hatchett

Am I playing with Luis? If so I bid 1♠ showing a 3154 shape and 13-15HCP.

I have to give west a large slice of the blame for the greedy 6NT call. The auction rather took off on its own without either hand having a solid idea how strong their partner's hand was. I think it is much better for opener to show how strong he is as well as his shape, so that at least one hand in the partnership has an idea of the likely level. I think Mike's idea of bidding 3♠ has a lot of merit, i hate splintering stiff A.

I don't like the downgrade. 1NT is clear for me. I think you should double over 4C, which should be a weak NT. Over partner's 4S, 4NT for me would be a good 5♦ call without a club control, this seems a debatable move having already made a forcing pass, so 5♦ for me.

Interestingly 6♣/6NT are cold. Say west leads a Heart. Win A. Spade to the Q. Spade A. Cash 5 rounds of clubs. Cross to the Spade J. Diamond to J and Ace say. Exit in hearts, and take another diamond finesse. Easy game.

1. An easy pass. 2. My judgement is flawed with only 12 cards. 3. Depends on my agreements here. If I expect partner to pull with a singleton club then I would double and lead a club. I expect him to have at least a sound opener 4. I would be inclined to pass it's only a nv game, if i move 3s spades obvious. 5. Start with 3S. It's fairly hard to construct hands where 3NT is making and 5C isn't. There are many more hands where 5C is right and 3NT isn't. He needs something like a double diamond stop and a club loser before the suit runs for 3NT to be right. 6C might occasionally be on and biddable 6. Double again. I might make game opposite the almost nothing partner is likely to have.

Discarding a club and a heart doesn't work, declarer leads a heart covering lho's card and now you are endplayed twice.

I would tend to bid 3♦ if I was unsure about strain, allowing the strong hand to complete its description.

I can play partner for the ♥J. In which case I give declarer AQxx xx KQJx Axx, and pitch two clubs on the diamonds. If he ducks a club to me, I win cheaply and return the heart Q to stop myself being endplayed.

Sometimes with 3 card support you bid a forcing NT and then when you learn of partner's 6th spade you bid 4♠. Some play a 2NT as a one round force in this sequence, in this way you find out more about partner's hand than the space consuming 3♠. By the way I also wouldn't mind being in game on this hand.

Hi Whereeagles. Some questions. Do I assume from this comment you are playing 2NT as Lebensohl in this sequence. This is a very non-standard agreement that I can't remember anyone ever playing, is the implication that 2♠ is not absolutely game forcing? If you do not play Lebensohl in this sequence then 3♣ could be just a five count with some club support. I am interested if you bid 3♣ and partner bid 3NT would you bid again with this hand? If you wouldn't then I suspect we have different standards for a 2♠ call. I've tried to write down some hands opposite with a diamond control where slam is worse than a finesse and to be honest I'm struggling. AQJx x KQx AQxxx KQJx QJ KQ AQxxx ! but this is a clear 5C sign-off and there are countless fairly suitable minimums where slam is very good AKxx xx Ax AQxxx not really a game force AKxx Qx Ax AQxxx add the heart Q and the grand is good

That does seem high but I don't think opener will bid 1 ♠ on a 3 three card suit very often. If you play imho, sensible methods, whereby a 1NT rebid shows a balanced hand (a diamond stop being irrevelant) then you will rebid 1♠ on a three card suit virtually never. Even if you don't play this then you will presumably bid 1♥ on 3-3 in the majors so 1♠ will at best rarely be a three card suit, so raising to 2♠ on a minimum with 4 card suit is hardly ridiculous.

Pass, second choice 1H.

This is a cute hand. RHO surely has 4♦ to compete to the three level otherwise he is risking a 3-3 fit.. If you conclude that the whole hand falls into place. LHO therefore has 3♦ and therefore his shape is 3532. That makes RHO 1246. It's a little strange that he didn't try 3♣ on the way out but, if you discard a ♦ on the fourth round of heart you score up 3♠. RHO does indeed have the club A and LHO the diamond Q.

