mw64ahw

I'm not sure why, but the NS hands felt like they had game potential when playing, but we got stuck in 2♠ Game probabilities are approximately 5♦ 9% 4 makeable 4♥ 35% 4 makeable 4♠ 19% 6 makeable Strangely of the 4 pairs that bid ♠ only one pair managed to make 3 with the others going down. Is this such a hard one to play? 1 pair made 3NT after West failed to overcall and a ♥ was led. The other pair in 3NT went down 2 after a 2♣ overcall 1 pair made 5♦ after a K♣ lead followed by the A♣ The sole EW contract went down heavily in 5♣ The other point I felt was an oddity was the general reluctance of the Wests to overcall 2♣ [hv=pc=n&s=skthqj3daj98753c6&w=s982hkdt64cakt952&n=saq643hat65d2cj74&e=sj75h98742dkqcq83&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=1d]399|300[/hv]

[hv=pc=n&s=skthqj3daj98753c6&n=saq643hat65d2cj74&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=p1d]266|200|Optimal suit, wrong level, wrong play[/hv] Where do you end up? - we found the correct suit, underbid and went down As an addition 3 pairs contracted in unmakeable games (1xEW in ♣) 2 making - no-one contracted in a makeable game.

In 3rd seat 1♠-P-1NT-P-2♣ (relay)-P-2♦-P-2♠ hoping for a sub-optimal lead to make the part score. After the 1♣ opening 2♦ 4+♦ & ♥ followed by expected passes and likely to go 1 down.

Personally I would bid the takeout as the priority is to find an 8 card fit. 1NT for me as I play The Overcall Structure

This is a an issue using Kickback if partner has signed off with a Min and you have values for a slam. This is why I've switched during lockdown to showing rather than asking for kCs; i.e 4NT even KCs 5♣ odd KCs with ♣ control 5♦ odd KCs with ♦ control denies ♣ control etc. Additional bids sub 5♠ continue to show controls so stopping in 5♠ is possible when the ♥ control isn't shown.

I can count 8 + 2QT after the open so don't want to stop before 3NT Without any agreement 1♠ natural looking for East to be 4423/4414/4405 followed by slam exploration 3♦ after a non-♠ response hoping for a 4♦ response 2434/1435 etc. followed by the slam exploration. How would 4♣ be interpreted after a 3NT response - still looking for the ♦/NT slam? I'd have less of an issue with my partner in an unbalanced ♦/Transfer Walsh system where 1♠ is GF allowing opener to shape out.

1. A♦ looking to make 5♥,♦ , ♦ ruffs/2♠/1♣ 2. 3NT - North should have at least 5 playing tricks & with a max. of 3hcp in ♣ the odds of an outside trick look favourable so I count 9 tricks and hope. 3. 4♥ expecting to be down 2 4. Pass initially 5. Pass 6. 3♥ - maybe defending in ♠ is better, but more likely a minor

I like to play Majors first when 5+ so would have opened initially showing the 5♥. I've looked at approaches using 2♥ or 2♦, but am sticking with natural for the time being. It may well be that the shorter fit plays better with the extra length in ♦ and either fit can be found if it is there. Regardless of whether I open the ♦ or ♥ first 6/7♦ is the final contract. West should be considering the grand with his distribution opposite a non-Min East 1♠-2♥ 2♠ (5♠ & 4+m)-2NT (Which? denies a ♥ fit) 3♦ (4+♦)-4♥ (2/4KCs counting the void as a KC) 5♣ (club control denies ♥/♠ control)-6♦ (struggle to get rid of a ♥ looser)

I guess we end up in 3NT with South's hcp count although I suspect that ♦ may play better 2NT-3NT

I interpret the extra values described above as relating to the lower or upper part of the NT opening bid range. 1NT-4♣ is a possible sequence, but any hand where opener typically ends up in 3NT and responder wants to investigate a NT slam either based on hcp or with a long suit and trick taking ability There are also Gerberesque versions which show a king count instead of the extra values

Using a traditional approach both hands have additional revaluation points depending on the approach you use taking the total into slam territory. This marries with the modified loosing trick count approach giving further comfort that the slam is viable.

I'm saying that a strong hand versus a minimum opener has de facto slam potential. Likewise for an Intermediate hand opposite an Intermediate hand. 4/5♠ should be safe in either case so you can use Italian cue-bids to establish initial slam viability from 3NT to 4♥ and can sign-off in 4♠ or continue key-card showing/cue-bidding/sign-off in 5♠ or bid the slam if desired. I don't think you need the additional space by using 2♥ so this can be used as the Limit/Min bid to establish whether game is feasible and the strain. As it stands you may miss game using 3♠ as NF. Regarding 4♠ I was just interested if you envisaged any hand shape/strength that would sign-off directly. My own structure is Transfer-Walsh based with 1♠ as GF which remains after 1♥ interference. Completing the transfer after the X shows 3♠ and a limited hand, but I like the idea of using 2♥ for a limit response.

How about using 2♥ as the limit/min bid, which then provides space for a 3-way game try and 3♥/3♠ to show the intermediate/strong hands respectively followed by cue-bidding with slam interest. Also would you use a direct 4♠ to show Min opposite Min?

