jodepp

Wow, what a super line Rainer came up with :)

I think I'm about to irk everyone who has responded so far :) I think everyone who thinks 3♦ isn't forcing for one round is falling prey to "Mad Hatter" thinking ("my bids mean exactly what I want them to mean"). Consider the problem parameters: 1) We bid a new suit at a (much) higher level; 2) That suit is higher-ranking than the one we opened; 3) If partner prefers our first suit, partner must prefer it at the 4-level. To me, these thoughts say 'forcing'. IMO it isn't fair to make partner guess what our intentions are; 3♦ is likely to be interpreted as 'forcing' by it's nature.

Play the ♥6 (slightly preferable to the 5 - there are more possible holdings for West to ponder that make the 4 discouraging). Playing low can't be right, given the problem parameters.

Thirty years ago you bid 4♣. My crazy uncle would have bid 3♥. 'Law'yers would Pass. Preempts make you guess; sometimes you guess right, sometimes you guess wrong. Now, if you're asking which action rates to be the winning one: who knows? Pass throws the board (and likely the match) up in the air; if you Pass and are wrong, it's your fault. Teammates generally don't like it when a member takes a losing view like this one. I'll try to win the match on some other board - flip a coin and pick between 3♥ and 4♣. 'Total Tricksters' would scoff, but Edgar Kaplan would smile at you from beyond the pearly gates.

Anyone care to unblock the ♦9 at trick one? The auction: If south wants to pass that hand, I'd say fine. If playing a strong club I think 1♥ looks right. It's not my type of suit for 2♥, but I'm a curmudgeon. North's 1♠ is totally misguided, unless playing in a 'devil-may-care' style. It worked though when South was able to buy it at 2♥. If this was matchpoints I'd say put up the ♥K and play for down 2 if not vul. The opponents appear to have the balance of power and a club fit, so -100 rates to be a good score.

I don't think the hand is worth a jump shift to 2♠, on the grounds that the suits you have are full of holes. IMO a jump shift should look like: ♠KQJx ♥x ♦AKJ10xx ♣Ax 1♠ is enough for me on the thread hand. I can accept a 2NT rebid without totally agreeing with it.

If XYZ was 'on', 3♠ seems clear although I think the third call isn't obvious (suppose partner simply raises to 4♠ for example - we're back in the same boat. If that sequence demands a cuebid it's fine but not everybody plays that). Soapbox time - wouldn't a strong jump shift help here originally :)

Is this a Grosvenor coup? Yes, and even though the line chosen by declarer wasn't optimal I'm reminded of an old golfers' saying: "You're not a true golfer until you hit your first tree." You're also not a bridge player unless you've been Grosvenored at least twice :)

Either with a new-suit bid, a jump in a new suit (which many play as a splinter), or as stated previously: Jacoby-then-4NT is quantitative; Texas-then-4NT is ace-asking. One other caveat - playing this structure, jacoby-then-jump-to-game-in-the-major is a mild slam try without side-suit shortness. BTW, I would think your 5♦ would be a tentative 'accept' of the slam try with four diamonds, checking for a diamond fit and offering to play in 6♦. Even though that's not what you meant, your partner dropped the ball by passing 5♦. It's forcing to at least 5♥.

This may seem simplistic, but in my partnerships where a double of a strong notrump is penalty we have the agreement that 'we never pull them'. I heartily concur about the wisdom of not doubling with big balanced hands stated previously (unless one is practically looking at the setting tricks in their hand). We found that the doubler just got frustrated when partner yanked, so we just agreed to 'always sit'. This is isn't perfect to be sure, but it does smooth out the partnership aspect.

Fair enough. A favorite partner and I have an agreement about 2NT on hands like this - 2NT by responder simply shows a desire to compete (probably in opener's minor but sometimes the other minor too). Thus 3♣ would be forcing (and help suit).

This is an interesting problem. I like support doubles but if you haven't discussed follow-ups they can hurt you as much as they help you. If you treat the double as the equivalent of raising spades, then your whole system - help-suit, short-suit, whatever they may be - can be played as 'on'. Thus, 3♣/♦/♥ would all be forcing. I would pick 3♣ followed by 4♣, to make sure partner knows I only have four spades in a strong hand. I wouldn't call 3♦ or 3♥ wrong either. As with most problems of this type, 'eye of the beholder' applies.

