ONEferBRID

Our own KenRexford wrote a piece in HIS Cuebidding Blogspot ( http://cuebiddingatbridge.blogspot.com/. ) entitled: Impossible 2S Not So Impossible . Oct 15, 2010 . It wasn't very long, so here it is: " In the ACBL Bulletin, a problem hand was given. Something like xxxx-x-xx-AKJxxx after a 1H opening from partner. A large number of expert votes came in for a forcing 1NT, because focusing clubs even at the cost of burying spades seemed right. If we assume this to be reasonable theory, an exception to the general Walsh thinking, then why not expand this further? It seems that the "impossible" 2S is not so impossible. Why not, in theory, 1H-P-1NT-P-2H-P-2S with 4-0-3-6 pattern? Focus the clubs, but mention the spades. Could not partner have 4-6-3-0? If you take this out, then any 4-6 holding could be handled this way, and perhaps even 4-1-3-5 (perhaps passing 2D but converting 2H to 2S). I am not sure where this thinking leads me, but the thinking is nonetheless suggested. Namely, there is nothing "impossible" about the "impossible" 2S. " - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Richard Pavlicek has posted this ( earlier in rec.games.bridge ) as an alternative : 1H - 1NT! 2H - 2S! = 5/5 in the minors

When you use your favorite game-going "checkback" ( Wolff or new minor ) Opener will bid Hts first.

I used to be able to "Highlight-Copy-Paste" certain hands to my files. Seems I can't do that anymore. Howww conveeeeeeeenient.... What was"broke" that had to be "fixed" ?

OK, Mike.... Here is how I would do it using the CWNN ( Convention with No Name ) : 1D - 1H 4D! ( 6 Ace RKC, ♦ & ♥ ) - 4S! ( 2nd step = 1 key ) 4NT! ( Q's - ask ) - 5C ( neither Q ) 6H

Your opponent plays low toward the A Q and he " finesses the Q ". YOU hold the K ( behind-- or "over the "-- Q ) and you decide not to overtake but instead you "duck the K " .

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=42283 Let's use Straube's Drury : 2C! = limit raise, 3 or 4 cards 2D! =constructive raise, 3 or 4 cards : ♠ QT87 ♥ Q83 ♦ QJ6 ♣ 653 ♠ AKJ96 ♥ KJ764 ♦ ♣ AKJ p - 1S 2D! - 2H = gametry 3S jump - 6S - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Although I think I would rather have the raise structure reversed to give the weaker raise another gametry bid. For example, for the 1H open, there would be NO gametry available at the 2-level with the original structure.

I don't understand some of the posters saying: "... distinguishing between a 3 and 4 card GF ( Ht) raise .." . Doesn't everyone play some form a Jac2NT for a 4 card GF ( or limit+ ) raise ??

Side issue: What was 2S-jump ? If that was 4th SGF, it denies 4 cards Sp ( standard ). The correct bid is 1S.. forcing to at least 1NT. 99% of the time 1S means 4 cards Sp. "The only time one uses 1S as artificial is if he wants to jump to 3C or to 3H and have that bid ( 3C or 3H ) be forcing. " " After bidding the 4th suit at the 1 level ( 1S ), a jump (next) in partner's suit is game forcing. 1C - 1D - 1H - 3H invites. 1C - 1D - 1H - 4H shows an opener. And 1C - 1D - 1H - 1S - 1NT - 3H is ( now ) forcing and shows slam interest. " 1C - 1D 1H - 1S 1NT( 12-14) - ?? You don't have a 3C-jump or a 3H-jump and my notes don't show it, but I would think a 3D-jump is also GF, slammish since 1C - 1D - 1H - 3D would be an invite.... although I would rather have 6+ cards ♦ for a 3D-jump. It only works here w/ 5 cards because Opener has at least J-x in ♦ . Percentagewise, though, it is not a good slam. 1C - 1D 1H - 1S 1NT - 3Djump 4D - ( RKC ) ( 1 key ) - 6D

Recall the system I proposed using Gnasher's "toy" . http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=41513&st=30 http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...=0entry497328 1 minor open and a 1H response: 1C - 1H 2S! = GF, and my be artificial, unbalanced ( Gnasher's toy ) After 2S! Responder bids 2NT! = asks Then: 3C! = long Cl, no 3h, no 4s 3D! = 4s, no 3h, 5+c 3H! = 3h, no 4s, 5+c 3S! = 4s and 3h 1C - 1H 2S! - 2NT! 3H! = 3h, no 4s, 5+c... sweet ! - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Edit: Jerryblu... What was Responder's hand ?

