KingCovert

I think he's pretty clear. Beginners tend to simply play their smallest card when following suit, and pay little attention to their signals. You won't be able to differentiate when they're actually signalling and when they're being lazy or inattentive if you play upside down carding with them. However, if a beginner plays a surprisingly high card, either it's a standard signal, or a signal of a rather surprising break in the suit. You can infer information. I'm not saying that I believe that this is enough reason to teach beginners standard carding, or to suppose that it is better, I prefer upside down carding, and I think that it's just simply better some small percentage of the time, and standard carding is better an even smaller percentage of the time. But, his position is certainly rational.

I think you mistake the primary reason that people play transfers. One does not play transfers to "right-side" a contract. You play transfers because they are forcing and allow you to have sequences for multiple hand types. If 2♥ and 2♠ are natural, you get to choose, are they forcing? What are the rest of your agreements? How do you find 4-4 major suit fits? And, after considering these questions, do you think the resulting system would be any good at all? "right-siding" the contract opposite a strong no-trump is just a minor gain in the grand scheme of things.

Hehe, yeah, 1♦ is a Game-Forcing reply. I think the meanings of the bids are all highlighted on the post, and you can hover them to see their meanings. We play Canape in this sequence, so, South will introduce the shorter suit of a two-suited hand first. After my 3♦ raise, which is simultaneously a cue-bid showing the A or K of ♦, possibly both, we've agreed a 4-4 or better fit, and we're no longer interested in finding a different fit, 4-4 fits are just simply better a significant majority of the time. We'd usually start cue-bidding, but this is a key-card auction from South's perspective. As for the likelihood of these slams making, the odds are too good to pass up. Defenders make mistakes far too often, or the correct play is simply not the winning play. If one only played slam when it made 100% of the time, they'd be an incredibly mediocre bridge player. 5-0 diamond break, or a 4-0 spade break when the player with 4 spades is on lead are just incredibly unlikely occurrences. The player on lead also has to find a spade lead, in this case, in an auction where spades were never mentioned, and from a rather lackluster suit. Players will tend to make passive leads (usually correctly) against slams, and grands especially. So, I'd say, if your small slam is about 60% to make, you should play it, and if your grand slam is about 75-80% to make, you should play it. Possibly more aggressively than that. Although at IMPs, it really just depends on the state of the match.

[hv=pc=n&s=sak8643hakdk932ck&w=sq95ht9652dt854c5&n=sj72h7daqj7cat976&e=sthqj843d6cqj8432&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=1c(15%2B)p1d(GF)p2d(4%2BD%2C%20Canape%20Style)p3d(4%2BD%2C%20A%2FK%20of%20D)p4n(1430)p5s(2%20w%2F%20Queen)p7d]399|300[/hv] That's the full layout and our auction. It doesn't make on a club lead. Fortunately, I received the singleton spade lead. I was mostly curious as to how many people would reliably find the diamond fit, it's not so easy for 2/1 players to avoid the small slam in spades or NT. I agree with many in this thread though, I think it's a good grand to play, just rather hard to find.

I considered this when making the post, but, alas, I have no way to get useful feedback without providing both. :( I'll wait a little while longer before posting my auction and the full hand. Although, honestly, I think both are irrelevant. They just distract peoples' attention from what actually matters, which is the process/methodology. **shrug**

I had a game at the bridge club last night, and this was one of the hands. I'm curious what contract you'd arrive at, how you'd get there, etc... I'll post the full hand later. :) [hv=pc=n&s=sak8643hakdk932ck&w=shdc&n=sj72h7daqj7cat976&e=shdc]399|300[/hv] South is dealer. It's IMPs.

Well, while a basic one, 1♣-1♦-X is a special double. Some people just play double to show values, because they don't know any better. When, in fact, double is best used to show (or deny) shape, of course, depending on context the expected values will fluctuate. Think balancing doubles vs direct seat doubles. One of the important things about bridge is, and I can't speak as to whether this would apply to you, but certainly your partner on this hand: You don't understand any of your options (in terms of available bids) unless you understand all of them. Some might disagree, but, you can't assert that you've chosen the correct line of bidding if you can't actually discern what's available and what they convey. Some would think that that is a high bar, but, ironically... Once you understand the principles behind why certain bids show certain holdings in situations, it completely organizes your agreements into an easier to remember structure.