It's a tricky hand. Personally I think playing with a trusted partner , 4♥ which should mean pick a game has a lot of appeal. It should really show this exact shape, with 4NT showing 3523, although some might argue this belongs on the estorica thread! The actual hand of QTx x AKxxx AKxx I consider marginal but reasonable for the action. It's a hand you can't always get right but if a fitting ace and two fitting queens are enough to at least try for game I find that surprising. You can't be too much stronger on this sequence. Note if partner has the KQ♠ game could be very good. For instance KQx x AKxxx AJxx.

I think 2NT is likely to show a spade stop amd a 2254 or a 3154 with a stiff heart honour. 2S will typically show heart weakness (singleton or void) and might very occasionally be an unbiddable hand such as xx Qx AKJxx AKJx etc

I agree 4♠ looks pretty straight down the middle to me

I agree that 2♠ is a one round force here it will often be semi-natural. I was proposing 5D if D are 3-3 it is spades or clubs coming in if D are 4-2 it is clubs coming in there are also extra chances like one hand having a 4234 shape etc this is 50% plus ok for NV and good for V

I think the two camps will have to agree to disagree here :rolleyes: I don't see why 4♣ commits to slam though, if partner can't control diamonds you will play in 5♣, if that is in jeopardy partner doesn't have a 2♠ call. I would bid 3♣ with xxx AKxx xxx Kxx, I just think 4♣ is more descriptive showing good trumps.

I dislike 6♠, 5♦ seems obvious. 7♠ is wild.

Pass! You can't be serious you expect partner to have a 3145 17/18 count and you have 3 working honors and you think pass is a viable option? Your hand can't be much better on the auction with nothing wasted in hearts. This hand is a good game. Kxx x AKJxx AKxx and it wouldn't be totally shocking if partner had a 2164 such as Kx x AKJxxx AJxx which is not a huge amount worse than slam on a finessse It's not as though bidding over 2♠ commits you to game.

Start of longish rant Why on earth should a load of cue-bidding develop of what could be false prefence on Jxx KJxx xxxx Jx? Are you seriously telling me you are going to drop 3NT over 3♣? 4♣ here shows a slam try with good trumps Hxxx, which is exactly what you have. If you bid 3♣ you are almost certainly going to bid 4♣ on the next round but it won't be clear to partner how good your trumps are. Let me if you start with 3♣ how the bidding will continue over 3♦ hmm 4♣ maybe to confirm the trump suit. Is this a slam try or a hand with no diamond stop? 3♥ hmmm. 4♣ is this a cue for hearts or an attempt to confirm the trump suit. 3♠ hmmmm. 4♣ maybe to confirm the trump suit 3NT hmmmm how about 4♣ to show a slam try in clubs? If you bid 4♣ over 2♠ you can bid 4♥ over 4♦ and 5♥ the next round, leaving nothing unbid. I fail to see what advantage 3♣ has over 4♣ unless you like making the auction murky and showing one less trump than you have an advantage. Rant over

I agree and get a new partner if his shape is 2335 on the other hand as has also been suggested 3♣ shows at least 6

Things look fairly desperate with nothing in spades and suits breaking well. I would lead a ♥ hoping partner has a 5 carder, or the heart T and declarer KQ etc. Doesn't feel like a hand to be passive on.

1. I don't think 6♣ is far adrift as a value call. I'd be more worried about missing seven than six I think. Seven might be difficult to bid, but I could start with 5♥, and if partner bids 5♠, try 5NT, but it's a little murky. 6♣ directly is a practical call. 2. I'd start with 4♣ showing big club support, should be easy to bid the grand now after a couple of heart cue-bids from south. It nearly always works well to clarify the trump suit in these auctions as early as possible, 3♣ doesn't get the job done since it could be the start of looking for the right strain on a game hand. (I'm a little surprised you didn't get to a small slam on these cards though).