MFA

4♠. 4♥ is transfer.

The more I think about this the more I get convinced that pass is right.

Pass. Close? Yes, I suppose. But I think pass will be quite a solid long term winner. I hate spade xxx here, where we need a miracle for partner not to have three as well.

The big upside is that righty might rise with the K from Kx.

Yes, you are right of course that it's a matter of style whether to respect partner's sign-off in 3♠. I was a little too quick to assume my usual horrific 1M overcall style.

Agree with this. Given the constraints I bid 2NT and pass 3S. I think it's worth it to show the 4th trump immediately with 2NT. This is huge for partner, if he has a crappy trump suit or, say, a crappy 4-card suit on the side where he fears a bunch of deep losers. I think it's automatic to respect a sign-off over 2NT.

Not sure if I understand what you are saying about this one. If we need all the tricks, we must bang down AK and hope for QJ doubleton. If we can afford 1 loser, then it's always right to start with the T. If west follows small, we'll let it ride and hope to have pinned the singleton 9. If west plays Q, J or 9, we'll rise with the A and play small to the 8 to catch east's HHxx or H9xx.

In all seriousness, what type of hand is going to want to try to stop on a dime and declare 4M opposite an opener whose only redeeming quality is an eight card suit. I can't imagine that anyone will 1. Hold a hand where 4M is a better contract than either 4♣ or 5♣ 2. Be able to make an informed decision that 4M is a superior contract with any degree of frequency If you honestly believe that you need to be able to declare 4M then you're best course of action is probably to use 4♦ as a puppet to 4♥ and use 4♥ and 4♠ as control asking bids... You'll wrong side the original heart contract and give the opponents a chance at a lead directing double. Then again, given that the bid will never actually be used it can't really hurt you that much. At least you'll still have the CABs available in Hearts and Spades. None of these things come up very frequently, but reserving 3 bids (4♦, 4♥, and 4♠) for delicate slam investigation at the expense of not being able to play 4M I'm 110% sure is wrong.

I don't see how we possibly could sacrifice the natural 4Ms to facilitate slam bidding. If keycarding is unnecessary because of a narrow definition of 4♣ (I'd hate to play like that, but that's another story), then 4♦ could be a "cuebid", asking p to cuebid upwards (4NT is then a cuebid in ♦ for example).

Special keycard, 0, 1 -Q, 1 +Q, 2 -Q, 2 +Q, etc.

In this situation, I play: Low card = Continue please (no shift desired) High even card = Shift to lowest ranking side suit High odd card = Shift to highest ranking side suit If I have, say, only odd cards among the big ones, the highest odd card would have it's usual meaning (shift to highest ranking suit), while a smaller odd card would indicate the lower suit.

I think west is most likely 1444. I will play for the drop. Perhaps it's slightly better to finesse against west if I go all out to make it, but there could be many imps difference between down 1 and down 2, as gnasher points out.

1. Because if he had them, it would have gone 1♠ 1NT 2♥ 2. You might object and might be right. But reality is pards pass often on unsuitable hands, hoping for some goodies from you, which you know you DONT have. It depends on your pard's style, of course, but playing a trigger-happy pard, I would seriously consider 3♣. 1. Note that the opponent overcalled 2♥ before partner had a second chance. 2. I find that "trigger-happy" style losing bridge. When can we ever take-out double with perfectly normal hands, if we always have to cater to these blackouts? I have 9 hcp and a singleton spade - nothing to be ashamed of about my defense.

Pard doesn't have a 4 card heart suit, so opps are guaranteed to have a heart fit. Now, if opener happens to have, say, an uninteresing 5332 or 5323 with a heart trick, he might consider passing for penalties (gambling you have another heart trick) and that's probably going to be bad. Since 2NT over 2♥ would be a bit muddy, I might consider to gamble a 3♣ bid instead of doubling. This wins when pard is 5233 or 5323 and might also make even when pard is 5332. Why doesn't partner have 4 hearts? I strongly object to his making some random, speculative penalty pass with a 5332 hand without a very good reason. This is the 2-level, so partner should have something close to a penalty double of his own to convert, or things will too often get much too scary for us.

I think a T/O double was perfect with your cards.

Small heart at T1 for me too. No particular reason to believe that the ♥K is wrong.

Maybe the opps will accept if pard bids 3N over 4D! Sure. Just remember to say, "Oops, I meant to keycard 4NT" when bidding it. Then the opponent will let 3NT through, thinking that our partner has to pass 3NT for ethical reasons. :rolleyes: Unless, of course, he has so many aces that he really wants you to bid 4NT. :P

Why not just bid 2♣ over 1♥? Seems automatic to me.

(1♣) - 1♠ - (P) - 2♣ (P) - ??? 3♣: Forcing to 3♦ only. 3♦: NF, not particularly strong, but a real overcall for once. 3♥: Natural, F1 3♠: Invitational. (1♣) - 1♠ - (P) - 2♣ (P) - 2♦ - (P) - 2♠ would typically be a doubleton spade. NF of course.

Against a good west, I will finesse. He might have deduced the entire distribution and be trying to cloud the issue with ♦Qxxx. There is no way he will compromise partner's potential ♦Q when holding three small. Against a bad west, I will most likely also finesse, but first I will consider what have happened in ♥ and ♠.

5♣. Not so brave, but 6 or 7 could be quite expensive. Not much fun in offering a choice of 1100 or a making slam.

I'm just trying to find anybody who would actually pass 4♥. Are there any passers out there? On this planet? If not ... well, you know the conclusion.

1♠. But I can live with 1NT and X + spades.

@ those who thinks this appeal has no merit. Would any of you actually pass over 4♥ in this situation if there were no pause? (Don't answer that it's not inconceivable. What is your actual choice?)

Yes, exactly. Our obligations are to declare our system, not to sort out their misunderstandings. But surely, the director should be summoned as quickly as possible.