I don't understand. Why does the 3N bidder want to be the captain of this hand with none of the information? Surely 3N has described this hand, and if South wanted to investigate slam over a flat 13-15 (or 14-16), maybe 4♠ was the wrong bid. 4♠ seems to be a sincere offer to play 4♠ over a hand that couldn't double 1♥. I don't understand how 4N can be keycard.

Depends on the scoring methods, 4♣ is definitely better than a double. I'm bidding 5♣, and 4♠ with a better hand than this.

I know that some people play McCabe Adjunct. I had agreed to play it once in a partnership. But, didn't use it much, I can't really speak to it's effectiveness. I don't presently play Weak Twos in my current partnership, so.... I don't really have any polished agreements I could personally provide. https://www.advinbridge.com/this-week-in-bridge/155a Basically, a new suit is a raise of partner's suit and lead directing. 2NT is either Ogust or Feature, depending on what you play. Conceivably, it could be used in other ways. XX is to show a new suit. Could you change the 2NT to be lebensohl as an escape to a new suit, and XX as values (possibly penalty of a new suit by opponents), where a new suit later would be stronger than a lebensohl sequence? Probably. Something like this should work out okay. EDIT: Upon reflection though, this last suggestion might just require you to disclose too much information. Might be counter-productive to tell opponents, "Partner just bid 2NT, so you really should compete now". Might be better to have the XX have a bit more uncertainty around it's strength. Probably wins you some boards.

I'm really not sure there's much to this discussion. It depends on your agreements. It can be the case that some agreements are bad, or that some people have little mastery of their agreements... But, this thread boils down to, "What do you think about someone ignoring their agreements and making the wrong opening bid according to their agreements?" Obviously, this is a bad idea. As for the actual decision, I'd open this hand 1♥ because I play Canape. In most other systems though... Is there some particular reason why I want to play in hearts on this hand? Seems like a greedy attempt to declare more-so than anything else. If you don't want to open this hand 1♣, because you're worried about finding a second bid, you have three choices, ranked in this order: 1) Pass 2) Find a better system. 3) Lie about your hand, erode partnership trust, and get a bad board 90% of the time.

I never really understand why people think intent is relevant. It's absolutely irrelevant. Laws should never be written to take into account intent. Taking intent into account just introduces the opportunity for either deception or bias. If someone had the best intentions, but violated the rules, they should receive the appropriate measures and a valuable lesson on the proper way to play the game. It is only a game, I don't think they'll die if they get a bad result on a hand, once. This is a very hot topic in sports as well, and any particular rules that take intent into account are inevitably misinterpreted and misapplied. Returning to the topic at hand, I think this sort of situation really does simplify down to something like: If declarer was holding 3 cards, and had two (or more) discernible lines of play, and not just the arbitrary 'Which irrelevant spade should I play towards my KJ on the board?' this statement of "I have the queen" would be a clear and obvious violation of the rules. Does having only two tricks remaining really change anything? I don't really see why anyone would want to encourage this type of behaviour at the table. Declarer can have the 13th club in this situation and perhaps just doesn't know for certain that they are holding a winning club, players do forget things. Claims aren't really valid unless they stand up to all possible lines of play, and to claim a trick that hasn't yet been promoted while not knowing the contents of someone's hand is not really a legal claim. Imagine when this claim is wrong, it's a nightmare. The laws exist for a good reason. One last thing that bothers me is that I read someone say that "these sorts of situations are common at the bridge club", the problem is, poor rulings on these situations created that common behaviour, to then turn around and use that as a justification for continued poor rulings is concerning.

I realize that East can count the hearts in this situation, but, why doesn't South hold a small heart that they are uncertain is winning, and spade? I'm going to assume they'd know to play the 13th club. In general, it's just bad practice to make defensive claims unless you have the REST of the tricks. The only exception I would make to this is when claiming guaranteed winners such as high trump, and conceding the rest. There's just too many ways defensive claims can go wrong when you're attempting to claim tricks that "should" win, and the UI that results is a disaster. If South had claimed the rest, and East was contesting this, of course this is a different situation... But, East should not be claiming here, they can't see declarer's hand and their trick still needs to be promoted. The rules may well be properly interpreted to provide a different ruling, but, if you told me that the penalty card was granted and NS made their contract, I'd say East will have learnt a valuable lesson.

