Tramticket

Yes, I'm opening 1♦. East will respond 1♠ as responding 2♠ would show a very weak hand for us. West will bid 2♦ to show the minimum (HCPs) and things get murky from there - with West probably bidding 3♣ to keep things forcing. East can jump to 4♦, setting trumps and showing no interest in a 3NT contract. Then 4NT (RKCB) should get us to 7♦.

This is nonsense of course. But you know that! :)

Thanks all. Bidding 3♣ looks to be the clear winner. The hand was discussed in a UK magazine, which also advocated bidding 3♣. I must admit that my reaction had been that this should bean easy pass as our opponents seem to have about half the deck and are highly likely to have a big spade fit. I feared that they will find their 3♠ (or worse 4♠) contract if given the chance. But I guess I am underestimating the difficulty for either opponent to compete at the three level opposite a passed partner.

[hv=pc=n&w=s2hajd872ckqjt543&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=ppp]133|200[/hv] Are you opening in 4th seat? (Basic system = weak NT, four-card majors. Please indicate if this affects your decision).

This is systems dependent. In Acol, 1C, 1NT shows club support!

If you duck the heart and discard a diamond on the ace of hearts you fail if - diamonds are 5-0 or 4-1 (south holding the four hearts) - this rates to be about 9% by my calculation - AND South needs to have the critical spade honour (ace or queen depending up whether you play the king or knave). But South will be known to hold about seven hearts and four diamonds compared with three hearts, one diamond and three spade with North - so it is 6:2 that North will hold the critical honour. Overall, I think that this is close to a 98% chance of success and easily beats leading twice towards the spades. I have already made mistakes in this thread - so feel free to let me know if this is another!

Not only would I bid Stayman, I would probably raise a major-suit response to four (particularly if vulerable at IMPs).

Third attempt! (This is embarrassing): - Duck trick 1 (South wins and can't attack spades) - Win the return and discard a diamond on the ace of hearts - then ruff the diamonds good :)

Your partner should just bid 2♥, which should be to play.

Yes, I missed that we can discard a diamond on the ace of hearts and ruff the diamond good. But if clubs are not breaking we need North to hold at least two diamonds (likely after the pre-empt). so ... - draw one trump - A♥ discarding a diamond. - A♦, diamond to the king and ruff a diamond high, club to the nine and ruff another diamond high if north still holds a diamond, draw the last trump and discard a spade on the fifth diamond. Is that it?

AK clubs. If trumps are drawn lead a diamond towards dummy and attempt to duck a diamond. If North puts in a diamond honour, go up with the king and lead a second diamond, intending to duck if South plays an honour.

I'm sorry, but I really do not understand "system-on" in this situation - it makes no sense. What hand can partner have, given that he couldn't dredge up a response over a 1♦ bid? Partner is clearly very weak or partner holds diamonds. Even if partner holds diamonds he will never want to play in the suit (see my previous post), so let's assume partner is very weak. You have limited your hand and partner simply wants to place the contract in the best part score. - System-on stops us ever being able to play at the two level in a minor. - In the current example, partner will often want to play in our club suit (e.g. partner has a five-card club suit and a Yarborough). - System-on leaves us with a redundant 2♠ bid. - The usual advantages of transfers do not apply. (1) You can't show a weak or strong hand - you have a very weak hand. (2) You can't show a two-suited hand - you are never making a second bid. - Change the suits and the system-on makes even less sense. E.g. 1♣, (1♠), P, (P); 1NT, (P), ? - we now have 2♣ (Stayman), 2♦ (transfer) both showing hearts but no way to play in clubs or diamonds. The only sensible method is to play natural responses in this situation. Based on this, I can understand Nige1 treating 2♦ as natural - I went through that thought process myself - but surely partner is passing 1NT or raising no trumps? 2♦ must show the majors. Furthermore, it is likely to be 5-5 as Wank noted. With 4-4 you are balanced and pass.

You don't even have any ready entries to take two finesses. Even with sight of all four hands it takes some effort to make 4♥ on say A♠ lead! 2♥ is ample.

