biggerclub

I am by no means highly confident, but I reason like this. If Partner holds the A♣, 5♠ is near lock opposite any other opening bid including nothing in ♦s. If Partner does NOT hold the A♣, 5♦ seems to have reasonable chances (no ruff, no ♦ loser, probably (but by no means certainly) no ♠ loser). Unless Partner holds AK of ♥s which again, makes 5♠s seem pretty solid. I could just blame it on Cohen and say "The Law" . . . but the ♣ stiff is a feature that Partner does not know about and combined with the assumption that Partner has nothing wasted in ♦s . . . I think 5♠ is a good call.

Somebody is sitting on more points than their bidding indicates and that someone is W. So why would would W, with at least 10HCP remain silent? Oh . . . he has ♥s with us? 2♦.

If x followed by 1NT is 19-21 then yes that is the path. And it may be the path anyway. The fact that 1♦ may be the start of a sequence showing a strong balanced hand probably should have been weighed before I responded.

How do people feel about a 2H opening, if it shows 5+ Hs and 4+ Ds (Ds may be longer) or a 2H opening if it shows 5+ Hs and an undisclosed minor 2 suiter?

What's our system? As I am way too often forced to play 2/1, I would open this 1D in that system, rebid and re-rebid Hs. Playing my preferred Precision (which, if I'm not mistaken, Tyler E also plays), I open 1H . . . not sure why. I guess because Precision by design accentuates the MAJs in limited openings. Of course, when I get dealt this hand I wish I weren't playing Precision. Or playing a version of P that uses 2MAJ to show 2 suited hands.

I am bidding 2NT here (upgrading JD, and 5th C). Let's see if better bidders agree.

I like it. What is funny about this hand is the side bidding 4Hs to make is down while the side bidding 4Ss to sac makes. LOL. Or at least I think the OPPs were thinking they were sac'ing.

Entry squeeze is terminology that I have heard (I learned squeeze technique mostly from Reese, although I have read Love's treatise at least once). But I am not sure it applies here. I thought it applied when the defender was squeezed out of the Master Card in a suit, allowing declarer to enter the opposite hand and take a stranded winner. I like Nige1's "one suited criss-cross" although I am not sure that even my friend Danny Kleinman would understand what I was talking about if I tried to describe this to the gang at Barrington Bridge Club.

If you want to force, why not bid 2♦? Do you hate your partner? I play an unusual system over OPPs 1♦ bid so my call is 2♣ (GF -- inv minors sys on over 1 level interference). I think most would bid 1S (F1) at the first round. When the OPPs have been in the auction, use the Q bid as unconditional force and anything else can be less than that. Or at least that's my philosophy. I try to build a fence around my partners whenever possible and prevent them from making a mistake if I can.

1H is lower and, therefore, impliedly weaker. (See Hughes, The Competitive Auction (or similar)). 1H can be either normal 4Hs and 0-8 points or "I hate you for making me bid here. Let's see if we can get out alive without being x'd."

As already stated, 2♥. I am now happy that I have described the general shape and strength of my hand . . . I guess the most uncomfortable bid is 2S and now I have to decide whether to raise, introduce Cs, PASS or something else. I guess I am passing 2S . . . but I don't trust my casual partners enough to vow that this is correct. I pull 2NT to 3C and expect partner to make another call if at all possible. Anything other than 2S over 2H should show at least some values (5+ HCP) so I am game at least to the point of inviting partner to speak again.

1♥. And if partner rebids 2♦, I'll pass out of spite.

I think you need to rank 4S as better than Pass. 2 outside Aces and a filling Q are nearly if not fully an opening bid. Depends on how much you trust partner . . . pretty damn sure that 2S shows 6, but if there is any chance that partner will read it as 5, then no. And anyway, you have two unbid suits unstopped plus you have "tight" honors in the H suit, so no don't try 3NT.

When I hold all the tricks but 1, I think squeeze. Even if there is a finesse position, I put it off until trick 12 if at all possible. I run my winners to come down to Q, Ax opposite A (in a different suit), x (any suit), x (in Ax suit). I cash the A in a different suit and if the Q in no good I throw it. Then I hope Ax is good for 2 tricks. If not, I have lost nothing generally. As Lovera notes in the treatise linked, things are even better if the squeeze card (A in a different suit) and 1 card threat or menace (Q in the above example) are in the same hand. (That is the position is an automatic squeeze -- a name which I think is somewhat misleading.)

Given that I am going to bid twice in any event, I like X followed by Hs. I describe my shape and strength and keep the bidding low. The danger is, as pointed out above, that P makes a penalty pass. I am not worried about P holding 4-3 in the MAJs and insisting on Ss. 1) It wont play too poorly. 2) He shouldn't insist when I introduce Hs . . . in fact his first hypothesis should be that I am 3-5-1-4 and 16/17 - 19 HCP. So tell me if this hand fits that.

