Tramticket

I'm not a Camrose level player, but my thoughts were: - It feels right to overtake and play back a heart. Declarer is ducking the first two rounds and partner will not continue hearts, since he can't have an entry. - It looks from our side like partner will play a diamond. But will it be so clear to partner holding (say) ♦JX to switch to the ♦J? I can't see any way to help partner in that? A diamond from our side will often be wrong. - The problem seems to come after partner switches to a low diamond. We presumably have to play ace and a low spade and hope that declarer can't run nine tricks (hasn't got a five-card club suit).

Over a "prepared club" we treat the club bid as natural and Ghestem is on. Over an artificial 1♣ we play Truscott and Ghestem does not apply.

If they duck, you have avoided a spade loser, but might still have two diamond losers if forced to play diamonds from your hand (if East has one more club as a safe exit). [Edit: but East probably has a seven-card suit for the VUL three-level call].

Lead a low spade towards dummy hoping to force an entry. The problem is to guess whether to play the 8 or 6 if West plays low (8 gains if west holds the Q, 6 gains if west holds the 7 and not the Q). But if 3♣ is weak promising 9 or fewer points I think that east is favourite to hold the Q♠ and will play the 6. Once in dummy I discard twi diamonds on the king and queen of hearts.

I would splinter, We play that a jump to 4♥/4♠ specifically denies shortage. I am not a fan of the 1♦ opening. I would open (in order of preference): - 2♦ - if our muti includes strong 4441 hands. - 2NT - I am prepared to treat as balanced. (Much less of a distortion than, for example, reversing with this shape). - 1♥ - We play four-card majors and whilst I would normally open 1♦ with this shape, we are so strong that we can open 1♥ and cope with any response (if we get any). - 1♦ - 4th choice!

Partner's second seat preempt was truly awful: JX QT8XXXX XX XX After RKCB revealed that she held neither ace nor king I guessed to bail out in 5♥ (down 1). I think that the gszes/eagles123 strategy of 3♠ followed by 6♣ has a lot of merit and will get you to the making 6♠. North at the other table got over-excited and took the bidding to 7♠ (down 1). Just another flat board!

Partner will bid 4H ...

Its forcing.

You (genuinely) pick up: [hv=pc=n&n=sakq32hdakqcakq42&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=p3hp]133|200[/hv] IMPs converted to VPs. CHO spoils the party by opening 3♥ in front of you. Her pre-empting style is pretty random and often Very aggressive. (For example she is unlikely to have an ace, king or queen outside trumps! B-)) What do you bid and what is your plan?

I know that the opening post stated SAYC, but its not my system and I tend to think of all problems from an Acol perspective. So playing Acol: 1. I open 1NT - no problem. Yes, the 4333 shape is not great and all of those queens are worth a minor devaluation. but on the positive side you have plenty of intermediates (two tens and all four nines) and you have a good quality four-card spade suit and reasonable support for any suit that partner holds. No reason to do anythong except the obvious 1NT. 2. I am not upgrading this to a 1NT opening, in 3rd seat, vulnerable at IMPs, with good chances that LHO is sitting there with a penalty double. If I were to open, I would choose to open 1♦, planning to pass anything except a 1♥ response (in which case I rebid 1♠). I'm more likely to do this at match point pairs, but would probably pass.

Its not that we don't understand the theory of takeout doubles. I would expect that 99%+ of our low level doubles are for takeout. The problem is that: (1) Having a suitable hand in this auction is a low frequency occurrence. It is difficult to construct a hand where East would overcall 1NT then want to make a takeout double. I guess that ♠KQX ♥AQ ♦AXXX ♣QTXX might be one of a very small number of hands where this would make sense. Meanwhile it is easy to construct hands where a penalty double is useful, perhaps ♠AK ♥QJTXX ♦AKX ♣XXX (or any number of similar hands). If you hold the second hand, you could wait for partner to make a takeout double, but partner will often have insufficient values - opener has bid twice and you have a strong no trump, so there aren't many points left for North and East. (2) Making a takeout double and hoping that partner can pass for penalties will not work symmetrically on the hand. Even if West has the magic hand to bid 1NT and then make a takeout double, it is almost impossible to construct a hand where East can pass for penalties. For these reasons I think it better on grounds of frequency to agree that West's double is penalties and if West passes and East protects with a double it is showing values. My general rule is that if you imply values in a suit by bidding NT, a subsequent double of the suit is penalties.