Partner isn't trying to play in diamonds. Even if partner has passed with five diamonds, he wouldn't be trying to play in diamonds, knowing that they are splitting 5-0. With long diamonds and values, partner is raising NT. So, partner is looking for a playable major. He is asking you to choose your best major in my opinion. I bid 2♠.

I posted as a bidding problem on Bridge Winners. But I can't seem to attach the link.

Some of this is style of course, but in second seat in particular, I think that this hand is stretching things too far for me.

I am not bidding. I agree that this hand has a lot of playing potential if partner has a fit for one of my suits. But partner often seems to have a mis-fitting 14 count and keeps bidding - expecting you to have an opening bid.

And if partner shows you two key cards ... one of which might be the ace of clubs ...?

Yes, I started this thread a few weeks ago, but it didn't get much traction. And the reason for asking was the point that you raised ... what does 4m mean? I was wanting to bid 4♣ as a cue-bid. We generally play that a new minor introduced at the four-level is a cue-bid rather than natural - but that surely can't be right on the first round of bidding! I compromised by bidding 4♦, showing where my values were lying, as I was happy if my partner were to interpret it as a cue-bid. The hand itself was not very interesting. At some point, one of you will use RKCB and find out that you are missing two aces. You will stop in 5♠ making exactly.

This isn't my system. If a 4♣ splinter can include a hand with minimum HCPs then it seems like a reasonable bid. But if 4♣ shows extra HCP strength then, since we are in a game forcing auction (playing 2/1), we could just agree the suit by bidding 3♦. The opponents are unlikely to bid to the sky, given the vulnerability.

The EBU's white book: 8.73.2 Pauses at trick one 8.73.2.1 Pause by declarer before playing from dummy A pause by declarer before playing from dummy at trick one should not give rise to the possibility of an allegation by a defender that they have been misled; indeed, such a pause is recommended practice. 8.73.2.2 Pause by third hand If declarer plays quickly from dummy at trick one, a pause by third hand should not be considered to transmit any unauthorised information to partner, nor to convey potentially misleading information to declarer. In such circumstances, no disclaimer is necessary. The freedom for third hand to think about the deal generally at trick one if declarer has not paused before playing from dummy applies irrespective of their holding. Thus, for example, it is perfectly legitimate to think about the deal generally at trick one even if third hand holds a singleton in the suit led. As a consequence, TDs should not entertain claims that declarer has been misled by a pause from third hand at trick one if declarer did not himself pause before playing from dummy

If you have chosen to play a weak NT then you will open 1NT with 12 HCP, unless you consider the hand worth a downgrade, because it will fall within partner's range of expectation. I'm no fan of the 4333 shape, but the hand is otherwise a normal 12 count. It has an average number of intermediates (one 10, one 9) and honour cards supporting each other. I don't feel that this hand has sufficient negative features to downgrade and treat as an 11-count. But I agree that it is right at the bottom of the range and has only a three-card club suit, so I would not make a penalty pass of 3♣ at IMPs. Yes the club honours are nicely placed, but I would want a fourth (and fifth?) club to persuade me to pass.

Agreed I might be a conservative opener (by today's standards). :) On the actual hand I would also do something different since we play transfer responses to an overcall. I would bid 2♦ and then bid 2♠ over a 2♥ response. I can't bid 2♣ as this would be a transfer showing a diamond suit. My alternative would be to bid 2♥ over partner's 1♠, which would be our equivalent of a UCB. But this choice would be less helpful. :)

North/South are described as a strong pair. A strong player doesn't stumble into a -500 penalty, unless things are sitting badly. I don't see that we have any surprises, so I expect North to have a very shapely hand for his bid. My guess is that, if we pass, we are playing for +200 and risking them making a vulnerable game. I agree that 3NT is no bargain, but at teams it is worth a go, with less down-side if we fail.

If partner has extras and his existing shape, I still think that I prefer bidding the vulnerable game. 3NT (with my double stop), rather than passing for penalties looks to be the best bet. Your opponent can see the vulnerability too and it's not as if you have some big surprise for him in terms of a bad trump break. In this case 3NT is too high, because partner has been overly-aggressive.