ninja89

Sorry, my expression was poor. The hand is not far from being strong enough to double, not that doubling is a consideration with the given hand.

Scrambling should be reserved for auctions where we clearly have no game interest, in my opinion. It helps to have some way of showing some constructive values. I would treat 2NT here as natural, since the most likely reason we couldn't do something constructive in the previous round is because of our spade holding. This smattering of stuff (Kxxx xx Kxx Qxxx for example) can be quite common. The problem is tricky on the given hand, since we were quite close to doubling on the first round; lebensohl could work a treat now. I'll bid 3♥, which might be enough for partner to kick if strongish, 5/5 or 6/4, and may play as well as anywhere, especially considering partner's potential 1633. Settling for 3NT on the second. Some good 19s do the trick, while some good 21s fail. Would need a simulation, I think.

Oh yep, thanks for the clarification, I tend to get those quick tricks and playing tricks mixed up a bit. Anyway, your main point is correct, and I'd overestimated the major KQ-K; there is a very large chance that partner will get overexcited if we cue, so it is best to do something regressive (Axx x AKQxxx Axx will need all the discouragement we can offer just to avoid slam on a 3-3 break, let alone grand). Maybe 95-5 to West, then :) Edit: even then, it's 3 1/2 and not 3 PT. Oops!

1♥ is preferable to 2♣, as others have noted. After the 2♣ start, 3♦ and 3NT are normal. I think 4♣ is a much better bid than 4♦. How does partner evaluate Kxx Axx xx KQxxx for slam if opener doesn't bid 4♣ now? Opener's later 5♣ cue does not sound like the ace. The argument of "show a good suit by bidding 4♦" doesn't make much sense, since any bid over 3NT (except perhaps 4NT) implies an excellent ♦ suit... opener is not trying to say that he had a splinter raise the first time by bidding 4♣. The only way I see opener having 4♣ is when he is 74 in the minors; with 64, splinter-then-4♦ expresses the hand. (I fear I'm missing something... it's a bit strange that there's a thought that 4♣ is strongly suggestive of a strain!) The 4♥ cue is okay, too. It feels wrong with such atrocious minor holdings, but it also feels wrong to show no signs of life with three quick tricks. I definitely can't see 5♣ being a superior contract to 5♦ on responder's hand, though. What's being played for, 2074? Just bid 5♦ and trust partner to have his bids. Not to say I'm stoked with the 5♣ bid; I'd bid 4NT in an ideal world but 5♦ in the real world and not worry about responder being void, as it may still have a play. 5♣ definitely feels like it is overstating ♣. All up, probably 90-10 to West.

No, because 1♣ X P 1♠ P 2♣ P 2♥ does not show extra values; advancer can safely pattern out at the two level. 1♣ X P 1♥ P 2♣ P 2♠ shows extras, since it forces the bidding higher. Give doubler AKx AKx AQxxx xx. If you advance "up the line," the auction goes 1♣ X P 1♥ P 2♣ P... now what? Even if you have an agreement that 2♠ doesn't show extras, you get to rest in 3♥ instead of 2♠ had the auction gone 1♣ X P 1♠ P 2♣ P 2♥ P 2♠. In reality, you'd have to rebid 2♥ to avoid showing extras. As for: We have two jacks, baby! It's business time! Unless you don't think AKx AKx AQxxx xx is worthy of a cue, here?! There's lots of good advice in this thread, should probably listen to it IMO.

An average 18-19 balanced is not going to bid 2NT here, so 2NT should be based on decent diamonds and a club stopper. Is a king enough to raise? Should be, I think. 3♦ and double-then-3♦ are more distributional, with 3♣ explicitly requesting ♣ stopper, for me.

Absent agreement, I'd take 5♥ the same way as bucky and others, and assume that all non-slam forcing two-suiters start with 4NT (possibly the slam forces, too). If advancer starts with 4NT, most people would treat 5♠ over doubler's 5m as offering a choice between 5 (or 6)♠ and 6 of doubler's minor. I imagine an immediate 5♥ could be a try for grand in another strain, too.

Is this due to the passed hand status and assuming the use of Drury? As an unpassed hand, isn't 1♠ followed by 2♥ routine in 2/1 or SAYC, where an immediate raise is more constructive than this garbage? Even as a passed hand without Drury, 1♠ has some merit. Not sure I like the style, but that's the impression I get from most 2/1 systems. As for onefer's sequence, 2♦ looks rich enough even with four card support, let alone the 3♠ bid which, even if it is just distinguishing the fourth spade, is a bit gutty. Can opener rebid with something a bit more encouraging that just a game-try; what is 3♥, for instance?

Yeah, there are probably enough clues to guess the position. Still, I'd appreciate some assistance from partner in trumps :) Glad to see declarer didn't have ♦Q; ♥ ducked twice, ♦ to hand, ♠ ruff, ♣ to hand, ♥ would be nasty! But at least we wouldn't be able to beat the contract, anyway.

No good. Even if partner has the singleton ♣J, declarer can play four rounds of clubs to get to hand. On the last trump, partner is squeezed. Another trump would work, but not if declarer has the ♣J, since he can setup diamonds with a finesse and a ruff. Maybe it is right to return a trump... oh well, hopefully partner's there for me with count in trumps.

Well maybe partner has the ♥9, maybe not. If declarer has only three trumps, the surefire way is to just duck the second round of trumps.

