Tramticket

Playing a weak NT, I would expect 2NT to show about 17-19'with a stopper. Double would cover the 15-16 point range, or stronger without a stop. This is one reason why support doubles don't work well in a weak NT system.

I would open 1NT. But this would be an exception and it would be unusual for us to open 1NT with this shape. Half of our points are in the short suits, so on this occasion I open 1NT. More generally, I would open 1C with this shape and content myself with a 2C rebid. if partner is 5-5, we have no mechanism to finish in 3NT and would play in 4M instead.

I have a related irritation. My complaint is with players who have learnt conventions off the internet, which are not a fit with their basic system. As an Acol player, I find players who want to play Acol, with Bergen raises, Flannery, Support Doubles, a forcing 1NT response etc. These might be great conventions in the context of a Strong NT and Five-card Major system, but are much less useful in an Acol context.

For us 1S is fourth suit forcing. It doesn't promise spades, but it doesn't deny spades and partner can bid 2S (to show a 4414 or 4405 hand). I don't play strong jump shifts in my main partnership, but if I did, a two-suited hand would not be suitable.

Yes, we also open 1♦ with this shape. I never have understood the EBU advice to open 1♥ - it risks having to rebid diamonds and promise a five-card heart suit. But we would happily pass a 12-count with this shape, we might open 1NT with this shape and a singleton ace or king and we might choose to rebid 2NT with a 14-count. So it is pretty rare that we are forced to rebid 2♦ and I have never yet been left to play in a 4-2 (or even 4-1) two diamond contract.

We haven't discussed this specific sequence. But double then 1NT is about 18+ to 20 and I would expect that the 2S bid would be invitational values with four+ hearts and four spades. I don't understand the minimum options. The minimum is surely zero, so why would we bid 2S with (say) four hearts and four spades and zero points.

I don't think that this sequence is dependent on your one-level system. The sequence promises a five-card suit. With two four-card suits you are balanced. Very strong 4441 hands are awkward. They are awkward in any system.

There are many methods. I play Truscott with one partner: -1D = diamonds and hearts -1H = hearts and spades -1S = spades and clubs -2C = clubs and diamonds -Dbl = clubs and hearts -1NT = diamonds and spades -Jumps = single-suited (usually weak) 3C would be normal for us on this hand.

I use Lead Captain: https://www.bridgecaptain.com/LeadCaptain.html

Agree. But should South pass 3C doubled for penalties? Or bid 4H? or 3NT?

Deleted nonsense. Mis-read as 1444.

Why? Maybe they are playing board 14, or board 30, or board 46 ...

3!h is not "patterning out". It is showing a four-card heart suit = maybe ♠6 ♥KJ63 ♦KJ92 ♣KQ103. 2NT over 2♥ looks obvious.

To answer Cyberyeti's original question, no I wouldn't downgrade. It's not a great 16, but not bad enough to downgrade and I don't think K&R valuation work well for balanced hands. But if someone chooses to downgrade, I think it is a reasonable judgment. I think that comments suggesting that a downgrade is unethical are wide of the mark. There seems to be attitude amongst Strong No Trumpers that upgrading regularly is normal, but downgrading is not. In my opinion the alert / cc are fair if upgrading and downgrading occurs with similar frequencies.

(1) The results of a double dummy simulation using Lead Captain and Lamford's exact parameters (Sample Size 10,000): - At IMPs (Set %): 2♦ 10.35%, A♣ 10.06%, 2♥ 9.79%, 2♣ 9.64%, 2♠ 9.02%, Other honours < 8.65% - At MPs (Number of Tricks): 2♦ 3.11, 2♣ 3.05, A♣ 3.01, 2♠ 2.99, 2♥ 2.99, Other honours < 2.93 (2) The opponents might use Stayman. Here is a Lead Captain simulation using Lamford's parameters, but only allowing a four-card major if exactly 4333: - At IMPs (Set %): 2♥ 9.96%, 2♠ 9.80%, 2♦ 9.13%, Q♥ 8.90%, A♣ 8.75%, 2♣ 8.20%, Other honours < 7.84% - At MPs (Number of Tricks): 2♦ 3.07, 2♠ 3.02, 2♣ 3.02, 2♥ 3.01, A♣ 2.99, Other honours < 2.94 (3) General Observations: We are not defeating this very often (about 10%) and the opponents expect to make about 10 tricks. The results are very close which is unsurprising since no lead looks attractive. A diamond lead is most passive and does slightly better at MPs. As Pilowsky points out, our partnership is likely to hold more cards in the majors (particularly if we allow Stayman) and a major suit lead is more likely to defeat the contract. (4) Some comments on the Double Dummy simulation Firstly, DD simulations tend to favour ace leads, because the simulation will always make the optimum trick 2 switch. The A♣ lead didn't perform particularly well here because we will usually want to play passively rather than find an optimum switch. But I would always discount results for aces in DD simulations. DD simulations always find the queen. In real life leading from ♥Q32 is likely to be more dangerous because humans make wrong guesses looking for the queen. For this reason, I would lead a low spade at IMPs.

Declarer tried leading towards the ♣K. He lost three hearts and five clubs for -500! Yes, I agree with this.

The actual hand was: [hv=pc=n&s=st753hqjtd5cat872&w=sha984dakqj876cj4&n=s9842hk732dt4cq53&e=sakqj6h65d932ck96&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=p1dp1sp3np4nppp]399|300[/hv] The winning line on this layout is to win the second heart, play the ace of diamonds and when the ten doesn't fall, play a second round to eliminate the suit. The exit in hearts and if South wins, he will have to give us an entry to dummy. If North wins and shifts to a club, dummy plays low and South must play low to avoid the endplay, but declarer can cash the nine of hearts before crossing to dummy with the nine of diamonds and running the spades. If North wins and put declarer back in with the heart, declarer crosses to dummy with the diamond and succeeds when the spades divide 4-4.

[hv=pc=n&w=sha984dakqj876cj4&e=sakqj6h65d932ck96&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=p1dp1sp3np4nppp]266|200[/hv] IMPs North leads the ♥2, playing 4th highest leads and South plays the 10. Best line? Our opponents faced this problem, from a teams match last night. I can't comment on the bidding.

Depending on jurisdiction, it is probably alertable if the partnership has agreed to overcall on this 2-count. But certainly legal.

I think that Zel gave a partial quotation in the other thread. The full text is: I have highlighted bold the part that advocates bidding up the line with equal length suits.

You needed to read a bit further - see 2.3.1 Edit: Sorry, I see Douglas already said this.

If you play the style of Acol where you open the major with 4-4 in a major and a minor it is normal to respond up the line.

I can reassure you that 4th suit forcing is standard in Acol and has been for at least 70 years. Some, including me, even play 4th suit forcing as game forcing! Check back is more usual than NMF.

I'm not aware of Acol players who play it as game forcing. It is a one-round force for almost everyone, but very old-school Acol players might play it as non-forcing! As far as the opening post goes, I respond 2C if I think that I am worth two bids, but respond 1H if I am inclined to pass after 1D-2C-2D.