The best way to approach bidding is to ask yourself "will partner think this is forcing" instead of "is this forcing". Here, as Nige1 points out, there are a couple of unambiguously forcing bids available so I concur that 3S is INV with something like KQxxxx(x) (Holding either the J or T9 if only six deep) plus at least a K outside and not more than KQ outside.

Lead a Spade is pretty common in my California circles.

The question for responder is not "PASS, 2NT or 3S?" It is "3S or 4S?" and anything else is not even close. Here are some (sub) minimum hands for opener where 4S is cold or at least highly probable: AKxxxx, x, xx, Kxxx (lose 1 trick in each suit other than trump) or JT9xx, Ax, KQxx, Qx (lose 2 trump and either a H or a C but not both). It is absolutely golden to have your Aces outside partner's suit and your fill card (QS) in her suit. There is no better 10 count that lacks a third trump or void. I am not saying I voted 4S, I didn't. But 4S is better than PASS which is barely worse than 2NT. Responder cannot bid 3D as that would show 6 diamonds and a near bust.

I get the first example, although my case was "funner" because of the dual entry situation in ♠s. I am not sure that the second one illustrates the same principal. On the A♠, E is forced to dump the A♥, else declarer scores 3 tricks in the minors. Once that happens, the A♦ becomes a stepping stone back to the A♣. I do like your description of "Criss-Cross in a Single Suit." I think that is most apt and describes exactly what is going on. Although not in a typical, two-suited, criss-cross sort of way.

Well I am alone at 4♥ . . . except for whereagle's practical approach (apparently not voted in the poll). I am not worried about missing slam. Even less so when we find out it's matchpoints. (If you want to give partner every point in the deck, then you have to allow me to give opener a full opening bid.) I am not all that proud of my 5 loser hand, despite 20 HCPs. To me, this is last guess territory. So I say 4Hs. btw -- this is not a defensively oriented hand at all. 1 trick in ♥ (maybe) and 1 in ♣ so I am not doubling to show extra defense or anything like that.

http://tinyurl.com/kbpsvc7 So when I get down toward the end, it's fairly obvious that W is guarding both ♠s and ♦s but the ♠s guard is somewhat subtle. If W throws a ♠ at trick 11, I cash the remaining two top ♠s in dummy. As he actually threw the Q♦, I played the 8♠ to the 10♠ in my hand and cashed the J♦. [hv=pc=n&s=sjthaq853dkjt8ca5&w=sq9742hjtdq7652c7&n=sak863h74dckjt842&e=s5hk962da943cq963&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1cp1hp1sp3nppp&p=d5s3dad8h2hqhjh4cac7c2c6c5s2ctcqh6hahth7dkd7s6d3sjsqsas5ckc9h3s7cjc3h5d2c8d9dt]399|300[/hv] I thought this was what Reese calls a winkle, but after a bit of resesarch, I see that's not it (the winkle involves a throw in, not just pressuring an opponent). So I'm not sure what it is called, but it sure was fun to see it coming at trick 4 or so and then run it out. It is also odd in that the squeeze card is in the hand with the two trick threat. Anyway, I can do it, I just don't know how to name it when I brag about it! Any suggestions?

Give him the KQTx in ♥s instead and put the A in ♣s . . . . The point is that you really cannot know what will make . . . even if you have the information. I may have overstated it to say "highly unsuitable" but I remain willing to defend unsuitable, at least. Nearly 43% of his strength is of no use to us whatsoever. And we still make game. On a lucky break, to be sure . . . but certainly no more lucky than having KQJ opposite our void is unlucky. I don't get to play a lot of weak NT here so I am not currently in shape to say whether it's fair for me to expect 2 of 5 honors from partner in Hs after his 2♥ call. . . just if he has them, I think game is on upwards of 75% of the time. Do you think partner will bid on if you are allowed to whisper to him (after his 2♥ call): "I have a club void (that is, a 3 suited hand), and 9 HCP"? He will feel his clubs are wasted and he will be right. Game makes anyway because both players have prime values . . . and yes, the extra trump helps a lot . . . but if that extra trump were removed and another honor replaced one of the other small cards that would help a lot too.

He was talking about later on where I discussed introducing people to the world of strong club by trimming it down to two main elements . . . 16+ 1♣ and 11-15 for other openings. I have sat down to play with people with nothing more than that . . . no discussion of interference over 1♣, no 2♦ artificial and forcing over 2♣. Overwhelm arrives quickly.

It is obviously a matter worth discussing as . . . within the space of 7 posts, we have four different treatments. (Although mine was merely an effort to suggest what I think is common practice. As was Bill's if I interpret it correctly.)

The fact that P made game with this highly unsuitable (albeit MAX) hand . . . . You bemoan the fact that you cannot give or get information to make bidding game intelligent (or not). Yet on these two hands . . . short of seeing the full hands . . . upon exchange of the most pertinent information (the club void) you and partner will stop short of a sound game. Which, although just one hand, is a strong argument for just bidding game here.