EricK

You have to lead small towards J8, playing East for doubleton T (either HT or Tx) If an honour comes up from East, play the 8 underneath it and then run the J on the next round hoping to pin the T. If East plays a small card, finesse the 8 hoping to lose to an honour, then lead the J hoing to pin the T. If the T appears from East cover with the Jack and now you have a choice - You can run the 8 hoping East had Tx or you can play the A hoping East had HT. Eric

This hand isn't a "Game forcing raise, slam interest" is it? I agree with bidding a pick-a-slam 5NT if we have it available though. Eric It depends how you differentiate between 3♠ and 4♠ here. If its a fast arrival auction, then slam should be cold. If 3♠ is a non-descript raise and 4♠ is a picture jump, then slam can't make (but the auction is impossible in this context, since we hold the AK♥). You have to remember that partner could have raised 2♠ directly to 4♠ (which is what I would have done with your "Death Hand". By going via FSF he is already showing some slam interest. By now bidding 3♠ he is showing even more slam interest. In Ben's example "Death hand" I think partner must jump to 4♠ after FSF directly. If partner has bid correctly, I reckon it is highly unlikley that there isn't a good play for some slam or other. Eric

Is your brother's line to take the first ♦, finesse in ♥ win the ♦ return, take 5♣ (discarding ♥), cross to ♠K, and cash AQ♥ discarding ♦. Which will squeeze North in ♠ and ♦? If so, I don't like it much. Firstly, a ♠ switch after the ♥ finesse loses means you would lose your entry to the squeeze card (the ♥). Secondly, there are restricted choice implications of the lead of a top-of-nothing ♦. I think it reduces the chance that North holds honours in both majors. The trouble with taking the ♦ finesse on the first round is that is almost certain to lose (who leads from ♦Qxxx against a NT slam?) and you don't yet know if you have 5♣ tricks. So My cursory analysis is to win the first trick, cash ♣A. When the J falls I reckon I have 5 tricks, so cash ♦K to see if ♦Q falls doubleton. When it doesn't, give up a ♦, and if we get a ♥ switch, play for the ♥/♠ squeeze. Eric

This hand isn't a "Game forcing raise, slam interest" is it? I agree with bidding a pick-a-slam 5NT if we have it available though. Eric

Even for those hands, you will need quick tricks outside, else you almost always have 4 losers. Eric

Remember that in Keri, most invitational hands will go via 2♣ not via a transfer Eric

How does ducking early gain if diamonds are 4-2 with QT onside? Eric

You will be looking for 5 tricks in the major and 4 quick tricks outside and every suit stopped. If your tricks are not all quick tricks and one suit is only singly stopped you will be better off in the major. If one suit isn't stopped but has xxx opposite xxx then 3NT may also be the contract to look for if there are exactly 9 quick tricks in the other suit. Eric

It is never nice to go down early in the hand! Although it does have the advantage of conserving mental energy for subsequent hands :) But the alternative play of ducking a ♦ early risks losing an unnecessary diamond trick, and doesn't even guarantee the contract. Doesn't the chance of losing a trick to a doubleton Q also frighten you?! The strip squeeze (and I admit I probably wouldn't even have noticed it at the table unless I was really concentrating) seems to require a more unlikely distribution of cards than the one you are worried about (QTxx(x) offside) - if one black suit breaks 3-3 and the other doesn't, then the Q is likely to be with hand which is shorter, but as Ben's analysis shows, you really need it to be with the longer hand. Also, in the diagram, if West boldly discards his low ♦ you still have to read the position to make it (a situation common to almost all strip squeezes!). Eric

I am terrible at working out odds (especially at the table) but the simple line of playing 3 rounds of diamonds seems the best to me. If the diamonds lie very well (doubleton Queen offside, singleton Q or QT doubleton onside) you make the slam without any help from the black suits, and unless they lie very badly (4-2 or 5-1 break with QT lying over the J) you keep the chances of both black suits breaking or there being a squeeze. If the opponents are inveterate count signallers you might try leading the king of both black suits early to see if the opponents are kind enough to tell you exactly what to play for, but even so I think AK5♦ is right. Eric

Ben, What do you use 1M 3NT as? If one doesn't want to play it as natural then one can play it as a raise to exactly game with no shortage, and splinters show a rise to exactly game with a shortage. This leaves 1M 2NT as a limit raise or at least a trick better than game. This, in turn, makes it easier for opener to determine the slam potential once he discovers that responder has more than a limit raise. Eric

If I open 1♦ and it goes eg (2♠) P (4♠) then I would bid 4NT (two suited) and remove partner's 5♣ to 5♦. This is better than opening 1♥ with the plan of bidding 5♦ if necessary because I will have bid the suits in the correct order. Eric

Presumably you psyched to try to persuade the opponents to play in the wrong contract. Maybe it has worked! I pass Eric