There are three possibilities for partner's double: take-out, "values", penalties: - If West has a hand suitable for a take-out double, then why was it not suitable for a take-out double on the last round of bidding? I suppose that it is possible for partner to hold support for the other three suits and (say) ♥AQ. Or maybe partner is trying to suggest both minors? Its all a bit esoteric for me. - I don't understand why partner would want to show values and ask us to do something sensible. Partner has already tightly defined their hand with the 1NT over-call. What extras can he have? - This leaves a penalty double. Partner has already shown heart values with the 1NT bid and it sounds like the opponents have chanced their arm to try to push you out of the 1NT prime spot. On this occasion they have pushed too hard and partner is able to wield the axe. A penalty double is clearly right. It would be showing a lack of faith to remove partner's penalty double.

I open all of these hands 1NT (weak - 12-14), without needing too much thought. It is difficult for me to construct a 12-count that I would not open ... but maybe this is it ... [hv=pc=n&s=saj32hk432dq432cq&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=p]133|200[/hv]

Thanks all. I signed off in 4♠. Partner's hand was: [hv=pc=n&s=sakqjXXXhXXdaXXcX&n=sXXhajXXdkqjXcqXX&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=1n(Weak)p2h(Transfer)p2np4c(Splinter)p4sppp]266|200[/hv] I was particularly worried about the poor trumps at the time - as well as the wasted Q♣ and my reasoning was similar to Nige1 and others. I think that this was short-sighted. gszes gave the crucial comment in my opinion: These diamonds opposite the A♦ will provide three tricks + a further trick from the A♥ = 4 tricks, which is surely as much as partner can expect from a weak NT. For slam to be good we need 12 tricks as well as controls and with my tricks the five-level is likely to be safe, so I am worth a 4♦ cue bid. (Note the slam is a poor option if you weaken the diamonds: ♠XX ♥AJXX ♦KQJ ♣QXXX.) Thank you all for your comments. Very educational.

[hv=pc=n&n=sXXhajXXdkqjXcqXX&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=1n(Weak%20%5B12-14%5D)p2h(Transfer)p2sp4c(Splinter)p]133|200[/hv] IMPs (Teams of 4 Knock-out - you were 7 IMPs up going into the final stanza) Methods: You play a weak NT and Jacoby transfers (but not Texas transfers. Partner could have responded 3♠, inviting a slam). Partner's 4♣, is a splinter showing 6+ good spades and a singleton/void in clubs. Question 1: Given these methods, are you obliged to cue-bid a control over 4♣? Or can you attempt to sign off with an unsuitable holding? Question 2: Do you cue-bid 4♦ on this hand?

Yes, but people under 60 do understand irony. :)

You are probably right. To be honest, I play a multi in my main partnership. I prefer to keep things simple and consistent when I play a weak-two with my other regular partner (my wife), since she doesn't like to many system complications. :)

Yes, our agreement is that we largely ignore the double and our natural bids continue to be constructive after the double. The exception is that a redouble shows a strong mis-fitting hand and willingness to defend.

For us it is natural and forcing. It is a matter for partnership discussion and agreement - some play non-forcing but constructive or even non-forcing and weak. I think that non-forcing can be better if your weak-two bids are often below normal expectations.

I am aware that many use 1♦, 1♥; 4♦ to show 6-4 shape, but I can't remember ever discussing this with partner (I should!) so I would choose to splinter instead. You can always splinter with this shape. The sequence 1♦, 1♥; 4♥ always denies a shortage and will generally be stronger in terms of High Card Points - a good 18+ (this I have discussed with partner!). I can see a possible case for the 1♦, 1♥; 4♦ sequence to show a single suited diamond hand just short of game forcing strength (8/9+ playing tricks). I can see no case for the sequence being non-forcing.

I think that 2NT intended as a natural bid was a poor choice.

One option that hasn't been mentioned is 6♦. The opps might still bid 6♠, but at least partner will then lead a diamond. I've no idea what I would do at the table. I suspect that my bid might be affected by my view of how strong are our opponents.

What does 1♣ promise? Anyway, you don't have a problem yet. You make a forcing bid - 2♣, if you play inverted minors; 2NT if this forcing (It is a good hand for Baron, or Jacoby?); or just bid 1♦ if none of these are available. When partner shows up with 18 HCP and 4432, you seem to have a good shot at 6NT, but are unlikely to have enough to make a grand slam good odds. You usually need a source of tricks for a grand Slam - it is rare to be able to bid it on brute force alone. If you check on aces and kings and any are missing a Grand Slam is probably reliant on a finesse at best (poor odds). Even if all are present, this will give you eight tricks and you will need a further five tricks in queens and Jacks. Three queens and two Jacks might get you to thirteen - if they are supporting each other and there is no wastage - but having to finesse for a missing queen to make a jack would not be good. You need to find out some very precise info to judge accurately to bid a Grand Slam. I would not be trying.