heart76

If you lead a ♥ to the Q and it holds, should you assume that the A is with W or are there layouts where E would duck?

Given E's play, I would have guessed him for short ♣. If this holds true, ♣ are likely to be a one-side menace sitting after the tenace. Since playing ♦ modifies entries for the squeeze and since also I would never play a ♥ finesse with these premises, I would cross in dummy with ♥A and cashed 2 ♠. This would confirm the probable distribution in E.

But what is it: a preempt or a descriptive bid? I'm asking because I believe it doesn't achieve either! Agree, but 1S promises 4 cards. With 6 and a bad hand you can safely bid 1S here. It is MUCH better than 3S, cause if your pd than raises S you can than safely raise to 3 or 4 as you have denied 8+ points. If your pd passes or bids a suit of his own, the picture changes. I'm sorry but when you say "expect" and "textbook" you are assuming pd does not have a strong one-suiter and you are trying to place a LoTT bid in the replies to a TOX. Btw, one fundamental prerequisite of the "wrap-up" LoTT rule (bid UP to the level of the number of trumps in your line) is that opponents actually have a fit. Do they?

Is this irony or are you actually serious? :) Edit as I read another post saying the same. Who is 3♠ preempting? It is based on pure supposition that it will preempt the opponents to reach game in ♥! Fact is, do you want to preempt? Open 2♠. You missed the chance AND you RHO bids after your pd's TOX? PASS: - the opponents do not have a fit yet, so your supposedly LoTT bid is thrown out blind - if your pd reopens then you have a 2nd chance for your ♠ I guess the whole thing goes back to the original point: can the TOX contain a hand without ♠ tolerance? If you don't allow this you have some kind of consistency, I suppose also with the school of "sound" weak 2s that have to start from 7(?) HCP.

One thing I always do on a post mortem is to look back at what went wrong before you got stuck. Although some have absolute criteria to decide anything, much more is left to partnership agreement nowadays. So if you run and don't listen you never learn. I would open a preemptive 2♠ or multi with E's cards. White vs red, a void in H, as low as 2-3 HCP. You miss the chance in the first round and then decide to preempt over partner's TOX? With 6 bad cards?? No way. You don't even have to bid, so bid a calm 1♠ now or chicken out again and pass. Ask yourself: who am I preempting? If p has ♠, I take away the space to decide about bidding 4. If he doesn't... 3NT is not nice either. I'd ask what the double is and pass and wait for the bad news or XX if it's AGREED as SOS. We may play a lesser evil in 4♣ or 4♥. Where do I put the blame? 3♠ gets 90% for me. I understand the expectation of tolerance for the other 3 suits, but that does not apply to strong hands. Like the 2♣ opening it's generally 20/22+ points, but it's also less with 9 tricks... 10% goes to 3NT. Just 10% since it did not get X and it got removed to 4♠ anyway! Actually, this makes me reconsider: E had not learnt to preempt right away beforehand; was inconsistent in his 2nd bid and did not learn anything from p's 3NT...

Specific partnership agreement is required. 4NT as RKCB here is basic level (KISS); jump to the other major slam invitational w/support while 4NT quantitative more advanced, most likely besides Texas+4NT as RKCB to differentiate hands; I think any system construction around (semi)artificial 3m bid for serious partnership is possible. As 2NT denies 4 ♥ and 6 ♠, for me 4NT is 100% quantitative with 5-6 ♦. Playing 2/1, 3♠ would be 3 cards support and at least mild slam invitational. 3♣/3♥ is asking opener to confirm a sound stop in the unbid suit at 3NT. 3♣ can contain a slam invitational hand in a minor, e.g. 6 ♦ or 5-5+, which would re-open partner's 3NT. 3♦ would be 6+, looking for 3NT or a slam. Outside 2/1 it would be again quantitative, with a bit different meaning for the other bids. 4♣ is usually for me natural and slam invitational. It is also possible to allow it as Gerber, where 4♦ would be RKCB in ♣. Another option is Minorwood. If 4♣ is natural and slam invitational, then 4NT denies 3 cards in support and shows a weak 5332. I suppose one could agree that a such specific sequence shows 6+ ♣ and 5 ♠, at least slam invitational, but this is far away from my style. 100% RKCB in ♥. 4th suit forcing would be the way to reach a 4NT quantitative, denying support for opener's suits.

