PhilKing

Oh my. Some of us, ie those who would not bid 2♠, are afraid of finding a spade fit.

It's an imaginary auction for me. If I did play relays here 2♥ would be a relay without diamonds and 2♠ would be a relay setting diamonds, 3♣ would show 4♠ and I would relay again rather than bid 3♠. 2M for me is potentially a three-card suit, and yes, partner can have a four-card major.

Rightly or wrongly, I am feeling confident about playing a heart - I think declarer has your first construction. If anyone is worried declarer has three clubs, don't be. That would give partner a 2♦ overcall.

You wrong-side no trumps when partner has Kxx AKJxx 9x Jxx.

It's true that a tank (when we are looking at a stiff trump) is as likely to be a hand that was thinking of doubling, but the player concerned probably bid on for, er, illicit reasons. :(

You could easily 7NT opposite weak spades and a minimum: ♠Axxx ♥xx ♦AQJxx ♣Jx. This hand is not really about spades.

This hand worries me. Bad things will often happen if we play in spades. What I really want to be able to do is relay with Two Hearts without denying a major.

I would retain the deposit.

I'm glad the answer is obvious. Trick two, spade ruff. Trick three diamond. If they are 5-0, I will need 3-2 hearts. When everyone follows, draw trumps overtaking the second round. If diamonds are 4-1, revert to the "n & b" line :P. If diamonds are 3-2, claim. When hearts are 0-5 my tricks are five diamonds, two spades, two clubs and 4 hearts, but I needed some wasted effort at trick 2 to get to thirteen.

Ruff a spade at trick two then play diamonds.

I can cater for hearts 5-0 if diamonds are 3-2, but I won't give away my line just yet ...

(17)18-19 balanced for me.

How does system on prevent you from doing so? Do you want partner to bid suits up the line after a double?

It's certainly not common in the UK, and even at international level it is not the majority choice (although all pairs on the Ladies teams I have been involved with play system on). 2♦ natural FTW.

IMPs.

Because you can hardly brag if you put it in the novice section.

It's a terrible contract, but I am guessing that I want to be in it. Hopefully lefty has ♠Qx ♥KQxx ♦Axx ♣Jxxx. ruff the lead A of spades K of spades heart ace (ditch a spade) club to the queen club ace club ruff heart ruff club ruff heart ruff spade ruff ruff the last heart

Forcing for me. With, say, five spades, three hearts and a flat 11 count I would bid 3♣ first time. Playing Acol it would be NF though.

It's an error to make a fit jump with AJTxxx imo. Partner will backtrack holding a singleton, yet it's a pretty good holding.

In before "hearts are 5-2". :ph34r:

I think the new book is better than the first. Why do we not have any options for people who do not share OPs opinion? Is that not allowed? The book over-rates leads such as Qx and xx, since the DD program would always guess right anyway when we don't lead the suit, but overall, I thought it was excellent. I am not expecting perfection, or anything close, since this is virgin territory for bridge authors. The brutal truth is that too few people will buy the book to make it worthwhile proof reading much further (and being part of the Honours series, for reasons of which you are clearly unaware, the publishers were not going to take on this task) but I felt I got my money's worth.

Club three.

You put the queen up. Basically, you can't make this contract unless the spades are well placed, so unless you are going to play for Ax offside that means you simply play West to have led from the ace. Mike's line maximises the chances of seven tricks on that assumption. It's not gilt-edged, since they might win the first club, clear hearts and be able to cash sufficient red winners, but it's the best we can do as far as I can tell.

There is still time to be the first to select "good 13". Edit: taken.

Don't we have seven tricks? The result of West playing another club will often be the same, I suppose.