I would say generally yes, but this depends on your agreements For me 1♦-P-2♣ will show 6+♣ (not GF) and less than 3♦, but this is in an unbalanced♦ context. Why bid 2♣ with 3334 or (332)5 unless 2♣ is your standard GF? while 1♠-P-2♦ will show 5+♦ in my 2/1 style. Some approaches switch 2♦ & 2♥, but I've discounted this approach, while some will show only 4♦. However, 1♠-P-2♣ must be a catch all w. 5+♦/♥.

Without the interference we bid 1♠ as our GI/GF option defined as 10+hcp & a MLT of 7.5 or better. North's hand is better than this based on distribution Over interference X shows 4+ ♥ and non-GF/GI. 2♥ with the interference will show 4+♥ and GF/GI. I'd classify South's hand as Intermediate (14-bad 17) with Strong distribution (5.5MLT or better). On distribution there are values for a slam i.e. 19-7.5-5.5=6 level, but hcp wise the odds look low versus North as a minimum. I now have several options with the 4♥ support: raise to 4♥ Minimum w. support3♥ Intermediate w. support3♠ and upwards control bids with support and a strong hand. With 2 keycards & Q♥ I base the next bid on the distributional rather than hcp strength which will be 3♠ showing the support and ♠ control North then has the choice of signing-off in 4♥ or continues to bid controls. In this case with 2 KC I'd choose 3NT showing continued interest, but denies 2 of the top 3 ♥ honours. Complete bidding 1♦-1♠-2♥-2♠ 3♠-P-3NT-P 4♦-P-4♠ (2/4 KC w. ♣ control)-P 6♥ I can count 4KCs w. Q♥ Odds feel better than 50% for 6♥, but will need to have my A game declarer play if makeable

We play 2NT as preemptive 5+ minors/9PT 5+ both minors

Thanks- have yet to get used to the hidden explanations. Few possible picture cards left for 11hcp so I guess the extra trick is still there

What is 6♥ - an odd number of keycards w. ♥ void isn't possible so is it flagging an additional control? If so I can count 13 tricks so 7♠

Partner's solution As West my first choice would have been 4♣ given the 3 vs 2 keycards status. Probabilities of a ♠ vs ♣ slam are ~5% vs ~60% Partner had other ideas though and bid 4NT showing 2/4 keycards with ♠ as trumps. I bypass the 5♣ cue-bid given ♣ have been shown twice with 2 of the top 3 honours assumed. Bidding 5♣ in this case will deny the 2 honours. 5♠ sign-off is tempting as partner is likely to have only 2 keycards, but I bid 5♦ showing the needed ♦ control, but with ♠ as trumps, wrong-siding & the single keycard there is a problem. Partner, however has other ideas and knowing I have the Ace & Queen ♣ bids 6♣ counting at least 4 keyacrds & Q♣. I quickly pass not thinking about a possible 6♠/ 6NT. At other tables 1 pair bid and made 6♠, 4x4♠+2, 2x4♠+1,1x4♠,1x4♠-1,3x5♣+1 & a few odd/underbid final contracts. [hv=pc=n&s=skt2hj8754dq95c98&w=sa653hakt6d87ck53&n=s97h932dajt642ct7&e=sqj84hqdk3caqj642&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=p1cp1sp2cp2dp3sp4np5dp6cppp]399|300[/hv]

How about? 3♣ as either the 4 card constructive or limit raise. 3♦ asks which? 3♦ is the 3 card limit raise 3♥ slam try. or 3♣ 3+ card raise 8mlt. 3♦ asks 3 or 4+ 3♦ 4+ limit 8.5 mlt 3♥ 4+ constructive 8.5/8 mlt or Construct something similar that complements the rest of your structure

I've moved form Kickback to Kickbo during lockdown with the difference being that you show keycards & controls at the same time rather than asking for keycards. On the above hand 4S - 0/2/4 keycards 4NT - 1/3/5 keycards with ♠ control 5♣ - 1/3 keycards with ♣ control, denies ♠ control unless shown earlier 5♦ - 1 keycard i.e. A♦ or A/K♥ with ♦ control 5♥ - 1 keycard i.e. A/K♥ Partner then bids further controls/signs off in 5♥, bids beyond 5♥ if all keycards are present. In this case you bid 5♣ 1/3 KC, denying a ♠ control

Yes - both partners know each other's main shape (as do the opposition). Opener has Kx♦; what do you bid from here? The two key benefits are a) the ability to show a wider range of distributional hands without GF values, and b) well-defined approaches to showing various shapes (NB: we also play an unbalanced ♦) However, I have still working on software to do the analysis and compare with more traditional methods/other approaches.

[hv=pc=n&w=sa653hakt6d87ck53&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=p1cp1sp2cp2dp3sp]133|200|A hand from last night with partner having a dilemma about what to bid next[/hv] The bidding shown above is a bespoke Transfer Walsh sequence with the following to note: 1♣ -1♠ GF 2♣ (5+♣ & 3/4M, not balanced, not 4405) - 2♦ (4+♥) 3♠ (6+♣4♠ Int+, denies 3♥) - ? How would you bid and what's your final contract? and What lead do you expect opposite your final contract?

Namyats 4♣ - 4♦ slam invite

I'm not sure I'd open 1♠ with North's hand. Having said that my Ekren style 2♥ opening ends up in a worse position If you play transfer advances then 1NT-2♣-Pass