Yeah, I don't particularly think that 2NT=18-19, and 3NT=15-17 is particularly great. Just better than the opposite. If you were to play such a thing, I'd just be more willing to pattern out on the 15-17 hands that seem to have more value, or to upgrade more liberally. That all being said, I would agree that 2NT=15+ is a solid, and better, agreement.

I was trying to say pretty much exactly this. But... I'm definitely not known for being articulate. Also, it doesn't help that I don't get into auctions quite like these, I don't play 2/1 with any regularity whatsoever. :( I felt like after the 4♦, 4♥, 4♠ cuebids that this hand was almost certainly going to some slam, but, I can't explore any potential grand slams without knowing about Trump. So, since cue-bidding more should surely show both the AK♣, and 5♣ shows a hand with no extra value, but the K♠ is still there, and I can't be sure that grand slam isn't making: 4NT seemed like the right bid here. Is this a correct understanding? EDIT: Oh, I see where I was an idiot... I said, "In this sequence where you're not missing a keycard." I really should have said, "In this sequence where you've made every possible cue-bid." I just sort of rationalize this meaning by saying, "Well, I've gotten every piece of positive news possible, this can't possibly be anything but forward going, but, I'm bidding this for a reason". The reason being that I'm missing a keycard of course.

I take it that 2NT shows 15-16 then? Having the weaker bid be cheaper is just sub-optimal. It's not quite principle of fast arrival, but, you can think of it as the same here. Leave the bidding room for the stronger hands. 2NT=17-18, and 3NT=15-16. I'd consider combining these bids, into 2NT, but then I don't know what 3NT shows? Even with your agreements though, the way to find 6♣ or 6NT here is with South continuing over 3NT. 4♣ is not Gerber, it is a slam try in clubs. 4♦, 4♥, 4♠, followed by 4NT which is absolutely forcing in this sequence where you're not missing a key-card, but shows reservation about ♣. Since you hold the A♣, you'd bid 5♥, and your partner can bid 5♠ or 6♣ or 6NT here. To not continue with an Ace, 3 Kings, and a 6 card suit when you show 17-18 Balanced is just bad bridge. I could understand if your partner had a flat 14. But, that's not flat.

Having seen both the North and South hand, I'd venture that West holds something like a ~18 HCP hand with 4423 or 4432 shape, and East is holding therefore ~4 HCP with 2425 or 2434 shape. So, A♠, K♠, Ruff a ♠, A♥ (hopefully on-side for the pitch of a club) and the A♦, and possibly a 2nd diamond. I'd play the suit small to the Queen, and then duck forcing out the doubleton Ace (hopefully again). Clubs can also be picked up if West leads them and holds the K. The problem here though is that East is theorized to have ~4 HCP, and well, I guess they could be 4 jacks.... But... something here is going to go wrong. So, diamonds are probably an okay place to play, if opponents let you. I think the auction goes something like: 1♣ P P 1♦ X 2♦ 2♥ ? Hard to say what South should do here. If PASS, then North will probably find their pass card too. 3♦ is suspect though. And, you may just be taking a plus if you pass 2♥. Partner can have as much as 14-15 HCP here. It's kind of hard to take a position that this hand is worth another bid, it's well described by the first balance of 1♦, which to answer the question, I do think should be made, precisely because partner actually has a worse hand than usual for this sequence.

This is a pretty interesting approach. I have some observations, they're not necessarily problems, but, just things that are worthy of discussion. 1) 1♣ showing 12-22 Balanced. The odds of this type of hand are ~16%, this is rather frequent! So that's good. However, pragmatically, more than half of those hands are 12-14. The problem that I see with this is that opponents have significantly more room to establish fit, and significantly less risk of being penalized successfully. The play of the hand is also made incredibly easy once they've stolen your contract, because your balanced shape tells a lot of the story to declarer, but little to your partner. I'm not sure how big an issue this is, but, I'd think on it. 2) Kungsgeten referenced it, and I'm a big fan of Canape. It has many positive attributes, but, the one that I care about in this context is how it shows shape. When two-suited, the first suit bid is the shorter of the two when uneven length. The higher ranking suit when 5-5, and the lower ranking suit when 4-4. The value here is that when you introduce a new suit at the two level, it's at least 5 cards, and you don't have primary fit in the first suit bid, since your partner didn't agree it. Why is this relevant? Every single one of your opening bids that are unbalanced show the longer suit first. Why is that a problem? Your point range is large and your 2nd suit is unknown. This is a lot of stress. You need to cater to forcing sequences in both hands, as well as the real dangers of trying to find a 4-card suit and being pushed to 2NT or higher when it's not the one responder was hoping for. This can be scary. 3) Technically speaking, a 1363 hand should open 1NT. What does partner do with a void in diamonds? How does partner show a minimum with spades? I think you might be able to find some joy by encouraging a pass of 1NT with many weaker hands that you're trying to find bids for here. The auction 1NT-P-2C is not going to be passed out by competent opponents, you'd be better served just concealing information. Uncertainty can be your friend here.

