RichMor

Yes, the line I posted last night is wrong (again). In the 6-card end positions after declarer has discarded a second Diamond on the Heart Ace and ruffed a Heart to hand, the closed hand has ♠)KJxx and ♣)xx. I forgot that 2 of the Spades will be losers. :blink: The line you posted seems like it might work. This is hand is too hard, maybe 5♣ is impossible with best defense.

3♠ Don't want to Pass, don't want the opening lead to come thorough the ♥K. Don't know if pard's pass is forcing beyond 2♠ or 3♣, depends on agreements.

My 2 cent's worth: 1. Maybe responder can Pass but probably shouldn't. 2. Doesn't matter if responder is passed hand. 3. Form of scoring doesn't matter.

Maybe the 'fork' can still work. 1. Pitch Heart. RHO wins Ace and returns trump. 2. Win in dummy 3. Club to hand 4. Another Club, assume they split 3-2 We still have 3 trump. 5. Diamond toward dummy. At this point, RHO has a problem if holding the Diamond Ace. 6. If RHO wins, claim. 6. If RHO plays low, play King. 7. If King wins cash Heart Ace, discard Diamond. 8. Ruff to hand, play K and another Spade. We still have 2 trump. If Spades are 4-4 or Queen falls on second or third round, we are OK, 7. RHO wins Diamond and returns Spade 8. Win the King. 9. Lead Diamond to dummy. 10. Cash third Diamond, pitch Spade. If both follow, claim. This seems to work if Diamonds are 3-3, or Spades are 4-4, or RHO has the Diamond Ace. Gotta say 'seems to work' cause I usually miss something. :P

Yes.

Neat :D Didn't consider a fork. Nice analysis. Nice but wrong, see edited post above. But thanks, I'll take compliments where I can get them. :) Yes. In the mental replay I lost it at trick 11. We start with 6 Clubs in hand. 1. Spade to RHO's Ace. 2. Club return from RHO won in dummy. 3. Heart from dummy, ruff in hand 4. Spade, ruff in dummy 5. Heart, ruff in hand So far that's 3 Clubs from hand. 6. Club from hand, pitch Heart. Assumed both opps followed to trick 6. 7. Club from hand, pitch Heart. That's 5 Clubs from hand. Dummy has Heart Ace and 5 Diamonds left. Declarer has 3 Spades, 2 Diamonds, and 1 Club. 8. Lead Diamond. If they duck, win in dummy. 9. Ace of hearts from dummy and pitch Diamond from hand. 10. Diamond from dummy, ruff in hand with sixth and final Club. 11. Spade King Forgot the remaining Spades in hand might not be good. :) Think I will give up mental card play in 2009 and use paper and pencil.

Neat :o Didn't consider a fork. Nice analysis.

Yes, agree completely with the 'If' part. Since the original post asked what is the best bid with the given hand and the given auction, that's why I suggested 3♠.

It avoids playing 3NT with a poorly held major suit. A lot of people seem to think once they have bid a suit it is no longer a concern if they play in notrump, but that is not the case. It's bad for responder to bid 3NT over 3♣ simply when he has a heart stopper if his spades are xxxx, since it will never occur to partner to run with a singleton spade. It also avoids making 3NT with a poorly held major suit :P In any case, I suggest not bidding 3NT with xxxx in Spades and a Heart card but instead bidding 3♠. This gives away info to the opps of course, but the info it gives to pard is more useful in the long run.

I think that just shows good spades and specifically points to a heart weakness for notrump. 'Good Spades' that responder could not rebid ? What would they look like ? A strong 4-card suit. And empty or near empty hearts. Probing for 3NT. Maybe something like KQTx xxx Kxxx Qx Sure, or 5 card suit. AQxxx xxx Qx JTx. It's not that you want to play in spades, it's that you are describing your hand so partner can know what to do, such as bidding 3NT. Likewise 3♥ points to a spade weakness IMO. The original auction was: 1♦ - 1♠ 2♣ - 2♦ 3♣ - ? I don't think the example hand KQTx xxx Kxxx Qx is a simple preference to 2♦. AQxxx xx Qx JTx is. In any case, opener could have bid something other than 3♣ with some Heart values. And responder can bid 3♥ or even 3NT over 3♣ with some Heart values. So bidding 3♠ to 'show where we live' seems attractive at first but what does it gain? Bidding 3♠ to show values in pard's suits is probably less frequent but more useful.

Well, the choice of bid might also have to do with what these bids show. This hand is waaaaaaaay to strong to splinter by any agreements even close to standard. If its not too good by your agreements then you can't splinter very often. (And no please don't start telling me your range is 12-14, even then it is too strong.) You will please explain to me how a game-forcing hand can be too strong to make a game-forcing bid? I can sort of grasp a hand too weak to force to game shouldn't make a game-force bid. Is there a Goldilocks splinter, neither too strong nor too weak but just right? With a 'Baby Bear' splinter - 12 to 14 support points - respond 4♥. With a 'Poppa Bear' splinter - 18 + support points - respond 4♥ and bid again over opener's sign off. With a 'Momma Bear' splinter - 15 to 17 support points - do something else. IMO, the example hand is a Momma Bear. What else ? 1. Include Momma Bear splinters in an immediate 2NT forcing raise. 2. Make a 2/1 response in your best suit, rebid your other non-trump suit, support opener's first suit. Live happily ever after.

