nullve

d) Run the ♥8 at trick 2. If it loses to the J, it may not be obvious for LHO to continue hearts.

You call that imaginative? How about http://tinyurl.com/ycemp4u8 ? :) Ok, ducking the ♠Q cost a trick, but I was starting to think the opening lead must have been from ♠QTx, which is not unheard of. If GiB leads the ♠K instead, then a very natural line is to win in dummy and play clubs twice towards the hand, resulting in 9 easy tricks. -------- This is my post # 1000. I suppose I'm an advanced member now. :D

Google-translating to Italian: Guessing that 'fitosi' is a typo of 'fit o si' and translating back to English:

I've seen top Italian pairs use the jump reverse (e.g. 3♥ over 1♦-1♠) on 5-6 hands not strong enough for a reverse. It's less likely than if we're dealt a less distributional hand, but if our hand is 5-6, then the most frequent distribution around the table is actually one where the remaining hands are balanced. For example, if our hand is 0562, the most frequent distribution around the table is one where two hands are 4324 and he remaining one 5233.

I made a similar mistake on my layout by playing a low heart from dummy at trick 2. Here's what GiB suggests might have happened: [hv=pc=n&s=sqj97haqt73dk4ckq&w=sa8hk8djt8653ca98&n=s653h952daq9cjt43&e=skt42hj64d72c7652&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1dppd2dpp2hp2np3nppp&p=d7dkd3d9h3h8h9hjd2d4d5dqh2h4hahkhqd6h5h6htd8s3c2h7dts5c5ckcac4c6sas6s2s7c9c3c7cqsqs8cts4sjc8dasksts9dj]399|300[/hv] Well defended, GiB!

I managed to misplay the hand double dummy on the following plausible layout: [hv=pc=n&s=sqj97haqt73dk4ckq&w=sa8hk8djt8653ca98&n=s653h952daq9cjt43&e=skt42hj64d72c7652&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1dppd2dpp2hp2np3nppp]399|300[/hv] :(

So you're saying there were 12 tricks in spades and 8 tricks in diamonds, 20 tricks in all? I know LoTT isn't perfect, but it is seldom off by more than 1. On this hand it was off by 4? Then your teammates should try something like predeal north SQT64, H873, DA965, CT6 predeal south SAJ85, HAKT42, D2, CAK4 condition hcp(west)<11 and diamonds(west)>6 with West as dealer at a teaching table on BBO, to get a feeling for how likely -670 is compared with +800.

[hv=pc=n&s=sq86hq42d754cak95&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=pp1n(12-14)p2h(!s)p2sppdp?]133|200[/hv] What's going on here? I don't know the EW system, but the fact that West didn't open strongly suggests that he has only 5 spades. And the fact that East didn't superaccept is an indication he has only 2-3 S. So, depending on partner's balancing tendencies, he might be a huge favourite to hold exactly 2 spades. Assuming he is, then naïve LoTT suggests bidding, since there will be around 16 total trumps on average. But 4 trumps and 333 shape is a considerable negative adjustment factor (so-called!), and holding a quack in their trumps suit certinaly doesn't help, either, so I think South should expect only 15 total tricks. Then passing is clearly right if e.g. they're divided 9-6 or 8-7 in our favour, and not a total disaster at IMPs if they're divided 7-8 and opps would have doubled 3♣. So maybe South should pass? I know I would. :)

If LoTT holds, then there are at least 16 total trumps in all the cases you mention. But do you have any reason to believe there are more than around 16 total trumps on average? (My uneducated guess is that the average is higher, but still closer to 16 than 17.)

I thought it was an interesting problem. :( I checked that Gib(N) would have bid 2♠ with K62 QJ 8643 T754, so maybe GiB(W) was able to rule out North having ♥QJ doubleton. Not the full answer, but...

I suppose partner always has a 3424 14-count if you bid 3♠? :)

A truly balanced invite without support must contain 3+ C and can be passed IMO, although it's possible to miss game when Opener's shape suggests he should pass, too.

That would be my reason for playing transfers here, too. Based on what I play already: 1♥-(2♣)-?: (...) X = takeout, usually with 2- C unless GF 2♦ = "bad 3(4)c raise or GF-except-rebid with 5+ D" [was "GF-except-rebid with 5+ H"] 2♥ = "constructive 3(4)c raise" [was "bad-or-constructive 3(4)c raise"] 2♠ = "GF-except-rebid with 5+ S" 2N = INV+ Stenberg, always with 4+ H 3♣ = INV+, 3(4) c raise 3♦ = bad PRE raise 3♥ = good PRE (i.e. "mixed") raise (..) 1♠-(2♣)-?: (...) X = takeout, usually with 2- C unless GF 2♦ = "6+ H or GF-except-rebid with 5+ H" [was "GF-except-rebid with 5+ D"] 2♥ = "bad 3(4)c raise or GF-except-rebid with 5+ D" [was "GF-except-rebid with 5+ H"] 2♠ = "constructive 3(4)c S raise" [was "bad-or-constructive 3(4)c raise"] 2N = INV+ Stenberg, always with 4+ S 3♣ = INV+ 3(4)c raise (...) 3♥ = bad PRE raise 3♠ = good PRE (i.e. "mixed") raise (...) The red suit "switch" over 1♠-(2♣) and the 2M-1 response showing a "M raise or diamonds" are similar to what awm suggested and also to what I play over 1M-(P). The reason I want the 2M-1 to contain the "bad" 3(4)c M raise is that I want to save space when Responder has the GF hand with diamonds. (Space is saved because Opener will just complete the transfer more often.)

