JanisW

I am always amased at how little credit is given to WJO. There is no reason to asume that RHO does not have what he promised. If it started pass-1♣-2♠ I might agree to take it slightly less serious. As it is Kxx might be a better spade-holding than KQ tight. So 3♣ it is. Partner will have 4♣, unless he either is 4423 3433 4333. Neither holding is paricularly likely given the bidding. Regards JanisW

The given hand is a perfectly reasonable 12count. Yes the ♠J might not be great but 11 of your 12 HCP are well placed. I'd much rather open this, than Qx QJx Qxxx AJxx If you would not open 1m and rebid 1NT, there was no reason to claim that a 1NT-rebid showed 12-14 whatsoever. The only question is whether you'd open without the ♠J or KJ♦ instead of KQ. Arguably you will reach some thin games and will fail to bring them home on some occasions, but in my opinion, the blame lies not with opening these 12counts. More often your P will have been overly ambitious with a flat 12count or the suits just did not break your way.

How was the bidding? 2♣ - 2♦ 2NT - 3♣ 3♦ - 3NT? If so, I think your partner was a little cautious with a decent 9 count. I hope I'd be able to bid like that with my fave Partner 2♣-2♦ 2NT - 3♣ 3♦ - 4NT (quantitative) 6♣ - P obvious with 3 to the K regards JW

Collecting 150 might still be great, as it outscores anything you can make below game. And game is not that likely given that our Partner could not act over 1♦ though most likely short 3NT needs spades well stopped as ♦ are easily double stopped 4♥ might be played in a 4-3 fit and fail due to ♠-wastage reagrds JW

This is a such a maximum 3♠-bid, that you want Partner to accept with less than is considered sufficient. But it is also no 4♠-bid yet, as everybody responded 1♠ to 1♣ where 3♠ might already be tough to make. The reason I advocate bidding 3♠ are: LTC = 6 poor ♠-suit I'd much rather have AQxx,Axxx,Ax,Axx no intermediates whatsoever to potentially complement some Quacks P might hold. QJxx♣ is so much more powerful if you bring the T to the party... regards JW

Did forget about Acol so 4SF followed by 4♠ it is, as cyberyeti said.

Sorry for the multiple post.

I mislike the 4SF bid, too. And I don't think East should be too ambitious about slam. HCP-wise it's slim anyway and the hand is at least a partial misfit with shortness in openers second suit and a likely shortage of opener in ♣ or ♦. Unless opener has some nice feature(s) (6th ♠, no secondary ♥ honours, something useful in ♣ or top of his range) slam is likely to be poor. So 3♠ followed by a sign-off it is, to show the fit and mild SI.

I mislike the 4SF bid, too. And I don't think East should be too ambitious about slam. HCP-wise it's slim anyway and the hand is at least a partial misfit with shortness in openers second suit and a likely shortage of opener in ♣ or ♦. Unless opener has some nice feature(s) (6th ♠, no secondary ♥ honours, something useful in ♣ or top of his range) slam is likely to be poor. So 3♠ followed by a sign-off it is, to show the fit and mild SI.

I mislike the 4SF bid, too. And I don't think East should be too ambitious about slam. HCP-wise it's slim anyway and the hand is at least a partial misfit with shortness in openers second suit and a likely shortage of opener in ♣ or ♦. Unless opener has some nice feature(s) (6th ♠, no secondary ♥ honours, something useful in ♣ or top of his range) slam is likely to be poor. So 3♠ followed by a sign-off it is, to show the fit and mild SI.

It's close between 4♣ and 3♠. 3♥ should show 5, 3NT has to have a ♦stopper. With a ♦ stopper and nothing special partner would've bid 3NT on his own. So the question is: is AK doubleton enough support for a 4♣bid? Partner might have x,Kx,Axx,QJxxxxx where 5♣ is an easy make and 3NT might go down. But we might as well land in 6♣ because partner believes us to be 5413 for our 4♣ bid... I voted 3♠ with the intention of passing a subsequent 3NT and raising 4♣ to 5.

Should've been more precise with my wording. 6♣ propably is an easy make on the actual layout, but there is no way to get there. And truth be told, you do not want to be there.

6♣ from South is propably an easy make...but I do not know how to get there...

South is much too good for declining with 3♠. He could be missing the ♥Q and would have bid the same way. Not bidding 4♠ is not unreasonable, since you don't want to be in game opposite a bad 4342 11 count, particulalrly with Qx♣ But South clearly has to make one more forward going bid with 3♥. Showing values in ♥ and asking Partner to choose between 3/4 ♠. With his undisclosed 5th trump North would've easily bid 4♠. 3♠ is to much a stop sign and North has to respect that decission. regards JW

You are right of course, I forgot about the 5th ♥. I do know about the need to split honours in order to ruff low, and just assumed this was an examplary case, but the 5th ♥ means this effort is in vain. If South were 3442, you would actually need to split honours (checked with DeepFinesse). Did not pay enough attention. My bad.

I assumed 6keycard-responses in this sequence, which might not be stupid at all. The ♥K will almost be as important as the ♠K in this sequence.

I have to split my honours. The Club Looser will always disappear on ♥ or ♦. Therefore if I duck and N correctly guesses to play low, I will have to use my Trump-winner to ruff a ♦ or ♥. If I split honours and keep a small trump, I will be able to ruff low and cash my master-trump. NS have no time to avoid that, because they have to get rid of their ♣-looser first.

