rhm

I agree 2♠ is rather obvious. I am more worried we miss game than that we run into a terrible misfit. Rainer Herrmann

A claim, for which no evidence is given as usual. At least I have not seen any statistical evidence that opening minimum very flat 12 counts and treating all 12 counts alike is a winning proposition in the long run. The one, which comes closest to some evidence is http://www.rpbridge.net/9x41.htm, but this is not directed to 4333 12 counts. The evidence there about mini notrump (even when the bid occurred, not to say what effect it might have for balanced hands not in range) was inconclusive. Fads should not be confused with progress. They are not the same. The only thing, which seems to be clear is that there must be a lower limit in any standard system. While the standard for opening has gone down over the years, there are enough world-class players who might pass the above hand. Rainer Herrmann

1♠--2NT Jacoby 5♣--5♦ Exclusion Keycard Blackwood (1430) --> 1 Key card 5♥--6♦ Spade queen? --> Yes and king of diamonds 6♥--7♠ Grand slam try: Do you have further values outside of clubs(e.g. king of hearts or a fifth trump etc.)? --> Yes, I do Rainer Herrmann

And the actual bidding is not ludicrous? Sorry, but you seem to have your own ideas what "ludicrous" is and what not. Rainer Herrmann

Generally true, particularly if the contract would be 6♥. But put yourself in the shoes of declarer in an expert game. You are in 7♥ and someone leads against this bidding a diamond. I would ask myself, would an expert do this holding nothing in diamonds against 7♥? I think this would be very odd. It does rather indicate that the finesse is working. Rainer Herrmann

Neither me. Bidding 3♥ with 7 diamonds and 2 hearts when partner shows a strong hand with 5 hearts and maybe 4 spades is a bid I would not expect from an expert, stone age Acol notwithstanding. This is particularly so when playing strong jump shifts. Put this hand to a bidding panel when the bidding is at 2♠ and check how many votes you will get for 3♥ with the North hand. I expect an almost unanimous vote for 3♦. North promises 3 hearts and there is no way of shutting out diamonds when he has them. The bidding is absurd for this construction An acceptable sequence 1♦--1♥ (personally I would jump shift) 2♦--2♠ 3♦--3♥ 4♥--4NT 5♥-- 5NT 6♥--? Rainer Herrmann

No squeeze necessary. Declarer simply ruffs 2 spades without cashing the king and discards his club loser on diamonds. Spade ace, club ace, diamond finesse, club king, spade ruff, diamond ace (club discard), heart ace, spade ruff, club ruff, drawing trumps. Not so easy to construct layouts where the defense can come out on top. But the squeeze could become necessary if declarer has 4 clubs and 3 spades Rainer Herrmann

Guess which ace partner then holds after the diamond control bid? I give you a hint: It will not be in spades, hearts or clubs. At least I would not control bid the king of diamonds after having rebid the suit with only one key-card and no further honor in hearts. Besides, if declarer holds a singleton diamond, how do you want to beat this grand? You must knock out dummies black ace in this case and partner must hold a black king. [hv=pc=n&s=skt98hakqt7d2caj2&w=sqj6hj64dk53cqt95&n=sah952daqjt64c643&e=s75432h83d987ck87]399|300[/hv] Again only a spade beats the contract However, I would not jump to the grand with the South hand. Rainer Herrmann

This construction makes little sense. Who would bid 3♥ with this hand and would declarer not continue with 3♠? Also a big club fit is not possible on this auction. Given my 9 HCP I do not think partner can contribute much in HCP. Assuming sane opponents it is not easy to come up with a construction, which gives the defense a chance. I play for something like [hv=pc=n&s=sk987hakqt7dcakj8&w=sqj6hj64dk53cqt95&n=sa2h852daqjt87c43&e=st543h93d9642c762&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=p1dp1hp2dp2sp3hp4cp4dp4np5hp7hppp]399|300[/hv] I lead a spade honor The heart jack or a spade honor beats the contract on this layout, but the heart jack might give declarer additional entries to dummy in other layouts to establish the diamonds. Rainer Herrmann

