nigel_k

On the first one North is blameless. He can't have felt that good about passing the double but he has nowhere to go. South should make a forcing pass and North bid 5NT choice of slams then South 6♣. It's too hard to reach grand I think. On the second one South has to open a strong club (Kaplan/Rubens 20.25). After opening only 2♣ South should also probably bid 6♣ at the end but it's just a guess at that point. I would bid 4♥ instead of 5♣ with North but I'm still giving South 90%.

1. System on is fine but doing something different is ok as well as long as you can remember it. I like all jumps to be weak and natural if they interfere, so only 2NT (after X) or cue bid (after overcall) is available as an artificial raise. I'm not entirely sure this is best though. 2. It seems sensible to keep the same meaning for 2NT when they overcall 2♠. I would play 2♠ not 2NT as the artificial enquiry if there is no interference which saves a step and allows you to use the same structure after both 2♥ and 2♠ openings. In that case, using the same approach is obviously not an option when they overcall 2♠.

Below are the possible distributions (regardless of who has length), the probability of each, and how often we succeed on each one: 006 0.00158 succeed 1/3 of the time 015 0.03077 succeed 1/3 * (1 + 1/6) 024 0.10257 succeed 1/3 * (1 + 1/3) 033 0.07521 succeed 1/3 * (1/2 + 1/2) 114 0.11111 succeed 1/3 * (1 + 1/3 + 1/3) 123 0.53333 succeed 1/3 * (1 + 1/2 + 1/2) 222 0.14545 succeed always Therefore probability of success is 0.00053 + 0.01197 + 0.04559 + 0.02507 + 0.06172 + 0.35555 + 0.14545 = 0.64588 This may be subject to minor rounding errors. I don't understand either of the above methods.

Agree with 2♠ initially and showing the queen now. But is this really light for a constructive raise? Maybe I should do a simulation but I think that this hand opposite a 1♠ opener has a slightly higher trick expectation than a random 8-10 4432 with 3 card support. I gave some though to bidding 4♠ instead of 2♠.

The first suit bid is always five or more. You can show a four card suit if you have already bid a five card suit or NT. Unbalanced hands with a four card major and five card or longer minor are difficult to bid after starting with 2♣. For this reason many people open 1 of a minor even with very strong hands, e.g. x AKJx AKJxx AKx. It's better to hope 1♦ is not passed out than to get into an auction like 2♣-2♦-3♦-3♠.

I agree with Peachy. The best signalling method is the one that partner is least likely to forget. Everything else is insignificant compared to that.

No blame. It's just unfortunate that responder has no way to convey their diamond shortage. 3♠ instead of 4♦ is tempting even though it's not a cue bid and partner won't know hearts are trumps until I bid them later. But if partner bids 4♠ we will be very poorly placed because he could have six spades and diamond wastage, e.g. A10xxxx Kx KJx xx, but could also have five good spades and no diamond wastage as on the actual hand.

I agree that a 6 card suit is standard but 2♥ constructive is quite useful, for example with xx AQxxx xxx Kxx, you don't really feel good bidding 2♠ after 1♠-1NT-2♣. I think GIB should learn Bart anyway because it's really far superior to being able to play some hands in 2♦. Of course you would still have the problem if opener rebids 2♦ and responder has hearts.

I think you can make after winning in hand without East being involved. After the heart finesse and cashing ace, run all trumps but one to reach: [hv=n=shkdaxcjxx&w=shd108xckqx&e=shqxxdqcxx&s=sxhdxxcaxx]399|300|[/hv] Now don't play last trump, instead lead a diamond to the ace and cash ♥K discarding a diamond. If West keeps two diamonds he can only keep two clubs so you duck one, if he comes down to one diamond only you ruff dummy's diamond and lead a club up. I don't know if this is better than playing for stiff club honour in East though, since East is known to have few club cards and West didn't lead one. But with my line I can leave the decision to the end and they may give it away with their carding.

I think this is too good for 2♠ even if you don't open on rubbish. It's 12.85 according to Kaplan/Rubens compared to something like KQJxxx xx xx Axx which is 12.3. The problem is you might not make much when partner has short spades, but if he does have some spades and you give up control he'll often bid too little, e.g. Jxx Qxxx AKx QJx is an excellent game and you can make opposite less.

LOL the auction makes sense (sort of) regardless of which opponent opened 3♦. Anyway the dealer is East so that makes it North's fault.

South should double. There are no guarantees but you have good defence, an expectation that your side will often make 110, and it's unlikely -140 will be worth much. Also I would have bid 2♦ with North instead of passing 1NT but I don't know if this is relevant to the outcome.

Pass. Could live with any choice except 2♠. This is much too good at favourable.

1. Spade. I'm not a passive leader by nature and I'd like to start a force. But it's a weak club suit and either LHO has clubs or they are both balanced so passive could be ok anyway. Also I don't know which club to lead (jack ?). 2. Ace of clubs. Not close.

If no suit is agreed then RKCB is for the suit of the 4NT bidder's partner. Hearts, in this case. Some other points: 1) Why should partner think clubs are a good place to play when he has only AKxxxx and you never supported them? 2) Partner should not use Blackwood with a void, and using it with clubs as trumps means he will be too high anyway if two key cards are missing. 3) I would not have opened 2♣ as I don't expect to make game very often if partner passes 1♥. But plenty of people would so this is not a big deal. 4) I would not rebid 4♥ with your hand. You could raise clubs or rebid 3♥ and bid 4♣ over partner's 3♠. Or even just bid 3NT at some point since it's matchpoints and he will never stop bidding if he has three of the four missing key cards. 5) If you do support clubs, partner should cue bid a control rather than ask for aces. With no controls to cue bid (as here) he should usually just bid 5♣. But in this case he has a very good hand with a fit opposite a two club opener so might just try 6♣ anyway.