100% penalties. You are in a forcing situation, so pass is forcing and denies a ♥ stop. If you think of it, ♥ are 4441 and he's pulling the trigger out of the points you've promised. I'd bid 2♠ now, partner will think a bit and bid either 3NT or 4♠, assuming he's limited. What's 3♣ after their X? Not weak, since 2♣ shows less than 10.

I played my last match against broze but he did not play the boards. It looks like it can be decisive, if not for me for some of the other players. Broze, can you send me the challenge again when you're available to play? Heart76

Heart76 / Gszes : 42 / 12 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:a7e09a51.6900.11e8.ab4e.0cc47a39aeb4-1528231217&u=heart76

Heart76 - ArtK78 : 25 - 21 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:300ec789.6833.11e8.ab4e.0cc47a39aeb4-1528142969&u=heart76

Heart76 - Stephen Tu : 22 - 19 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:84a54676.6687.11e8.ab4e.0cc47a39aeb4-1527959286&u=heart76

I would assume, since I can't ask, that 2H implies a 4+ minor, i.e. C. Both lines around 20 points, they may have 7 H and a C fit. Assuming also partner has less than 14/15 and less than 4 S, a double is not in the picture for me, too risky to find partner with just 4 H. 2S seems right and now partner has to bid only if he's 5-5 in the minors with 1 S.

Well that depends on partner's values. At IMPs it's not even a problem. Are 3H / 3S responses to 2NT opening for the minors looking for a 3-card support with max values to play 4M?

This falls inside my 2NT opening range when I have it among the agreements. If I don't and I feel I shall trust the minors' god and open, I'm glad 2H from partner is a weakish 6 card and pass. In your case, it depends what non-forcing bid you have. If 2NT is non-forcing, as I would assume, then be it and hope to go down 1. If partner reopens that in 3m or 3H, I pass. If 2NT is invitational from your side, it's either 3C if non-forcing or pass. Now I'm also wondering if I actually understand what kind of hand 2H can be. Can he be strong and just interested to hear about a honoured spade fragment? In this case I would go for 2S, unless it's game force.

IMHO bypassing a 5-card ♦ is not ideal. You can miss a fit or get in trouble reopening, as a X would ideally show either 4-4 minors or be penalty oriented. Agree with MrAce that 2♠ here is the most logic, unless you would like to open for penalties when partner has 4 ♥. That would be for me the only difference between 2♠ and X. I would first bid 1♦ and then X after their 1H and pass from partner, both with 3-2-5-3 and 3-1-5-4. Also, letting the opponent bid 1♥ gives partner the possibility to X with ♠. And, in case you first bid 1NT and then X, partner would never bid ♦ even with 3, because the chance you have 5 is reduced. So he would either bid 2♠ with 4 or 3♣ or pass with 4 ♥.

Well played. 2 misclicks in the last set (and an awful 1st set) made it hopeless for me. Good luck Mkgnao.

Results of R16 between heart76 and Broze: 1: 9 - 7 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:b340e8b7.2ee2.11e8.9789.0cc47a39aeb4-1521841183&u=heart76 2: 10 - 6 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:9e6b0c83.313a.11e8.9789.0cc47a39aeb4-1522098847&u=heart76 3: 7 - 9 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:825bfb52.32b6.11e8.9789.0cc47a39aeb4-1522262008&u=heart76 4: 8 - 8 http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:1976e3d1.3394.11e8.9789.0cc47a39aeb4-1522357181&u=heart76 Total: heart76 34 - Broze 30

X. Does not promise 4 ♠ in a good hand. After pass - 2♠, since W didn't bid 3♥, either he is too weak or he has 2 or less. In either case, 3♥ seems right now. It should also show exactly what we have: stronger than 15/16 HCP, no 5 card suit, probably less than 4 ♠, unless in a monster hand. If partner has Qxx in ♥ should bid 3NT, knowing you are probably looking for a half stop in the suit. If he bids a side 4+ cards suit, I go for 4♠ with 7. Optimistic?

