sathyab

Don't you also have take into account the fact that West thought the double of 2♦ was just ♦s whereas East meant it to be a Support Double ? If West led a ♦ knowing that his partner had ♠ support one might be inclined to play him for the Ace, as he might easily have led a ♠ holding the Queen. Another point about the lead. When you have already supported your partner quite a few partnerships make an attitude lead rather than a length lead. When East plays the ♦ Jack, it could be consistent with West holding the King, in which case he's unlikely to have ♠ Ace. So for the ♠ Jack to be right, West must have led a ♦ from three or four small and hold the ♠Ace (and may be secondary ♣ honor).

[hv=pc=n&s=skjhqjt53dt7cat42&n=s765ha987da83ck65&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=1d1h1s2dd2h3d3hppp]266|200[/hv] It's IMP pairs. ♦4 led. 1♠ promised a five-bagger. When you ask about the Double of 2♦ after the bidding is complete, East says he meant it as Support Double while West says he took it as just ♦s. If you play a low ♦, East plays the Jack and returns the ♠2. You may not agree with South's 2♥ over the double of 2♦, but that's how the bidding went att. Correction: West did not double 1h, he bid 1s promising a five bagger. [auction corrected to reflect the author's intent. -- inquiry]

♠A ♥AKJxxx ♦JT ♣AJxx As you can see you don't make 7♥ with any Max; it requires opener to have either the ♣Q or ♣Kx.

We know partner has two small ♠s and seven or eight solid ♥s. But what about his minor suits cards ? He should have controls in both suits, probably a stiff ♦ and something like ♣KQX ? That's the kind of hand that makes 5♥ reasonably safe if partner has a non-descript opener with no ♠ control.

Not sure if partner should be trying for a grand with A AKJxxx JT AJxx, if 6D is interpreted as looking for any max, as it most likely would be interpreted without prior discussion. But if it can be narrowed down to looking for help in the second suit, then it may be okay. I wish there was a way to launch into SSA (Specific Suit Asking). But that needs a lot of work: may be opener should respond 5s over 5d in spite of having shown the Spade K earlier, for now we can create two sequences 5s-5nt-6c-6d and 5s-6c, with the latter being a good candidate for SSA in clubs. But there's not enough room for all the SSA responses when hearts are trumps (I checked all the examples in Kantar's book, he cleverly avoids it !) following a Queen-asking response. So it requires more engineering.

3♣ over 1nt would have showed 5-5 (2nt being the way to sign off on 3).

[hv=pc=n&w=sk83hq82da9765ck4&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=1dp1hp1np2dp(art%20GF)2hp3cp3sp4np5cp5dp6cp6dp]133|200|2D art GF playing 2-way CB; 5C 1 Key for Hearts; 6C Trump Q + CK[/hv] It's MatchPoints. Thanks to your early Spade cue-bid, partner knows every high card in your hand with the possible exception of a side suit Queen.

A few lines ? The ACBL recommended defense vs multi-2D, option 2 is 3 pages long.

May be Mike Bodell already asked this question, but the answer wasn't clear to me, so asking again. Someone mentioned that the sequence 2nt-4♥-4♠-5nt would be considered GSF "traditionally". Is this a tradition that predates RKC or one that makes sense post-RKC ? In general when 4nt is available as RKC, does it not negate 5nt as GSF ?

I didn't know John Mohan votes here...

You're South in 3rd chair. [hv=d=n&v=b&s=sxhkqjxxdaxxcktxx]133|100|Scoring: MP p p 1h 2d 3d p ?[/hv] Your style is to open most 12s except the really ugly ones. You do open 11s with 5431 shape or even 5332s with some compensation such as a decent suit, so xxx Axx xx AQJxx would be an opener.

My $0.02. After a fairly successful Spring Nationals in Reno I was totally buried in work the following four months. Being seriously rusty, I started playing some on-line Bridge a week before the New Orleans Nationals . Since time was at a premium, I played a lot against GIBs, I didn't care how they played, I just wanted to get back to the game. I discovered much to my chagrin that on-line Bridge is hopelessly inadequate to prepare you serious F2F bridge.

[hv=d=n&v=e&n=skqt3h3dq5cq98543&e=sa6542h9daj62cakj]266|200|Scoring: MP p 1♠ 3♥ p p X p p p ♠J led, Q[/hv] If partner has Jx of ♠s, winning and returning a ♠ will let declarer pitch a loser. If ♠J is stiff, there're lay-outs where ducking could cost.