I agree, but the issue is control not ruffing value in dummy Rainer Herrmann

What ruffing potential are you talking about? 3NT is clearly a choice of games where both sides know there is at least an 8 card fit in spades. I would expect a druri partner to correct to 4♠ at least half the time. Among others if partner has a side suit singleton I expect him to run. So the only potential "ruffing value" partner could possible have and sit for 3NT is a doubleton in clubs. The danger are not ruffing values but that the defense can establish 4 or 5 tricks before we can take our tricks. Against that it is also possible that a passed partner will not bring 3 tricks in the side suits and 4♠ has no play. Some people think it is a minor catastrophe if they go down in 3NT when they have a major suit fit, but shrug their shoulders when 3NT is the only game, which makes, even though they have major suit fit. Many do not even realize that when they go down in 4♠ or when 3NT would have made the same number of tricks at matchpoints. It is tough to get from 4♠ back to 3NT, but at least an option from 3NT to 4♠, should that be a better contract. Why 3NT should show 18-19 opposite a Drury partner escapes me. What is a drury partner supposed to do with this information? Bid 6♠? I think 3NT is a very reasonable bid, particularly at MP. Rainer Herrmann

I see essentially 2 scenarios, where our defense will matter: 1) declarer can establish 7 tricks in the black suits. Here partner needs the diamond jack. A premature switch to diamonds will not be good. We need 2 heart tricks first. Otherwise declarer will go up with the diamond ace. 2) declarer has only 6 tricks in the black suits but the jack ten in diamonds. In this case we require a diamond switch from partner to avoid a later strip end-play. You have no safe discards on the clubs if partner continues hearts. In case 2 it is essential that we get a diamond switch from partner. He will not find the diamond switch if we encourage. But in case 1 we need two heart tricks first A good player might ask why you overtook the first heart instead of encouraging a heart continuation. This should point him to a diamond switch The 2 layouts, against which the heart king caters for, are: case 1) [hv=pc=n&s=sa7652hk74dkq54c7&w=skt9ha98dt6cqj962&n=s83hqjt652dj8cT83&e=sqj4h3da9732cak54]399|300[/hv] case 2) [hv=pc=n&s=sa7652hk74dkq54c7&w=skt9ha98dJt6cqJ62&n=s83hqjt652d8cT983&e=sqj4h3da9732cak54]399|300[/hv] Rainer Herrmann

Why? Maybe because you do not like it that somebody tells publicly how easy it is to cheat on BBO and that abuse@bridgebase.com has practically no real means of stopping it? Rainer Herrmann

I think the problem was your 4♣ bid, not your pass. Over 3♥ you should jump to 5♣ precisely because your values are not soft. This gives a precise description about your hand in light of your previous pass and North could have bid 6♣ if he held a singleton spade (your partner denied a spade stopper) Rainer Herrmann

Nicely said, but I wonder what you do when you have the same distribution but an ace more. I would consider 3♣ forcing here at IMPs. With standard agreements I think you have to pass both hands. Italians tend to double with all good hands in competition and can bid 3♣ showing a limited hand. Rainer Herrmann

1) ♠Axxx ♥Axx ♦Axx ♣xxx significantly better than 4)♠A10x♥K109x ♦QJxx♣Qx better than 3) ♠ QJx ♥QJ10 ♦Axxx ♣Q10x significantly better than 2) ♠Kxxx ♥Kxxx ♦KQx ♣Jx better than 5)♠ KQx♥KQx ♦Jxxx♣J10x what you open depends on what your minimum requirements are. However, opening the first one is obvious and no good modern player would pass 4 and 3 3 and 5 are worth more at a notrump contract than at a suit contract. 2 and 5 are not really worth 12 points and should be downgraded. Why some believe 2) to be a good hand in context escapes me. The difference between 1) and 5) amounts to about 2 HCP Rainer Herrmann

Openers have been known to fake a reverse with a strong hand and excellent spade support (even 4 card support). Still pass maybe percentage Rainer Herrmann

I like to play that rebidding the major is non forcing and shows therefor a hand not worth forcing to game opposite a reverse. Of course with a fit opener will usually still raise, but you can stop at the two -level without a fit and below game otherwise. Weak hands with less than 5 cards in the major use Ingbergman, but if the major is then rebid at the three level, the message is cancelled. Responder is forcing to game with at least 6 cards in his major and no particular fit with openers suits. With a very strong suit responder would not use Inbergman but jump rebid his major. With a fit in openers suit and game forcing values, responder would first show the fit even when having more than 4 cards in his major. Opener is expected to show 3 card support for responders major next. With the given hand above responder has a choice between passing a forcing sequence or rebidding his spades. Rainer Herrmann