It is my understanding that 1♠-X-3♠ is standard, and thus SAYC.

I agree that bidding 2♠ implies 5+ diamonds. As to what to do with this hand, I suppose double seems obvious, but I could understand a pass at matchpoints.

This may seem odd, but isn't a negative double just about automatic at IMPs?

Isn't this just an adaptation of the principle that bidding a new suit after a quantitative acceptance says 'let's look for a fit before committing to notrump"? 5NT would appear to be an acceptance of the try (those who suggest that it asks for a 'max invite' are trying too hard IMO). The 5NT bidder sounds like he has a prime hand that has a ruffing value in a major and is simply checking back for club support or maybe a 4-4 major fit. Additional caveat: The 5NT bidder probably doesn't have four diamonds - he would take the pressure off by bidding 6D after 4NT. 6D by the 4NT asker therefore implies having a fifth diamond. A possible 5=3 diamond fit could yield an extra trick if the 5NT bidder has a major-suit doubleton.

I'm not sure I get what your saying. It is a practical impossibility to distinguish among some 3- and 4-card limit+ raises in competitive auctions, given that most players play a direct jump raise as preemptive. Also I'm not sure 'what I'm not appreciating'. The thread hands have only three trumps.

On the first hand: IMO one should not go headhunting with unannounced support for partner's suit, so even if a penalty double were available I wouldn't use it. I might try 2NT (if natural) at the table (maybe even 3NT if partner's opening bid style was 'sound'). In any event, I have no quarrel with a cuebid raise or a simple raise - it's an 'eye of the beholder' hand. The second auction seems like a straightforward cuebid raise though (if I read the auction and hand correctly).

IMO this depends on form of scoring. If matchpoints (or BAM) you try 3NT and hold your breath. If IMPs, 4C seems a bit more accurate, investigating slam.

I'm interested in the 'bad press', which I haven't heard anything about. Can anyone expound on that?

First, is it OK to state I don't like ANY of the first three actions? :) I don't think they're wrong, just not my style (of course, I'm an old curmudgeon). North obviously knows just about everyone in this auction is light, and on basic principles in should be the opponents; 1♦ should be based on SOMETHING, not just a diamond suit (else what's the point of it). Given that this appears to be 'our' hand, it appears our choices depend on methods available. If 'snapdragon' is on and you double, you might survive 1♠ from overcaller with a 'jump correction' to 3♦ even though I confess the hand isn't 'classic' for snapdragon. Overcaller will know to 'correct back' to 3♠, although I don't see North stopping below game (which looks hopeless). If snapdragon wasn't available, I guess I'd just start with a cuebid (probably 2♥), raising overcaller's 2♠ to 3♠. This hand should show why a 1♦ overcall on South's cards is a long-term loser.

Maybe if East was looking at the cards in hand rather than the vulnerability, a good descriptive bid might have been made. I enjoy the discussion so far on the 'legality' issues of explaining that 3♥ was 'weak'. I admit that (if I was defending) if that dummy came down and I heard that explanation (weak), I'd be a bit miffed. I might be consoled that the opponents missed game because of the 'wrong bid at the wrong time'. But if there's damage of some type because of the explanation of 'weak', I don't think there's much a director could do. The only thing that should be done is have West review with East (after the session) the differences between 'weak' and 'constructive' in their system. The opponents are not entitled to restitution because East apparently isn't sure what 'weak' is supposed to mean.

Why would one want to be in 6NT from West's side? If East bids what's in front of his nose on the third round (2NT instead of 2♠) West might raise quantitatively to 4NT and East will go on, but let's be honest here - this is a pretty optimistic sequence by both players. I don't think this slam falls into the 'easily biddable' category. I think East's 2♠ is silly. Yes, it can't be misunderstood (can't show four spades) but should be reserved for hands that have anti-positional values, something like: Axx xx xx AKJxxx East's 'cute' 2♠ threw a monkey wrench in the works.

I'm a little vague on 'last train' - given the thread auction, does 'last train' - if the partnership uses the principle - simply say 'I'm slammish without a spade control'?