Declarer has six black cards. Three are covered by AA and a hypothetical K (without which declarer has no chance). One can be pitched on diamonds if trumps are drawn. Two clubs must be ruffed. If you take the ♥K, you facilitate communications in the trump suit. If you keep the ♥K, you retain control. Ducking is clear on this hand. Edit: summed up much more succinctly by Rainer :)

It looks to be a non-material squeeze, to me. Playing out the diamonds doesn't really gain you an extra trick, since you can always take the ♠KT and ♣K anyway. The run of the diamonds forces LHO to abandon hearts, though, allowing you to setup the ♣K for a second ♥ pitch. In the diagrammed position, playing the last diamond is unnecessary, since you have the entries to finesse the spade and lead up to the club. A more interesting end position involves LHO coming down to J9x, J, -, A. Now the last diamond forces him to pitch a heart, again allowing you to take your tricks.

That was a fantastic test. I had to leave for training before seeing the final result, but it was shaping up nicely at 150/8. Everyone was talking about how the game was over with India eight down, but as soon as it was mentioned that Laxman was still in and on about 40-odd, the team was buzzing about a potential steal by India. Awesome to see that this eventuated! Unfortunately we don't get much coverage from India in NZ, so I wasn't that excited until the end. Even though the margin was large, the most exciting match I watched was NZ vs England at Christchurch in 2002. http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63981.html Fantastic century on the opening day by Hussain on a bowler's dream pitch, though the Kiwis getting scythed through by Hoggard's swing was a bit disappointing. Freddie and Thorpe going ballistic until it all seemed lost... but wait, Astle's ridiculous six-a-minute double! When Cairns joined him and stuck around for a long time, the dream remained alive. Wasn't to be in the end, but what a game.

If the opponents play Flannery, is there not more of a danger here, since responder will routinely bypass a four card spade suit? Nothing precludes opener from being of a reverse strength with 4♠, either. At least you're likely to run into a 4-4 break in trumps, though. 2♣ is safer and it has a greater upshot: the lead.

Ah yes, I forgot about 4NT. I'll go with ceeb in that case, with 6H close second.

No problem, just bid 2H pass/correct. If you have a 6-6 H fit, the opps will bid spades at some point. If you have the agreement that pulling 2D-2H-2S to a minor is non-forcing with that minor and H, great! I play that as non-forcing with only a minor, though, so would end in 3D. Unfortunately it doesn't let you get to 4H, but you're in the same position after opening a natural weak 2S.

Yes good point, I missed that. Sorry. I performed the cardinal sin of stating my evidence without looking at it. I don't think he was proposing this as a "cardinal rule" though, he just didn't know better.

In the style I play, all bids by opener (after 1x-1M-GF splinter-4M) show a void in the splinter; I don't open at the one level with a hand which would force to the 5-level opposite a fit without a void on the side, or if I did, I would have initially bid 1m-1H-4m. I think it's fair to treat partner's hand as being genuinely three-suited. For instance, with Fluffy's example hand, if I decided to move over 4M, I would bid 5C, at least ensuring ♥AQxx and out gets to slam. ♠- ♥ATxx ♦AKxx ♣AQTxx This is on one out of two finesses (edit: admittedly with some handling issues), and partner could have more. Definitely accepting some blame if it's wrong, but I bid 6H.

Sorry for not making it clear; I was aiming to say that you can have agreements in conjunction with this method which would enable you to show other, just as important hand types. The important thing is to have those agreements. I agree, by itself the convention is not ideal. But then again, I think that 2NT-3C-3D-4D as asking partner to "pick a major" in a puppet stayman sequence is also bad by itself, if your style is to open 2NT with a 5M and to ask about 5M with a 3 card M and 5-6 diamonds. Again, other agreements are needed in combination with this convention. Anyway, as far as this example goes, I was not aware that pirate22 had pointed out his system of responses and follow-ups to 2NT. If there is no way to show diamonds, perhaps this convention should be scrapped. Since we don't know, it seems a bit presumptuous to simply denounce the convention. As sfi shows, it can work.

I think I'll just bid 2S now. Gets my hand off my chest straight away.

Following up on gnasher's comments, you could incorporate several other features after 2NT-3C-3D too. For instance, with 5=4 in the majors, bid 3H as a transfer to S. With 4=5, however, and only game-going values, bid 3NT. 3S serves as a puppet to 3NT, after which responder can show slam interest with a long minor naturally. 4C could show 4=5 and slam-interest, 4D used as extended stayman. It's easy to tweak things depending on what your priorities are, if, for instance, you want a way to show 5=5 and slam-interest while going through 3C. Either way, it certainly clarifies things once you transfer to a major initially. Anyway, the point of all that is: you can make agreements work. In some cases they might not be that great, but in most cases they will work better for your having discussed and understood them in your partnership. As far as this example goes, it's not that bad an agreement to have. The relative obscurity of it is of little relevance.

I've seen a system like this before, though opening 1♣ guaranteed 5♥, opening 1♦ guaranteed 5♠ - both unlimited - and 1♥ opener was precision-style, 16+ without 5M. Can't remember what 1♠ showed exactly, or what responses to these openings showed. It's an interesting system, but has definitely been used before.

Thanks for the welcome, helene_t. Interesting that you should bring up the profile - I was thinking that it would be better to have "Conventions I swear by" and possibly "Conventions I despise" in the profile rather than "Preferred Conventions/System Notes," to allow for more... direct exposure of prejudices.

I would interpret 3S in a non-practiced partnership as a splinter, and would probably give it a go in my regular partnerships. However, my partners realise that I chronically overbid slam hands, so would give me some leeway. I would try a direct 5C in the given context, though. This all assumes that partner has a semblance of a 2C overcall.