Douglas43

That's a 2♣ response for me too. Even with the "bad 10" agreement. Either opener has 5+ diamonds, in which case you can pass a 2♦ rebid, or 15+ points. I'd suggest drop the "bad 10".

Hand 1: Yes, you are masterminding. Sometimes it will work, but personally I wouldn't do it. Hand 2: Lots of good points made about the range of a 1NT response. Playing Acol where 1NT response shows 6-9, the hand is an easy pass. Over a 2♣ response (good 9 hcp upwards) it's a 2NT rebid (game forcing). I play 2NT over 1D as Jacoby - possibly a minority taste!

I had a look. You win the diamond with the Ace, spade to the Ace, back to the King of Diamonds, and play Spades from the top. West's Spade Queen falls under the Ace, and you are OK. Your K10 beat East's 98 and your long spade is good. Hope that helps.

This is one to consider tactics as well as perfect outcome. Pilowsky got over 60% for playing in a part-score. Don't think he mentioned what 6♦ scores but it is presumably well over 90%. At that point, the grand is for the birds. The spade finesse is better than an 80% chance, but that isn't good enough. Even seeing both the East-West hands (which means being able to know that AJ10 is opposite Qx) I'd want to stop in 6.

Playing weak no trump it's a bit harder, I might shade it by a point or so, especially love all at pairs or red at teams. But basically as above.

Also 5♦. Might cost too much, but I want to leave them to make the last guess.

Yes, I too would double, and then pass 4♥, ready to apologise if it's a stupid mis-fit. My clubs and diamonds are too full of holes for any other action to be attractive. (I'd regard 3NT as to play rather than good clubs / secondary diamonds)

Not sure whether this was pairs or IMPs? I don't play your system, but play Acol which has 4cM. In the nearest equivalent auction 1!S (2!H) ?, I think I'd stretch to 3!S on the East hand, certainly at IMPs. Two reasons: 1. We have a bid available to show a sounder raise (2NT) 2. My partner doesn't like those "bid two then bid three" auctions, so I try not to raise his blood pressure...

I play modern style cuebids in Acol (no last train or other gadgets). As pescetom says, if partner bypasses a suit he hasn't got a control. This avoids many situations where you think "slam could still be on if partner has second round club control", make one more try, and finish up at the five level. Compared to aces/voids first I rely more on RKCB to avoid bidding slam off two cashing aces, and it's now rare for us to bid slam on cue bids alone. But I'm a bit of a comfort blanket person and don't mind using RKCB.

Sorry, I should have added: There is the additional chance that one player has Jxxx in Hearts, and the third trump in a 3-2 split. Here the third heart honour stands up and the fourth heart can be ruffed, then we ruff back to hand (high) and draw the last trump. That works on half of the situations where Spades 3-2 (68%) and hearts 4-2 with Jack not dropping (32%), less a reduction for vacant spaces. That's 21.7% less the reduction for vacant spaces. Overall about a 70% chance of success.

Thanks Mikeh for an interesting improvement. That point about different 4-1 trump breaks and their effects on the odds is interesting. I didn't think about the vacant spaces issue, which is probably an indication of the gap between a decent player and a real expert. Here are some simple probabilities for the basic line (with no allowance for vacant spaces or the absence of opposition bidding which could indicate against extreme distribution): Works where Spades 3-2 (68%) or 4-1 (28%) and Hearts 3-3 (36%) or 4-2 with Jack dropping (16%) or singleton Jack (3%). That's 96% x 55% = 52.8%

Duck the first club. Win assumed second club. SQ and A. If trumps are 3-2 play HAK and (if no Jack dropping in two rounds) the Queen. This should make on hearts 3-3 or 4-2 when the same hand has four hearts and three spades. By playing the Q early, you can ruff a club high back to hand. If trumps are 4-1 it's asking a lot for an opponent to be 1-2 in the majors and stay silent, so I'd draw trumps and hope the hearts break.

In response to the request for a pair of hands which LTC handles better than Goren 1. ♠ AJT9xx ♥AJT9x ♦K ♣K (6 losers, 18 Goren points*) 2. ♠ AJT9xxx ♥AJT9xx ♦- ♣- (4 losers, 16 Goren points )

As opposed to a point count that tells you that Qxx Qxx Qxx Qxxx is equivalent to Axxxxx Axxxx x x? Anybody can rubbish an unsophisticated version of a valuation when used in isolation. I use a mix of HCP and LTC, but it's really a matter of choosing the tools that work for you.

I would just add to Stephen's post, in case you are playing weak no trump (2) if playing a weak no trump (say 12-14), 1NT could be less than 18-19 to cater for hands that 2/1 players would have opened 1NT.

Personal view, you might get different perspectives. It's pretty widely used in the UK. The "total points" or "add points for distribution" idea that BBO robots use is not so widely used here. I found LTC very helpful as a learner and 40 years later still use it on borderline cases.

I agree, not a huge miss. If the lead is a passive trump do you make 10? Maybe south might rebid 3♣ as a game try?

I like Blunikki's advice, which is well worth repeating for players not used to trying squeezes. It's a good habit to count the suit which is in the same hand as the squeeze card (the last diamond). On this hand it doesn't matter, but if you don't have an entry back to you hand, it would matter.

Howard Schenken's 1963 book "Better Bidding in 15 Minutes" refers to "Standard American" in speech marks, as follows "Standard American" and How it Works - or Doesn't The most popular system in this country is called, for want of a better name, Standard American....

There are some later comments in Jeremy Flint's "Tiger Bridge" (1970) regarding the Flint-Pender system (5cM / weak no-trump), which criticise the British and Americans for playing old-fashioned Acol and Standard American, which I can dig out if anyone would like?

3♠ as Stayman for the minors is a reasonable option for seeking a minor suit fit.

Yes, it's a Ladybird Book* weak 1NT. (*Short factual books aimed at primary school children, not the relaunch aimed at adults))

If a weak NT opener was being played, I would expect opener to have extra values but no clear-cut bid. I would now bid 4♦, which I would regard as natural and non-forcing (I play 4m as forcing in the absence of competition, but not here). A braver bidder might try 4♥, but I'd rather show my support than the fifth heart. Not so sure about strong NT sequence, but I'd assume something similar. Opener would pass with a weak NT hand, so it must be too shapely for 1NT. Maybe 2-2-5-4? Would still bid 4♦ but maybe regular strong NT players would do more.

A lot depends on your core system. If you are playing Acol or similar then 2♥ is just 5 hearts and good 9 to poor 11 hcp. 2♠ rebid is non-forcing (as is 3♥ although with responder so tightly defined it sounds a bit like "you make the last mistake partner"). All other rebids are GF as the weak NT means all balanced hands are 15+.

In the OP it says 1♠ is "forced by system", so I take it that 1♠ could be zero hcp rather than the usual minimum of 5/6. Does the scheme for opener's rebids take account of this? Our actual hand is not much better than minimum in terms of working points for a standard response, although I would still bid 4♥ because I love that Q♦. But if we could have a Yarborough, then presumably 4♣ should be a terrific hand, and we are better than we might be by the Ace of trumps and the queen of partner's suit?