Our rule set for 4NT is 1) if 4NT is needed as a natural limiting call, it is that. 2) if 4NT is needed for take-out, it is that 3) if it is none of the above, it is RKCB Typical examples for 1) are 1NT-4NT of course, but also something like 1♠-(2♣)-2♥-(P) 2♠-(P)-3NT -(4♣) where we have bid 3NT to play. Applying these rules: 1 through 4 is natural/quantative 4 is a bit tricky though, P might easily be 7-5 in the black-suits and we should not have a singleton club for our bidding. So he might reply as if 4NT was Ace-asking. I'd take a 5♦-reply as a 7-5 hand with 3 Keys...As I said it is a bit tricky. 5 clearly is RKCB for ♥ regards JanisW

Of course, East should not have left (very poor showing), but I think his criticism of the double is correct. I consider it a pour call with a spade void. With a six-Looser count, I'd have gone the low route of 1♥. The auction is very unlikely to end there, considering how many Spades I hold. If the hand were a bit stronger, I would've rather bid 4♥ than double. Opposite a passed partner I recall some good results with simply bidding what I'm hoping to make. regards JW

The proposed form of deciding a game is actually not unknown in sports. In fact it is used in Icehockey. Russia went on to beat Germany in the olympic final playing 4 vs 4 (actually 4-3 because of a 2min suspension) compared to 5-5(4). The idea has some merit, but if it ever was to become relevant, it would have to replace OT and not start only after OT is finished. Also I think 6 vs 6 is a bit too much, more reasonable would be 8-8 or 9-9. Note that this could go on forever, therefore you would have to force a decission at some point. If you really wanted to avoid penalties you would need a tiebraker, like less red/yellow cards received. Another option (f.e. used in chess) is to force one side to win. If all else was tied, the World Championship in chess can possibly be decided in a game where White has to win, but added to the first move advantage gets to play with 5min vs 4min for black. Translating that into Football, would mean something like, playing 10 vs 9 in a 30min OT (or other numbers in case of any red cards suffered) and the team that had to remove a player wins in case of a tie after OT. regards JW

You should not stop short of game. It might go down, especially if the ♠A is missing and led followed by another trump, but it's worth the try. A possible reason to bid 3♠ is, that you hope to bid 4♠ over 4♥ and make them Oppos think, that they pushed you into an infeasible game and let you play there. However, looking at ♥AQxx they're not going to bid 4♥ very often... I know someone in my club, against whom I might take that approach. I'm not entirely sure how much I want to involve partner in a possible 5lvl-decision. It's quite unlikely that either opponent bids 5♥ in the first place and secondly the wasted ♥Q severly lowers my ODR. I have 5♥ beat in my own hand and partner needs perfect cards for only bidding 2♠ and 5♠ being on. Something like KJxx,x,Kxxx,xxxx is no 2♠-bid for most and if he has that 5♥ is going to be painful :) If the ♥Q were a small ♥ and in return a small ♠ the ♠K, I would strongly consider bidding 4♣, because now 5♥ will not nearly be as painful and partner is much more likely to only bid 2♠ with 5♠ being on anyway, if he has no ♣-wastage

I guess, whether 2♣-2♦ 2♥-3♣ 3♥ is forcing, depends on what constitutes a second negative in your system. What other bid is responder supposed to invent, besides 4♥, if 3♣ already denied any values (0-3HCP)? Well he could cue-bid a king if he had one and bid 4♥ otherwise. You'd trade to be able to stop in 3♥ for slams where you only need one specific King. Might be reasonable. I cannot imagine playing responders 3rd bid to be natural? IF 3♣ just denied suitable values (Fit/Controls) in the context of a 2♥-rebid and could still be something like Jxx,x,Qxxx,QJxxx then 3♥ has to be forcing. But I guess forcing this decent 6count to go through 3♣ leads to other problems. On the actual Hand: You have to choose your poison before opening this Hand. It's either 2♣, because you are too strong for a 3♥-rebid and the suit is too bad for a 4♥-rebid. The other option is to fake a Jumpshift with 3♦, which has ist own problems.

[hv=pc=n&s=saq65h5dq532cT932&w=s7hakt932d94cj654&n=skj82hq876dk87ck7&e=st943hj4dajt6caq8]399|300[/hv] If you stay put E-W will score +170 once you told E about the singleton ♠ in W they'll score 420 or 590 can't blame P for doubling 4♥ The deal actually is quite a good example that a borrowed ♣K is not as good as if the ♣K were in South I concede that balancing can gain a lot at MPs +50 in3♥-1 vs -110 in 2♥= or -50 in 2♠-1 vs -140 in 2♥+1 But at IMPs I really think it's terrible. regards JW

I totally agree with not selling out to 2♥ cheaply. If it came around to me like that [hv=pc=n&n=saq32h2dq532ct932&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1hp2hpp]133|200[/hv] I'd consider doubling, hoping to push them into 3♥ or play 2♠. Because both opp have limited their strength and there is a known fit I have a lot of more safety for my action in the pass-out-seat. Much more so if it went 1♥ - P - P - ? In the actual example the passer is only limited to the point, where he would've forced the bidding with 2NT. The deal may totally look like that (though certainly max for East) [hv=pc=n&w=s42haq9643dk32c84&e=sk983hj2da54caq32]266|100[/hv] where 2♥ makes, where do we play? Or that [hv=pc=n&w=s42haq9643dk2c864&e=st9853hj2daj9caq3]266|100[/hv] Here we'll play 3♦X, which will be so much fun :) In my opinion you should be sound in balancing after a weak2, because one opp is almost unlimited, which makes all the difference. regards JW

the K of ♣ :) On a more serious note, unless the ?? were the A♥ I would not consider to X and probably not even then. The pass by my righthand opponent is quite frightening. If he were weak with some ♥s he would've bid 3/4♥ so he either has some strength or no ♥s, which either leaves my P with ♥ length and the hand is a misfit or weak and righty is waiting to pull the trigger on us. Yeah, we migfht miss somethng profitable, but we might also score -300 in 3♣X-2 when +50 was available for 2♥-1 regards JW