karlson

How do you find a spade fit with 4513 opposite 4252? You don't. I think that's less damaging than forcing partner to bid up to the 5-level to show extreme shape, which, given the 2♣ opening, can't be that unexpected.

1. Hampson-Rodwell 2. Diamond-Greco 3. Lev-Pepsi 4. Lall-Bathhurst 5. Cheek-Grue

I agree with Josh. 4N, but this is a real minimum. Perhaps if we want to emphasize that we'd like to play 6 minor, 4♠ is available? Edit: (Ah, I see the OP mentioned that nothing else was available).

I guess I think that 2♥ and then 3♠ should show 4-6 (and 5-6 being much more likely). With 4513 partner should bid some level of NT over 3♦, and with 4531, raise diamonds. I would be shocked if we were not off two tricks in the minors in 6N on this auction, I would never try to get there. But apparently I think partner has shown a whole lot more shape on this auction than other people.

If 5n is pick a slam, I'm not sure I understand it. What strain do we think is going to play better than hearts, where we know we have an 8-card fit? Might partner not bid 6♦ over 5n with Ax, figuring that he's already denied more support than that? Mark gave me this problem earlier, but I bid 4♥ and tried to do so quickly before my tank barred partner. It really looks like I have only one useful card, but of course it's very useful, so I think 5♥ is reasonable. On many (of course not all) hands where the ♠K is all partner needs, the 5-level should be safe, and I have already promised some values.

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=skthaktxxdqxcakxx&s=shxxdaktxxxcjt9xx]133|200|Scoring: IMP 1♥ 1♠ X 3♠ 3NT 4♠ p p X p p p[/hv] Assign the blame for +100 instead of +920. Also for +430 (south was planning on passing) if east had stayed quiet.

I pass.

Pass for me, I think it would be a difficult problem if we had another K or so.

I'm not willing to gamble on giving declarer his 9th trick when we may have a nice surprise in diamonds. ♥Q for me.

♠QTx ♥xx ♦Ax ♣AQTxxx red/red at matchpoints. Partner deals and passes, righty opens 1n, two passes, partner balances with 2c showing both majors. Righty bids 2d. (For those that like the tabular format: p 1n p p 2♣* 2♦ ? *=♥+♠)

Don't care for the gadget, would reverse anyway.

Great hand for the methods and both failed to take advantage. South has basically shown his hand on the auction already after 3d, and with a stiff opposite partner's concentration, 4c looks like an overbid. Given the spade values, partner really needs a perfecto, something like AQxx AKQx AKx KQ, and he might not have chosen to show the concentration on that hand even. North on the other hand should know that partner doesn't have ♠A and ♣K, so he 100% needs stiff club for slam. WIth an ace opposite partner's second suit and a side stiff, he will be able to afford another move after 4♦. If north doesn't think that's true, then at least 5♦ over the 4♥ signoff will get the message across for sure. Edit: Sorry, I just saw that 2n was unlimited. I guess that excuses south a little bit, but there should really be an agreement on what range the superaccept shows.

East might also get it right if west has Qxx for another reason -- he may play declarer for QTx and a misguess by winning the ace and returning low. West of course knew east had ♦AK already and will have no problem.

I blame east. If west had Qxx, he can afford to lead low. East will know that declarer will score the DQ if he has it regardless of what he does, so he can afford to lead back a small one. Presumably declarer doesn't have 2-2 in the minors. Also east should probably know that declarer has 4 diamonds if west gave count on the heart.

Usually I would play the cheapest suit bid (3♣ here) is nebulous, but that doesn't work well if you rebid 1♥ with balanced hands, since you'd really like to show the 4-5 when you have it. I don't have much experience with this style, but I guess I'd go 3♦.

I basically never play exclusion in partner's suit. I don't know what standard NMF is, but I would assume that partner denied 4 spades with 2♦. In that case, it's hardly necessary for 3♠ to be any 3-card support, opener can just temporize with 2n and responder will clarify if he really has 5-6. So I think 3♠ should really be some concentration of values. Perhaps he has AQJx xxxx AQx xx. Having found out that opener has extra diamond length and some spade values, 5♦ might be a better contract than 3N, so he decided to try it. I'm not saying I endorse partner's bidding (why not just 3♦ over 2♦, for instance), but it seems more plausible than exclusion in my known 5+ suit when we don't really know we have a fit anywhere else.

I think especially at MP, I would probably start with the detestable 3♣. North would bid 3n and play it there. I actually play transfers over this with some people, in which case north could transfer to spades and then bid 3n.

1) Pass, call me disciplined 2) Double, yes it's a little offshape, but the hand is very very good and you have both majors 3) Double, don't really see the problem 4) No. It's rarely right to stretch to bid when you have length in their suit 5a) 4♠ 5b) 4♠, I am not going to be able to show a slam try anyway, and I don't want partner to pick hearts with 3-3 in the majors.

I was thinking about this, it seems reasonable that 5♦ over 4♥ shows this hand, since it doesn't leave room for any other strains. But if the minors were reversed, would you still bid the same way and bid 5♣ over 4♥? That sure sounds like both minors. Anyway, the idea of making a negative double with only one suit that I actually want to ever play in makes me uneasy, but I guess it will work fine on this hand.

Jumps to game are never fit jumps. I agree that that's pretty standard, but I've certainly had a partner for whom all jumps in competition were fit.

My usual style is for responder to bid 2n on a lot of hands, and opener can bid a good 3-card fragment over that if he wants to, over which responder can bid 3s with a doubleton and opener can raise to 4 (or cue). Therefore if he does bid 3s over 3n, it's 7 or a very good 6.

I suppose I should. 5♦ if that's not a fit jump.

It's true, if they lead a stiff club on the second one against 5♦ and I don't read the position, I will go down. I think the best argument for 3n is what you're alluding to later -- partner might have an entry and solid diamonds, and you'll score 630 or 660. At imps, I still think that 5♦ must be much better.

So now you're up to 7 tricks. They exit a heart and you're going to need some more luck even after this. You can't get back to run the club again, and you're going to need at least 1 heart trick, playing them from your hand. Meanwhile 5♦ is excellent (hook the spade if they lead that, otherwise double hook clubs). Maybe, but 5♦ is completely cold.

5♦ for me. I don't see why 2nd red preempts should have more outside stuff, for me they are just more pure. I don't really understand how we're going to make this without the diamonds on hands where we can't also make 5♦. Example hands anyone?