Pass (LoTT)

Is 1♥-2♣; 2♥-2♠ not FG in Acol?

Do you also play 1♠-2♥ as a constructive to weakish limit raise? If so, wouldn't it be better to play 1♠-?: (...) 2♦ = a) 5-7, 2-S6+H b) constructive to weakish limit raise c) 8-10, 2-S5+H ...2♥ = to play opposite a) ......P = a) ......2♠ = b) ......2N+ = c) ...(...) 2♥ = 5-7, 2-S5H (...) ?

Is 3N really "to play" here?

You probably know this already, but Grue-Moss play 1M-?: 1M+1 = "F1NT" 1M+2 = "GF ASK" 1M+3 = "5+ OM, constructive", 1M+4 = "3-LIMIT" 1M+5 = "simple raise", although according to notes 16 and 17, 1♥-?: 1♠ = "Like a forcing 1NT; any number of ♠" 2♣ = "5 ♠ constructive - invite" 2♠ = "6+♠, anything Precision < inv in nat. Resps like weak 2 (3♣ good ♥, 3♥ to play" 1♠-?: 2♦ = "5♥ (sometimes 6) constructive---invite" 3♣ = "6+♥ wide ranging". It's nice that the 2♦ response to 1♠ practically denies 6+ H so that Opener may know what to do on minimum hands with 5S1-H. The downside, of course, is that it's generally not possible to stop in 2♥ after 1♠-2♦; 2♥-P when Responder is weak with 6 H. So I wonder if the 3♣ response is really worth it.

1♥ = ?

Consider the auction 1N-4♣(15-17 BAL; asking for aces) 4♦-5♣(0 or 4 aces; asking for kings) 5♦(0 or 4 kings). After 4♦ it's clear to both Opener and Responder, but not necessarily to any opponent, how many aces Opener has. And since a 15-17 NT must contain at least an ace or a king, 5♦ can equivalently be described as showing * 0 kings if Opener has 4 aces * 4 kings if Opener has 0 aces So is 5♦ encrypted? Btw, an example similar to Helene's is 4♠-4N (PRE; RKC(♠)) 5♦-5N (1 key card; confirming all key cards). Here e.g. 6♣ could be given five different meanings depending which key card Opener has.

I've been looking at the CCs from this year's open ETC. It turns out that none of the Polish pairs are playing Polish Club and that among the pairs that still do (or say they do, and whose CC I've read), all except one play something like 1♣ = a) 12-14 BAL b) 11-16, 4414 c) strong (e.g. 17+ unBAL or 18+ BAL). Ok, so you've already considered this.

It's my religious belief that 2m openings can be effective as weak preempts, so spending both on intermediate hands that can be handled satisfactorily by 1-level openings without causing significant problems on other frequent hand types, seems like a bad idea. But maybe lumping 11-13 BAL together with unbalanced minima in a "NAT or BAL" 1♣ cause much bigger problems in competitive auctions than I think. Still, the 2♣ and 2m openings you describe are themselves causing obvious problems in uncontested auctions on partscore deals, and I find it really hard to believe that you get enough compensation for that. It might help if your 2♣ opening in the first structure promised 6+ C, e.g. by * treating 10-12, 4M225 as 11-13 BAL and open 1♣; * treating 13-15, 4M225 as 14-16 BAL and open 1N; * treating 10-12, (43)15 as 11-13 BAL and open 1♣ (you already do that with 11-13, 4414, don't you?); * treating 13-15, (43)15 as 14-16 BAL and open 1N (you already do that with 14-16, 4414, don't you?); * opening 1♦ with 10-15, (41)35 (you can still "raise" 1♦ more aggressively than if promised 4+ D but could be 11-13 BAL); * not opening 2♣ with 10-15, 4405 (or you could play 2♣ as "10-15, either 6+ C or 4405", more or less as in modern Viking Club).

Why isn't 4N quantitative?

If North is unwilling to force to slam over the double of 4♥, then he should invite slam by first bidding 4N (two places to play) and then 5♦ (NF, but clearly slam invitational) over 5♣.

Idea: 1♣-1♠; 2♠-2N; ?: 3♣/3♥/3♠/3N: similar to what I suggested over 1♣-1♠; 2♥; 2N. 3♦: idle! Obviously better: 1♣-1♠; 2♠-2N; ?: 3♣ = as above, but SPL D if 5S5+C 3♦ = 5S5+m, SPL H ...3♥ = relay ......E.g.: ......3♠ = 5125 or 5035 ......3N = 5152 or 5053 ......(...) ...(...) 3♥: as above, but SPL C if 5S5+D 3♠/N: as above.