bluenikki

"exceeding rare" is a big overbid.

Not if he crashes your jack.

So partner will underlead

The question is whether they are taught to encourage with small doubleton when the location of. honors in the suit is unknown. Regardless of the agreement about which card encourages.

I led the ♣ king from KQTxx against a 2♠ contract. Dummy had no ♣ honor. Partner played the 2, upside down. I understood this to show the jack (or the ace or a singleton), so I underled. He had 92. I have played with him for decades, often as a team-mate, occasionally as a partner. I was surprised that he signalled this way. He promised to try to remember to play it my way. I learned the rule from Eddie Kantar's long-ago big red book: If dummy has no important honor, the signal shows or denies an important honor. He even called it the equal-honor signal. If dummy has the ace, also signal presence of the jack. If dummy has an important secondary honor, the signal is count. It seemed to me then and seems to me now that this is obviously right. (Five-level contracts may have different considerations.) What are beginners taught?

Especially since it is partner who has to sweat out the play.

The comment referred to bad responding hands. 65432 432 432 32 is not making any contract. It *may* take more tricks in notrump than in spades. But it will never take *far* more tricks in notrump. And it can take far more tricks in spades. When you have game values, the considerations are different. 65432 KQJ KQJ KQ Now it's probably right to suppress the spades. Or suggest the suit only if partner has 4. Carl

In the long-ago "How to play winning bridge," Kaplan and Sheinwold reason this way. Playing the suit may or may not be better than playing in notrump. You can't know until you see both hands. But playing in the suit can never be a silly contract, while playing in notrump certainly can. (This applies to hands with no ambition.) Carl

In "Journalist leads," by Rubens et al, they are adamant that whatever agreements you have about interior sequences, you must violate them frequently.

No. There is the matter of partnership experience.

Yes. Over the years, I'd been annoyed with players who say they play pre-emptive jumpshifts or jumpraises. Often they claimed to have no agreement about them but the word "pre-emptive."

Sam Stayman wrote in the 60s that while a weak doubleton in responder's hand is bad for 3NT, it's also bad for 5 of a minor. So better to hope the suit blocks. A singleton is way different.

I don't understand your point. With this, bidding 5♣ is easy. Passing shouldn't enter anyone's mind. If partner doesn't have their double, not your problem. The problem comes up only when responder has no 5-card suit.

Which 3-card suit do you bid? Partner's suit, I guess, so he can waste the energy.

Except, of course, that partner is going to pass with a weakish 3=3=4=3.

oops

oops

2NT. That's Bridge World Standard. Carl

Probably it doesn't matter, but I did not do a simulation. Instead, I produced a long ugly speardsheet full of binomial coefficients. Best I can recall, the results were not as close as these simulations. Carl

I no longer have the notes from my calculations, but: Suppose you have 5431 shape with shortness in opener's suit. Suppose also that an angel has whispered in your ear that your side has an 8-card fit. Then the chance that is in your 5-card suit is significantly lower than the combined chances that it is in your 3- or 4-card. Carl

Kaplan's reply to jumpshift: Priority: confirm HHxxx in original suit; jump rebid with solid suit Failing that, show Hxx in responder's suit (which did not suggest 6-card); jumpraise HHxx Failing that, show honor concentration in third suit Failing that, bid notrump

This time, Edgar Kaplan's structure responding to strong jump shifts is golden. Opener's first obligation is to confirm 2+ top honors in his own suit. Carl

In the ftf days, when I was dummy in a notrump contract, I laid the suits down in increasing length from declarer's left to right. Is that illegal assistance? Carl

Maybe one's methods should be altered to make this a suitable double of the 1NT rebid. Carl

When a Jacoby transfer results in a 2M contract, you are wrong-sided. The weak hand has a range of 0-10, which is well worth concealing. Much more so than the 0-7 of a responder to strong notrump. But can you effectively cover all of the game-invitational, choice-of-games, and strong 2-suited auctions without Jacoby? I doubt it. Carl