My philosophy as to why I prefer UDCA is simple. It's intuitive to me that throwing high cards to encourage is just strange, and while I'm not certain it's better, it's definitely not worse.

I know you didn't think they'd be playing 2NTx, neither did I, but, I have an "opportunity" for that to be the contract given what you said. I don't know why you'd assume that I'd sit for 3Dx, that seems silly on this particular hand. While, I may agree that a strong club does better without intervention, it's in the sort of default way in which almost all systems do better without intervention. I think you should read my post again, you seem to have overlooked the commentary on how interfering in an auction doesn't always result in a better outcome than silence. Which is the whole point I was trying to make. On the whole, I just find both your posts to be rather ridiculous. Now, you're gloating about how you'd open the South hand a strong NT without looking because my agreement is 1C-1D game forcing? Besides the obvious ethical issues here, in order to assess that this would be an appropriate hand to do so, you might have to look at it. Just a thought. It's just somewhat impossible to take you seriously when you talk this way. And, if you believe that you would have opened 3D on South's hand, then, I don't really see the point of questioning my strong club methods, since neither a 1♣ or 2♣ opening bid was ultimately made on this hand. I've seen many players exhibit behaviour like this before, and I'll reserve my commentary on what I think it indicates, it's not flattering.

Sure, intervention can sometimes be a problem. Although, not on this hand. And, I certainly won't complain about being given the opportunity to score 2NTx-8 for significantly more than I can make in a non-vul grand. But, our defensive methods would handle this hand just fine, and they're not particularly refined. I'd far sooner deal with slightly more frequent intervention in an auction where my partner's hand is completely unspecified, and my hand is known to be strong, with scores like 2NTx-8 as possibilities than the myriad of problems that face people who play 2♣ as strong. One of the problems with your argument is the underlying assumption that the intervention would be beneficial or effective, this is suspect at best against pairs who have solid agreements about how to handle interference.

1♣: 15+ 1♦: Game Forcing 1♠: 4+♠ 2♥: 5+♥ 2N: 18-20 Balanced or 23+ Balanced. Exactly 5♠. 3♠: 3♠ 4N: 1430 There'll be a queen ask in there, but, partner has Game Forcing values, and 5 hearts opposite my AK♥s. I'm bidding grand.

The best auctions that my partner and I could come up with... (with a lot of partner's help...): 1♣: 15+ 1♦: Game-Forcing 2N: 18-20 Balanced. No 5-card Suit. 3♠: Minor Suit Stayman And it diverges here... Either, 4♣: Club Preference 4N: 1430 5♣: 4 Keycards 5N: King Ask 6♣: No kings. 6♥: Try for Grand. K♥. 6NT is signoff. 6♠: I have extra tricks here, you know I have no kings. 7♣: To play. Or: 3N: No Preference 4♣: Slam Try in ♣ 4♠: A♠. 5♠: K♠, K♥ (implied by no cue-bidding 5♥). 7♣: To play. In this sequence, if partner didn't have the K♥, they'd bid 5♣. The auction would continue: 5♥-5♠-7♣. Theoretically anyways..... It took discussion, but, I learnt a lot from it. I feel like if partner played with himself, he'd find the grand. I don't think I'd find the imaginative cue-bids in this line.

Would I want to play game at IMPs with AKQXXX on the side, an 8 card trump suit AND another Ace on the side AND a void on the side? Yes. I would. Opposite absolutely any hand with 4 hearts. I will win IMPs on average. If they let me play it. Sometimes it's a good sacrifice on the hands I don't make. Of course, partner has shown values and so this is absolutely automatic. The only question is on the best sequence to represent your hand.

I suppose it does need to be said. This is a false dilemma. Considering there are more than two choices. Most decent players are going to choose sequences that cater to slams, so, when you present self-splinter or sign off via a Texas transfer as the only optins.... Shockingly, the answers say self-splinter.