I think that just shows good spades and specifically points to a heart weakness for notrump. 'Good Spades' that responder could not rebid ? What would they look like ?

How about 3♠ as a mini-Bluhmer ? When responder makes a simple preference instead of rebidding his first suit and opener continues over responder's simple preference then responder's first-suit rebids are forcing and suggest playability in opener's suits. Sort of like 1♦ - 1♠ 2♣ - 2♦ 2♥ - 2♠ where responder had a chance to rebid 2♠ on round 2 but didn't. Not standard practice probably but sort of logical.

Isn't the vulnerability in 'Chicago' scoring neither, dealer, dealer, both ? I've always played none, not dealer, not dealer, both. Does it really matter that much? Just a little bit. If we are vul on the next hand then it is more attractive to pass the double for penalties; take the points now and hope for a vulnerable game on the next hand. Kinda trivial.

2 NT seems best to me whether responder is a passed hand or not. Yes, opener can pass with a minimum or sub-minimum and tolerance for Diamonds. But, it's not a good idea to significantly change the meaning of opener's rebids based on the fact that responder is a passed hand.

We have lived in a 'fossil fuel' culture/economy since the Industrial Revolution (whenever that was). If not for oil, would we have ever heard of or care about Kuwait? My best guess for a transformational technology is anything and everything that gets us away from fossil fuel. Maybe there will be some breakthrough in energy cells or safe nuclear power, or bio-fuel, or something. Maybe we will see gradual improvements in many technologies that will make fossil fuel less important. If the CIA wants to scan my brain, they will be disappointed.

Can you explain some more about your methods? Right now, the way I play, I have no bid other than 2♦ to respond. I could bid 2NT, but I'm a few points short for a Jacoby 2NT response. ♠QJ72 ♥9 ♦A7632 ♣AK4 is a few points short of a Jacoby 2NT response? Or, did I miss a switch of hands under discussion? Mainstream treatment of 2NT as a forcing raise usually excludes hands with a singleton or void, although not all play that way. As to an immediate 4♥ 'splinter' raise, this hand is a little too good for a minimum splinter and not good enough to splinter and continue over a sign off. With the example hand, I think it's best to 'bid around' the shortness: 1♠ - 2♦ 2♥ - 3♣ any - 4♠ That's old fashioned but usually works.

Isn't the vulnerability in 'Chicago' scoring neither, dealer, dealer, both ?

Wow, your pard held AKxx in Clubs and didn't raise :D

Jeff Rubens has a basic rule for 'undiscussed' bids: 1. It is as natural as possible 2. In a competetive auction - they made the last bid - it is non forcing. 3. In a constructive auction - we made the last bid - it is forcing. IMO, this is a good general rule. Not optimal in every situation but reasonable and easy to remember. So I prefer to play 3♣ as natural and non-forcing. Treating a a new suit bid as fit showing in competetive auctions works best when it is likely that there will be more bidding. In this auction there is no strong reason to expect that either side will bid above the 3 level.

Frances, OK. With your agreements specified, then I think it is reasonable to raise Diamonds rather than cue a partial Spade stopper. But it seems to me that when 3♦ 'either does not have a spade stop or has a slam try' may leave you poorly placed when responder just has game-going values and no Spade stop. How would you respond after 1NT - (2♠) with ♠)xx ♥)Qxx ♦)AJxxx ♣)Kxx ? Most lebensohl treatments have some call, direct or delayed, that shows game values and no stop in the opps' suit; some play 'direct denies' where responder bids 3NT with no stopper and others play 'slow denies' where responder bids 2NT followed by 3NT with no stopper. With the example hand above you can use one of the 'no stopper' calls. But one of the advantages of lebensohl is the ability to make a forcing natural response below game. I would like to bid a natural forcing 3♦ with this example hand.

Errr, what auction are we talking about ? I'm talking about 1NT - (2[♠]) - 3♦ - (P) where opener rebids 3♥ with jdonn's example xxx AQx Kx KQJxx If the auction is instead 1NT - (2[♠]) - 3♥ - (P) then rebid 4♥ with the same hand. If you are saying 3♥ in the first sequence could (or should ?) be xxx KQJxx Kx AQx instead, that is a sensible treatment. But then you are stuck with the first example hand. Guess we can't have it all even in 2009.

This explanation also agrees with the original K-S (weak 1 NT) definition of an inverted double raise: a hand that should not make game facing an expected 15 to 17 HCP.

3♥, WTP ? Ok, I would think that shows hearts, but obviously if you are just showing stoppers it's certainly wtp. Unless of course partner had bid hearts instead of diamonds. 4♥, WTP redux. This would be a different and more interesting problem at teams, but pairs scoring it is so head for 3NT when possible.

Since you included the Club 8, could you also mention the spot cards played on the first round ?