I'm not a fan of 2C! = artificial GF..... but I haven't studied it at length. But I'm certainly not a fan of 1♠ with a GF Responder. What if Opener were not as strong and made a 2♦ rebid ? 1H - 1S 2D - ?? Now you need 3C! ( 4th suit ) to GF, and at what level do you think you can show your Ht support and slammish at the same time ? ... not to mention your double-fit.... without fear of passout ? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - When Responder employs a natural 2D! GF, it does not deny 3 card Ht support which can conveniently be made at the 3-level on the next round of bidding.... without fear of a passout. In fact on this hand the DOUBLE-fit can be found out at the 3-level ! ... sweet!

Again, as in this recent thread : http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=42203 I agree with Dwane ( keylime ), Fluffer, and the fish ( and others I may have missed). Double to protect partner's failure to make a Neg-DBL.

A few observations. Take the 2/1 auction first ( my personal favorite): 1H - 2D! 3D - 3H ( 3 cards.. double fit ) 3S(cue) - 4C(cue) 4D(cue) - 4S! or 4NT! .. RKC for Hts 1a) Let's say North finally takes control ( RKC ) after appropriate cue bidding. North can find the hQ and dK, but he can't count on the Hts running if South has only 5 cards and no Ht Jack. North doesn't know of South's 6th Ht. 1b ) But North can count to 13 tricks in 7D ( normal split ) if he has to ruff a Ht. 2) If South takes control with RKC for Hts, he finds the remaining key cards and the Sp King. On the 2nd k-ask, North must bid 7D. If he just bids 6H ( no cK ) the auction will die there: 1H - 2D! 3D - 3H ( 3 cards, double fit ) 3S - 4C 4S!( RKC for Hts) - 5D ( 3rd step = 2 - hQ ) 5S! ( K-ask) - 5NT ( sK ) 6C! ( 2nd K-ask ) - 6H ( no cK or dK )

Well, I thot your original line was the answer too. I too didn't see Declarer being squeezed . Littlekid's "blocking" play works here. And it looks like Bradley's line works also ( same blocking action ).

[hv=d=n&v=b&n=saq54hqdakj4cat9x&s=sjxxhk953dxxcqj8x]133|200|Scoring: IMP 1♦-(1♥)-p-(p) DBL-(p)-1NT-(p) 2NT-(p)-3NT[/hv] West leads the ♥6... T1: ♥6, Q, A, 3 ( East winning ) T2: ♥2, 9, 10, ♦4 ( West winning) T3: ♥7, ♠4, ♥8, ♥K ( South winning ) Now South tried the successful ♣ finesse and took 3 ♣ tricks ( saving the 4th while thinking ). He envisioned East's original holding as: ♠Kxx or Kxxx ♥AJ8xx ♦Qxx or Qx ♣xx So he tried to drop the ♦Q... it did not fall. Next he cashed the 4th ♣... ending in hand. Crunch time. Since East pitched 2 Diam on the Cl, he decided East had blanked down to the bare ♠K. So he played the ♠A... alas, NO ♠K appeared... DOWN 1. How would you have played? ( Where did Declarer go wrong ? ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - edit: Tannah Hirsch bridge column, 10/5/2010

1eyedjack.... You are right... I completely overlooked missing a possible 5-3 Ht fit in my example. Sooo, on that hand, I could have opted for the Smolen auction. However, if Responder's hand been 4 4 1 4, I could have used the "distribution-ask", although I would have gotten into trouble in 5C if Opener has 3 losing Sp ( as you pointed out ). So maybe it isn't such a great idea afterall ... at least for marginal game hands where the combined hcp is not high enough to justify the 5-level.