MickyB

Phil, I think you mentioned a similar sequence recently - 1D-p-1H-p; 1N-2C as 5D4C. Not an idea I've come across before, but I like it, if only to stop one of my partners from wandering back in with 2C to show a hand too bad to overcall 2C or 3C the first time! Any pitfalls to this agreement, e.g. situations where it is unclear if it should apply?

2N is clear to me. I'm not bothered whether 2H promised four or not - If oppo sometimes raise on three-card support that makes it harder for partner to protect with three or four poor hearts, in which case I, as the one holding a singleton heart, need to be the one to act.

+1 to gwnn. We rate to be outgunned.

The 3433 with QJTx heart, except on 1N:2C, 2S:3N.

Any change for when you are leading lefty's suit instead of righty's?

This would be true if playing GF 2/1s was impossible in conjunction with a non-/semi-forcing 1NT response.

When opener has a weak NT and rebids 2m, you'll sometimes improve the contract and sometimes make it worse. Your chances of improving it are greater playing some kit over 1M:1N, 2C, which I doubt would be appropriate, so, all things being equal I would pass 1N with minimum weak NTs. However, you'll probably find there are some hands in your 1NT response that definitely would rather partner didn't pass - single-suited invites, weak 3-card raises and invitational 3-card raises. The more of these you have in your 1NT response, the more case there is for playing it as totally forcing.

Is the fact that you've decided to post the hand AI or UI?

I agree that the pair in question are giving MI. Disclosing accurately in every situation is tricky, though, as defensive situations cannot always be placed into neat boxes in the same way that most [occurring] auctions can be. If a couple of vague statements about when you might show attitude instead of count is considered insufficient, you'll often have no choice but to state how you intend to take partner's card, which we already know to be incorrect procedure. BTW, my normal agreement is "attitude unless attitude is known, in which case, count". How far is that off sufficient disclosure in your opinion, Jeremy?

Agreed, I was going to say something similar, and that's despite not being a fan of superficially similar arguments - eg "never pass a forcing bid, if you do then partner will just punt 3NT next time". If partner is weak, seems to be struggling for focus or has just let through a slam, saving him is reasonable. If there are no such indications you have to trust him.

Yup, thanks, fixed.

The one in the title, sorry, I'll edit my post.

3D-X-5D-X; P-? What do you bid now with a minimum 5404? It feels like you have to bid 5H to cater to partner having 4+H and 2S. If so, what does 3D-X-5D-X; P-5S show?

He didn't know he needed the club finesse until he found out trumps were 3-0

Something like QTxx KQTxxxx x x with declarer? East needs to fly ace of trumps otherwise declarer will take the club finesse and pitch his spades.

I received this lead problem through the grapevine, the doubler felt that it was obvious to try a minor suit here. The hand from my POV has already been discussed: http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/55736-you-thought-this-would-be-a-claimer/page__p__668817__fromsearch__1#entry668817

I had a similar situation recently [1S-(2S)-2N, which my partner had decided would be Jacoby, rather than bidding 3H UCB like I'd have expected]. We were ruled against for my failure to alert/my partner's failure to correct the lack of alert. I thought the ruling was wrong then and I still do.

Shame about Zia's comment, he could've claimed he had it all planned from the time he played the spade back - I am yet to find any other merit to the play!

East has to play CJ at T12 looking like he has KJ left

If West pitches down to Kx club then ducks it you might go off playing for the over?

I haven't checked if it stands up to any analysis, but perhaps you were worried Zia had switched to Qx spade.

[hv=pc=n&s=s82hkqj8532d84c63&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=4hdp4sppdppp]133|200|Do you lead a trump, a heart, or a minor card? Has the double changed your decision? IMP scoring.[/hv]

BTW, RHO had KQJT of diamonds so probably thought he was being triple squeezed for 13! Sadly my four wasn't quite upto the job :rolleyes:

Interesting, Rainer. You initially posted a line very similar to mine, but you've now edited it to be more like Tony Forrester's :( My line was - T1: ruff T2: HA, RHO dropping HT T3: CQ-x-x-T - it felt like I was better placed if CQ lost to have not cashed the second trump but I think that was fuzzy logic I then ran off all my trumps, and reached a similar end-position to Rainer's in the "decline to ruff" scenario: [hv=pc=n&s=sj4hd4ca93&n=sakt9hdcj5]133|200[/hv] Is there a technical advantage to taking [or not taking] the club finesse before cashing the last two trumps? Does our end-position have a name? I am terrible with squeeze terminology. So, which line is better, continuing clubs or drawing trumps? I thought the latter, as it has slightly better chances of an overtrick.

It's 12-board matches, with 36 VPs awarded for IMPs and 24 awarded for BAM [2 VPs for gaining IMPs on a board, 1 VP for a flat board]. When you cash the second trump, RHO shows out.