If my suit was a major I can understand overcalling 2M at MP, but how is this a "routine" overcall at any form of the game at any vulnerability ? What are the modern requirements for overcoming a 2-level preempt ?

I like the idea of not introducing ♥s naturally here. Can we construct a hand where 4♥ is the only game ? Unfortunately at the table I did bid 3♥; my partner was stuck so he raised ♥s, now I made a general purpose slam try with 4♠. Partner cue-bid 5♣ and I bid 5♦. Partner must have thought I was cue-bidding the ♦K for he bid 6♥ (:- Partner could have bid 3♠ instead of raising ♥s or bid 5nt over 5♦ as choice of slams. But if you don't introduce ♥s at all, things are a lot easier. Of course if was MP, you'd have to bid it the way Junyi Zhu suggested.

I didn't say it right. West deals and opens a weak2 Spade.

[hv=d=w&v=b&n=sahqxda9xxxcaxxxx&s=sqxxhaktxxdqtxxck]133|200|Scoring: IMP (2s)[/hv] After a Weak2 on your left. Opponents stay silent the rest of the auction.

OK, agree with your observation about 2♥...3♥ sequence. You have the values for an invitation, but given that partner can easily be doubling without 4♥s on a 13(45) shape or even 2344 shape, 3♥ may commit you irrevocably to a strain when your eight-card fit may be in ♣s instead. I think 2♥ followed by a X allows you to locate your best fit. Yes, once in a while 3♥ might get you to game where it could go all pass over 2♥, but how likely is that compared to partner making a T/O double w/o 4 ♥s ?

A couple of ATB's. 1) [hv=d=w&v=e&n=sjt4hkt74dk9ckjt9&w=sak976h532dat76c2&e=sq82h86dq42cq8643&s=s53haqj9dj853ca75]399|300|Scoring: MP 1♠ p 1nt X 2♦ 2♥ 2♠ p p 3♥ 3♠ p p p p[/hv] North, on lead found a trump lead to beat 3♠ a trick. But undoubled it wasn't worth a lot of MP as 3♥ making 3 or 4 were most common. 2) [hv=d=w&v=e&n=sjt4hkt74dk9ckjt9&w=sak976h532dat76c2&e=sq82h86dq42cq8643&s=s53haqj9dj853ca75]399|300|Scoring: MP 1♠ p 1nt X 2♦ 2♥ 2♠ p p 3♥ 3♠ p p p p[/hv] 4♥ undoubled wasn't worth many MP as 4♦ makes fro N-S.

Why is this hand a 5C bid, but x xx AKQxx KJTxx is not? One of them has a first round control in a major suit, the other one has potential quick losers in both major suits ?

Declarer has shown up with a stiff ♠, he definitely won't have two small ♥s for his bidding. So even when partner has the ♥A, we're never going to beat this more than one. Cashing the ♣A postpones the problem by a trick, as he plays the 8 spot and you still won't know what to do. As it turns out declarer has x Ax AKQxx JTxxx.

I think you're right. In retrospect I should have included the ♣A as a choice. Josh alluded to it as well, except that he thought that playing the Ace would amount to playing a partner who did bid 2♠ r/w for very little.

Heard it from a friend. A hand from the NAOP event in Reno recently. [hv=d=w&v=e&n=skqhkjt95dt54cq53&e=sat87643hqd97ca62]266|200|Scoring: MP p p 1s 2d 2s x 3s 5c p 5d all pass; S2 from 3/5 led[/hv] Your ♠A survives much to your relief. You could play partner for a trump trick, ♥A or ♣K. But some of these constructions can be mutually exclusive as is often the case... You look at the other CC and they do play 2nt as unusual over 1M.

Joining the discussion really late here. Let's say you play the ♠K. LHO takes the Ace and forces you again. When play the ♥Q he doesn't cover (and that's single dummy defense if LHO is paying attention) when you try to run ♦s he ruffs with ♠T and you can't make the hand any more can you ?

Don't understand why you'd bid 4♠ over 3♣. Partner is still unlimited and a barrage bid like 4♠ doesn't at all help. Yes, people who make barrage bids always preface it by saying partner can always try again, as long as he can guess how badly your hand has been done in by his ♣ shortness. If the choice is between bidding 4♠ over 3♣ and how they bid up to 6♠ here, sign me up for the latter any time.