I would open but I do not think terrible things are likely to befall you if you pass this hand in second position (the one where you should be most conservative) and sometimes you get a great score by avoiding a no-play game or slam. The hand is very borderline and the old advise to subtract a point if you have no ace is still sound advise. I look for different qualities in a partnership Rainer Herrmann

Would you mind showing us the complete deal? Rainer Herrmann

Intermediate players far too readily rebid 5 card suits A good rule is when you rebid your suit (and the bid is not forcing) partner should expect 6 cards and when in doubt should not try to improve the strain just because he is short in your suit. There are a few exception to this rule, but they are rare. For example if the bidding starts 1♣ -- 1♠ -- 1NT and you hold say ♠KQJTx ♥xxx ♦xxx ♣xx you should rebid your spades. If opponents hold the ♠A they can take it when declarer's spades are exhausted and your hand will be worthless in notrumps. In a spade contract you have at least 3 spade tricks and hope for more. Note that even then it could be wrong. For example if partner got ♠Ax ♥Axx ♦Axxx ♣Jxxx you would have reason to regret not to have passed 1NT. Rainer Herrmann

Your calculations assume that (1) (2) and (3) are mathematically independent events. They are not. They are correlated, because everyone is dealt exactly 13 cards. The correct way of looking at this question is to ask , given the missing 26 outstanding cards, what is the likelihood that West leading the ♣J was dealt a 4333 distribution with exactly 4 clubs and one diamond honor. Doing this you would get that there are 10,400,600 ways how you can select 13 cards from 26. A priory given the missing cards in the different suit there are 490,000 ways West could have a 4333 distribution with 4 clubs. But since we need him to hold exactly one diamond honor this reduces West to 294,000 ways So a priory the odds are 294,000 / 10,400,600 or 2.8% (slightly better because with the more extreme distributions West might have been tempted to bid) However, we have not yet taken into account the opening lead against the grand slam. This marks West with the the ten and 9 in clubs and East with the king of clubs. Does this affect the odds? Now there are only 22 cards left of which West will get ten. This reduces the number of hands West can now hold dramatically. And we start the exercise all over again: There are now 646646 ways we can deal 10 cards out of 22 to West. However there are now only 16800 ways West can be dealt 4333 with 4 clubs and precisely one diamond honor. The odds have dropped to 2.6% The chance for someone holding QJ tight in diamonds is about 6.8%. So the overall chances to win, after 2 rounds of trumps, then test the hearts and if these do not break take the spade finesse is a bit better. But who wants to make a grand slam on Queen Jack tight in trumps when you can play for the Devil's Coup? Anyway there are other positions, where there is no alternative (taken from another book): [hv=pc=n&s=st7hkq98daj6542c3&n=saqj52ha7dq7ca864&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1dp1sp2dp3cp3np4dp5dp6dppp]266|200[/hv] Trick 1: ♠6, ♠2, ♠K ♠7 Trick 2: ♠4, ♠T, ♠3 ? Plan the play Rainer Herrmann

I now know where I have seen this theme before at least once: Bridge Master, black series board 23: [hv=pc=n&s=sa43ht32d32cq5432&n=skq2haqj8dj987cak&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1sdp1np3nppp]266|200[/hv] West leads the diamond king and East turns up with 4 diamonds to the queen and ten. At trick 5 East will switch to the club jack to which West shows out Rainer Herrmann

I think I have seen this hand in a book (Kelsey?) somewhere, certainly the theme. Rainer Herrmann

I exactly do what you considered. I think you severely over-judge the need of raising diamonds on 3 cards. On the other side I had quite often issues with Polish club partners when 2♣ opening did not guarantee six. This is curiously well known by Precision players, but often disregarded by Polish club players. I can not remember having the urgent need of raising diamonds on only three cards immediately. We just don't do this. However, after 1♦ - 1♠ you can agree that a rebid of 2♠ shows 4 cards while 2♥ is a spade raise on three cards. The natural reverse with diamonds / hearts is not really needed in Polish club and anyway extremely rare. (Open 1 Heart with 5 cards in hearts and longer diamonds) Rainer Herrmann