If you bid 2NT as natural immediately, partner can not escape into a 4 card minor on minimum hands. By doubling first (promising both minors) and then bidding 2NT, you give partner an escape route if NT is wrong. Eric so you double to find a 4-4 minor fit, you have ♠ stopper, invitational values and a 4 card minor, and whenpartner bids the other minor you bid 2NT to show that hand... And what when he bids your 4 card minor? if you don´t have good/bad you cannot invite when you have found the fit, unless you bid 2NT, and then why did you double and didn´t bid 2NT earlier?. Firstly, an immediate 2NT is almost never right. For example, would opener's rebid of 3m then be forcing or non-forcing? If non-forcing, how does he explore for game or slam on a 1-5-4-3 hand, if forcing how does he bid a minimum 55 hand? By doubling first, and then bidding 2NT, partner's 2m followed by 3m is weak, and 2m followed by eg 3♠ is strong. Secondly, I generally wouldn't double without both minors. If I haven't got ♥ support, and my hand isn't strong enough to freely bid a minor at the 2 level, and I haven't got both minors, yet I am strong enough for 2NT, what have I got? Presumably a 10/11 point 4234 hand with a weak 4 card minor. I am not sure 2NT is going to be the correct contract on that hand. I am probably at least as well off if I pass and let partner re-open. Eric

Well, I'm glad that has clarified matters...

Mixed strategy is right only if the EXPECTED payoff is the same RIght. still, here how can you have a mixed strategy? Strictly speaking, this is a decision makig problem. There is no strategic interaction here. Cos so far pd and opp's decicision didnt rely on your bid of, from pass to 5H. What a mixed strategy gives you is not different bids for this hand but different hands for each of your bids. If 4♥ is always 5 card support, 3♥ is always 4 card support, 2♠ is always strong with 3 card support etc it gives the opponents too easy a time. Eric

With that hand partner should certainly bid 3♦ rather than leave 2NT in. The trouble with a good/bad 2NT here is that there is actually no certainty that partner has 4♦ (with a 3532 hand he should certainly bid 2♦ rather than 2♥) so the bad hands risk quite a lot by going to the 3 level. Eric

5 card, 4 card, stiff, it doesn't matter one way or another the "important" criteria is that the call conveys information about another denomination... But really pretty much all calls say something about another suit. eg In most systems a 1♥ opening categorically denies having 7♠. Or to use a less extrene example: 1♠ 1NT 2♥. Using a forcing NT, the 2♥ bid, for most pairs at any rate, denies holding a four card minor. That isn't to say I can come up with a better definition... I personally think the definition is slightly ambiguous. One could certainly take it to mean that as long as you don't mind partner passing then it is not conventional (compare with "If you drop litter you will receive a punishment other than a jail sentence". If you received a jail sentence and a fine would you think you had been treated fairly?) Eric

maybe so, maybe not... that was my point, in a weakish field you don't really know what par will be... if i'm declaring in a strong field, as soon as dummy comes down i can pretty much tell where others are likely to be, and sometimes whether they're making or not... this likely par result guides my play, especially if i'm in an inferior contract (say i'm in 3nt and i can see most will be in 4M making... at matchpoints i might risk down one out of what i perceive to be necessity - of course i might do that anyway heheh) in a weak field, par is harder to judge... for me, anyway Do you really mean "par result"? In a weak field you may not know what the other tables' results will be, but the par result is a function of the actual cards held. For what it's worth, I play much the same against weak pairs as against strong pairs. But if I know a particular weakness of a weak player (eg they're scared to double part scores, or they "always" bid one more) then I may make a call I wouldn't normally make to account for that. Eric

The people who are advocating 1♥ are not "forgetting" anything. They realise there are plus points and minus points for practically *every* call that they ever make and they choose the call where they believe the plus points outweigh the minus points. Are you absolutely sure that the minus points of bidding 1♥ outweigh the plus points? Eric

If you bid 2NT as natural immediately, partner can not escape into a 4 card minor on minimum hands. By doubling first (promising both minors) and then bidding 2NT, you give partner an escape route if NT is wrong. Eric

2NT looks to be natural with a certain double stop in ♠ but no great length (eg ♠AQ). It will also have genuine support for both minors, so partner can always retreat to 3♦ if he wishes. 2254 or 3244 distribution would be typical. Eric

I can't vouch for what happened in the Netherlands, but in the UK the multi is given special treatment because it was already popular when the new licencing methods were introduced. So it is allowed at levels where it logically shouldn't be, but there are restirctions on how you can play it Eric

My other issue with Drury is that the times you can use it will be the times you tend not to need it, and the times you need it you will tend not to be able to use it! If partner has opened light, RHO will have a stronger hand on average and is more likely to overcall, but now you have lost your Drury mechanism. But if partner has a full opening or better, RHO is weaker and less likely to overcall, so now you have your full Drury mechanism but are less likely to need it! Eric

Most "who is to blame" threads are really "I am fairly sure my partner is to blame, can you confirm it" threads. And these can be useful. If partner does not realise that he has made an error then he will never change (he will probably never change anyway, but that is another story). Experts can afford to shrug their shoulders and move on whenever they get -800 because even if they have made a mistake, they will realise they have made it. Eric