Tramticket

I think the second of these is unlikely. Partner is far more likely to have a diamond fit - or at least diamond tolerance - when he wakes up like this. I suspect that the opponents might even have a 4♠ contract on this hand.

I'm passing - but I play Acol and 1NT doesn't promise a lot (maximum: a poor 9). I would be more tempted to invite if vulnerable

I prefer to play that the double shows strength (a penalty double of 1NT) rather than just showing diamonds. If I do play it as lead directing it will partner will be prepared for me to bid diamonds with a suitable hand, so will have some values or a good diamond suit.

I don't see why this is complex? 3NT says: I don't have a fit for you, but I do have a heart stop. I think that 3NT might be the best contract. This fits West's hand perfectly. West can see the potential for a heart trick in partner's hand + 8 further (if necessary on a diamond finesse). Taking 3NT out to a likely Moysian fit looks like a risky gamble (it might work sometimes, but probably best to just pass).

The title suggests it is a percentage problem. 7D needs the diamonds to be 3-2 and clubs to behave ... E.g. clubs 3-3 or 4-2 with the hand holding the doubleton also holding a doubleton diamond. This looks like pretty poor odds for a grand slam - even without calculating the odds properly. Unless the state of the match suggests otherwise(?) the small slam is high enough?

Add the club queen and I'm tempted to bid 3NT.

Whether it is forcing or not depends on the system you play and your partnership agreements. I play Acol and for us, it is forcing for one round. This hand is just about worth 2C.

Low heart to the ace - if it doesn't drop the king singleton West will now be left with two unsupported red suit honours, so just play a low red suit card. But I wouldn't have played the earlier tricks that way.

4♦ is strong - as you say "Never overcall a pre-empt with a pre-empt". I believe that 4♦ also shows a good suit rather than general values. Given that, I was thinking that 4♥ ought to be a cue-bid? But since I can't envisage partner bidding this strongly and having two fast club losers I settled on the simple RKCB.

Fun hand! For we lesser mortals, the king of hearts lead on the first hand looks far from silly - very normal in fact?

As Zelandakh says, the default rule in Acol is (and has always been) that a new suit at the three level is forcing. Furthermore, in modern Acol a new suit after a 2-over1 response (e.g. the uncontested auction 1H, 2C, 2D) is forcing. Bidding 3D a level higher in the disturbed auction shows extra and must be forcing - I would argue that it must be GF.

Partner is not expecting you to continue bidding. You have limited your hand with the 1NT opening, painting a well defined description of your hand. He has shown a weak hand. You should pass the 2♥ bid. Your partner may choose to compete if 2♥ is passed around to him - normally he would not do so, but with 6-4 in the minors he might ...

That's a 1H opening for me.

Even if I have five hearts, an opponent holding 3+ is pretty normal.

Yep, we bid 2S with any hand that - has two or fewer spades and - has three or more hearts and - does not have the values to invite game opposite a weak-two and - has at least four points (in case partner has a strong option). That's a lot of hands and 2S is a high frequency bid.

We do. But I agree that this is not universal.

Agree. But to play Acol well you do have to work hard with partner to make sure you do understand the forcing bids available - if you put in the work there are more forcing bids available than appear at first sight. For example, in Rowland's sequence a new suit should be forcing and a new suit at the three level game forcing. Frances Hinden wrote a helpful article on these "third-suit forcing" sequences in the Aug 15 edition of English Bridge.

Yes, the sequence 1S, 2C; 2S promises a six-card suit. But 1S, 2D; 2S will either be 6+ spades or 5-4 in spades and clubs (and lacking the values to reverse).

Is it even penalties? We have the meta-agreement that if opponents bid and raise a suit, doubles below game are take-out. Responding to a take-out double is not the same as bidding a suit, but .... - I'm not risking partner interpreting this as take-out. I pass.

Hi Rowland, Sounds like you were being as grumpy as your partner! :) Yes the auction described is non-forcing in Acol - although I don't think I've seen this auction very often. And yes, 3♠ is a very precise target to hit - it sounds like your partner is passing the buck!

For a penalty double of a weak NT our expectation is 16 HCP - or 15 and a good lead. The Q♣ is a negative but the diamond suit is a positive. The double is certainly up to strength.

There have been several threads on Restricted Choice recently. I thought that I would share an amusing hand from last night, where our opponents turned a triumph into a disaster by failing to follow the odds! [hv=pc=n&s=sak95hk86dkqt84cq&w=s42ht432d973ck875&n=sqjt3hq97dj62cj93&e=s876haj5da5cat642&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=pp1n(Weak%20%5B12-14%5D)d(Penalties)r(Intended%20as%20a%20rescue)pp(Oops)p]399|300[/hv] We were North/South and the opponents had a bidding mis-understanding - West clearly intended the redouble as the start of some sort of rescue, but East was not on the same wavelength. Diamonds were led and the ace of diamonds was knocked out. Declarer played a low club to the king (dropping South's queen) and then played a low club back to .... his ace! Instead of +760 for making 1NT redoubled, he scored -1,600 for going three-off. His argument that South was marked with more points on the bidding doesn't really justify not taking the club finesse.

For me 2♣ is forcing and would be my bid. If not, I guess I have to redouble - but I don't like it (and that's why we play a new suit as forcing).

Yes this may well work best. 4) Win ace of clubs 5) Ruff a club low 6) Diamond Queen 7) Ruff a heart low 8) Ruff a club low 9) Ruff a diamond 10) - 13) Cross Ruff It seems to need clubs to be 4-3 and diamonds to be 3-3 (or if east has only two diamonds, east also only holds two spades).