There's obviously no reason at all to bid on this because you have nothing that suggests offence except what you have shown with the opening bid. I don't find LOTT reliable and don't use it. However, LOTT does not say that you need nine trumps to bid to the three level. All it says is that the total tricks for both sides is equal to the total trumps for both sides. On this hand the LOTT analysis should be as follows: The opponents likely have either eight or nine trumps so the total is 16 or 17. Assuming partner has three, 3♥ (9 tricks) will make whenever 2♠ fails (7 tricks), and both may make if it is a 17 trump/trick hand. So Uwe is right that the LOTT suggests bidding, of course it will also suggest that partner should always bid if we pass. That's because LOTT is bad, not because Uwe is applying it incorrectly.

Play suggestion hidden:

Ok I can't come up with one layout where we can make. Before I give up and rate it 5.0 can I just check there is not a misprint, e.g. the contract should be 6♥?

Who wouldn't want to bid up to 4♥ with that hand? Responder should either bid 2♠ over 2♦ and raise 3♥ to 4♥, or just bid 3♠ directly over 2♦. Bidding 2NT does nothing to help to you get to the right level in either hearts or spades and lets opponents have extra turns to call. My original example, xx AQx Axxx Kxxx, is the sort of responding hand that makes sense for this sequence.

I've already tried to explain this cannot be a straight system question. As a matter of logic, not system, opener can always bid one more. I'm not suggesting that 3♠ is forcing or even especially encouraging, just that it cannot make sense to bid 2NT with the desire to always sign off in 3♠ opposite any hand with spades. In think people are confusing this with a situation where the asker signs off in game, which is quite different. I accept that the player evaluated the hand as worth opening only a weak two and is stuck with that (mis)evaluation for the rest of the auction. But that doesn't prevent him realizing this is an absolute maximum and therefore the sort of hand that has an automatic 4♠ bid over 3♠. Yes it depends what the range of their multi is, but if the upper limit is so enormous that this is not an absolute maximum then that is so abnormal that I won't consider it unless the OP explicitly says that is the case.

I don't think it is so simple. This is quite different from overruling partner's choice of game, which would obviously be wrong in this sort of situation. Partner has taken a course of action that commits us to 3♠ even if I was minimum with spades. If he has a hand where 4♠ is poor opposite what I have, then we would go down in 3♠ a lot when I have a minimum. And partner could have avoided that by just bidding 2♠. After 2♠ there may not be a way to find out if opener is minimum or maximum, but a hand that strongly prefers hearts to spades will expect that partner usually has spades so will prefer to sometimes get to the wrong level in hearts in order to avoid getting to the wrong level in spades. If you have eg x KQx AKxxx xxxx surely you don't bid 2NT. You just bid 2♠ expecting a pass and raise hearts if not. So I think logic dictates that 3♠ is mildly invitational, though he will have better hearts than spades probably, something like xx AQx Axxx Kxxx. This has good play opposite my rock-crusher but not opposite a more ordinary maximum such as KQJxxx xx Kx xxx. My hand, when evaluated correctly, is not a normalish maximum two bid in any style except Fantoni-Nunes and they don't play multi.

Passing 3♠ ia not a logical alternative if the field is a decent standard. 3♠ is not a signoff - we are always free to bid one more in this kind of auction with a good maximum. We have a huge hand that was too good to open a weak two in the first place (Kaplan/Rubens 12.75). Our suit can play well opposite a small doubleton and if partner has a stiff spade and game interest opposite hearts only he would/should have bid 2♠ not 2NT.

All I do is say the cards to myself at the end of each trick, e.g. "King of hearts, four, seven, ace". That is enough for me to remember all of the cards in most cases and my memory is not especially good. The hard part is not knowing what cards are left, but drawing all of the available inferences from the bidding and play to date. I would focus on doing that and by the time you learn it, remembering the cards played will probably have become automatic.

How is it relevant that you have passed? Partner can still have all of the good hands that might want to bid 1♠ forcing and you can still have bad hands that would like to pass 1♠ or better hands that would be worth another bid. You should bid the same way as if you had not passed - for me that would mean that 1♠ is not forcing but I would only pass with a bare minimum and you have a bit extra so can try 1NT. Pass is not terrible though. The only major error here is thinking that being a passed hand could possibly make a difference to whether 1♠ is forcing.

I very much agree with all of this except the 'largely American' part. The situation calls for a mild telling off at most, not a procedural penalty and certainly not an adjusted score. If the person was a persistent offender I would eventually dock them 1 VP maybe but it would take more than 2 rings. And there are people who have pretty good reasons for needing to keep their phone on and it would be a pity if they were barred from ever playing bridge. If you are going to adjust the score, at a minimum there are some facts about the hand that would have to be established. Maybe the contract was down for reasons having nothing to do with declarer's line, or maybe it was always down before the phone rang, or due to declarer's failure to solve a problem that did not arise until after the phone was already in the car. And please don't consider the result at the other table - that's completely irrelevant to what would or would not have happened if the phone had not rung.