All 4 sets between heart76 and El Mister. Shown % scoring for heart76: 1) 34.38% : http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:4f1850f6.2542.11e8.9789.0cc47a39aeb4-1520782735&u=heart76 2) 59.38% : http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:ac93089d.26f0.11e8.9789.0cc47a39aeb4-1520967576&u=heart76 3) 68.75% : http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:c51b74e5.28ef.11e8.9789.0cc47a39aeb4-1521187090&u=heart76 4) 43.75% : http://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:695165f1.2a09.11e8.9789.0cc47a39aeb4-1521308054&u=heart76 Total: 208.26% against 191.74%.

The full deal as played: [hv=pc=n&sn=heart76&s=SA2HKJT32D2CAKQ92&wn=Robot&w=SJT95H976DQJT6C65&nn=Robot&n=SK643HAQ854DAK7C4&en=Robot&e=SQ87HD98543CJT873&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=P1H(5+)P2N!(Jacoby)P4C(SideSuit)P4D(Cue)P4N(RKCB)P5S(2+Q)P5N(Ks?)P6D(!DK)P7N(-)PPP&p=S7SAS5S3H2H9HAD3HQD5H3H7H4C3HKH6HJD6H5D4HTC6H8D8D2DTDAD9DKS8C2DQC4CTCAC5CKDJS4C7&c=13]400|300|[/hv] Yep, and I went for it. Good that GIB chose the right (for me) pointy suit (♠), otherwise I'm one down. Per A.Moon's book, in this position, one should cash also the last heart to fully clarify the position, since the suit that must be played next is the one that the tripled-squeezed opponent has abandoned (in the play it was obviously ♦, so it was easy). This is possible since there are 2 free cards (here the ♥) opposite the squeeze cards (what Moon calls an unrestricted position). As I wrote in the post, my evaluation of 7♥ was 100%. I assume the outcome of that contract to be 60% or so in a slightly-above-average context. The evaluation of the possible useful cards if 7NT is not laydown, i.e. ♠Q, ♣J, ♣ length, ♦Q, plus the additional chance of a squeeze, made the case to 7NT. Life is short :) The squeeze (compound in this case) gives you the 13th trick every time when: (a) E has 4+♣ and does not lead ♦ (b) E has ♣J10x on whichever lead I think this should correspond to the 23% chance you calculated. Before seeing the double-dummy, you still have the chance of an extra card. So for me it depends a bit on the context.

Well, it's GIB standard, so: 2NT = game force, typ. 4 card support 4♣ = 5-card ♣, typ. a good suit 4♦ = cuebid

Posting this interesting hand I played in an MP arena challenge. East led a small ♠. Can you figure the line for 13 tricks? If you wonder about the bidding, it went: 1♥ - 2NT / 4♣ - 4♦ / 4NT - 5♠ / 5NT - 6♦ / 7NT. Of course, at IMPs one goes for 7♥, which looks laydown already from the bidding with a ♣ ruff in dummy. But at MPs and with 12 tricks from the top... [hv=pc=n&s=sa2hkjt32d2cakq92&n=sk643haq854dak7c4]133|200[/hv]

The "1NT 100% forcing" version of 2/1 rebids in a 3-card suit. The "1NT semi-forcing" version lets you pass with a dreadful 5332.

The off-topic first. I am not an expert but I'm posting since the topic is interesting :) When you say the hand was played by experts, I feel I have to assume that a 15-17 HCP 5332 would have opened 1NT, or that they are using another range for that opening. With at least 15 and a 5-4+, he would not pass 1NT, so he is limited to 14, and he would not have 6♠ or a shape with a singleton, since that would move away from NT anyway (someone disagrees above). So I place W with 5-2-3-3 or 5-2-(42), which is probably 5-2-2-4. 1NT is a fine place to be most of the time. But the more I think of it, the less I can figure out why one would takeout over their 2♥ at IMPs without a singleton there, which leads me to think that his pass over 1NT was some kind of a gamble. That's probably one of the reasons why I'm not an expert :) However, I like the reasoning of JanisW in her (?) first post, i.e. that a combined 7-trump suit would work better in ♦ than in ♠ as you ruff ♥ from the right side. I think I would have bid 2♠, unless JanisW reasoning would have gotten to me too before clicking.

Please, sign me in too.