I'm OK without needing the transfer strip squeeze now.

Is it too late to bid 4♠?

Make up a hand we will believe, then.

That gets you to 4♦ for no reason whatsoever when advancer is inv in diamonds and overcaller is minimum 55. It gets worse - if overcaller bids 3♥ on a 55 minimum, advancer now has no forcing way to agree diamonds. It's very simple to just play 3♦ as all minimums and then advancer can clarify his reason for bidding 3♣. There is no need for a page of agreements - they just confuse the issue. 3♣ is an undefined UCB. If overcaller is weak he bids 3♦. The end.

In my sytem file: Lowest nat bid = min. All other bids = descriptive and GF. It's not perfect for quantitive game bidding, but it's best for slam/strain exploration and simplicity.

Against weak opponents I want to be in it. Against strong opponents, probably not. When diamonds are 3-3, they should duck the first two rounds, and now I have a dilemma. They should do the same when they are 4-2, of course. I would win in hand and play the ♦Q. As played, I am not stating a line just yet, since I am not on play.

I think that if you cash the ♣A there is a decent chance partner will be exposed to a squeeze. I haven't got a Scooby Doo how partner came up with the club lead after we forgot to double 5♣, but well done them. I'm playing a diamond. Declarer could have Qx AKQJxxx AQ xx giving pard KTxx xx KJx KTxx. He's allowed to make terrible doubles if his leads are that good. Anyway, there are other plausible layouts where partner does have his double where I beat the contract as long as I don't cash the club ace.

West is going to be something like 4522 or 5422, maybe even 5521. Leading, of all things, fourth highest of our longest suit, rates to be pretty safe and constructive. Yes, declarer could have a stiff honour, but so what? Leading the ace is still not going to help much when partner holds three, and could be catastrophic.

There isn't much left to relay for. Natural is just fine here, since texture is important when choosing between 3NT, 4♠ and 5♣. I do play 3♦ as a shape relay agreeing diamonds (since opener did not promise diamonds until the 2♠ bid the way I play it), but 55, 5143 and some of the other shapes you mention have already been excluded.

Yep. I like the idea of playing 2♥ as a strong 4441 here, but if partner passes, I would assume that was a good thing. Say he has a 5323 5-7 count and we have a 1444 17-19, the chances of making any game must be slim.

I don't know what you know, but you did use the dreaded "WTP," whilst suggesting the One Spade "solution" for what you correctly surmise to be a non-problem. You probably would not bid One Spade in a million years on this hand. Am I wrong? So I don't really get why you are so bothered by an "oh my" for such a terrible bid. :P