WesleyC

It's comforting to see a deal where a bunch of the worlds best got it wrong for a change! One issue that hasn't been mentioned is that N/S (the slam bidders) were at favourable vulnerability. Particularly at these colours, E/W need to have some way to say "actually this really is our deal - the opponents are just messing around with their 'slam' sequence". For me doubling 5D and then doubling 6H sends that message. Consequently, doubling 5D and then passing 6H can't really be anything other than asking for a diamond lead.

Red vs Green @ IMPs (1♠) P (2♠) P (2NT) P (4♠) AP 2NT is 15-17 balanced. What do you lead from: ♠J9 ♥KJ952 ♦K85 ♣Q86 ?

Favourable @ IMPs (1♦) P (1NT) ??? Whats your poison holding: ♠QJT3 ♥AQ83 ♦AQ743 ♣- Mike :)

Great question - I agree pretty strongly with the minority view. I'd bid 4S at all colours except UNFAV.

I think we're pretty much achieving the same thing regarding information exchange. Its just that we're bundling our hands together differently. 3S would be the default super-accept on most hands (maybe 2/3 of all super accepts). Some maximums with strong holding in hearts might try 2NT and a pure maximum with a small doubleton heart might bid 3H. Giving the opponents more room with hands where its less likely to matter (as we're likely to have the power to just overbid them). Your style has more hands lumped into the 2S bid, so responder feels more inclined to raise competitively with only 5 spades. For me a hand like [Txxxx Qx xx Axxx] isn't going to compete at all after ... 2S (3H) ???. The Qh is often wasted, and opener is very likely to only have 3 spades.

The other super-accept thread reminded me of a method that I heard of a while back but haven't played yet. after 1NT (P) 2D/2H* (P) ??? Opener's only super-accept is the first step (2S/2NT) and carries the message - "I have a super-accept, do you want to show me a shortage?". Responder is then free to offer game by bidding their shortage on a marginal hand (possibly using a simple relay). Otherwise they can re-transfer to 3S/4S to play or show a shortage as the start of a slam auction. The obvious benefit is to give the hand with the high cards access to partner's distributional information, while concealing any information about its shape. Has anyone tried this or something like it?

Seems like a case where playing 2NT as either natural OR shapely takeout with a void is playable.

Partner couldn't know whether it was right to compete over 4H because he didn't know if we bid 2S on: [KQJx xxx Axx KQx] or [KJx Qxx AJx KQx] For me the two hands are different enough to warrant separation, even if it does cost the occasional part-score swing.

Interesting thread - I'm glad I have at least one 3S-bidding ally - thanks gnasher :( As a rebuttal to Andy's point: Lets consider the gains and losses for a 3S bid (assuming partner is on the same wavelength): 3S loses when 2S is the limit AND you were going to be allowed to play there (despite the fact that you're in a 9c fit and the opponents have all of the heart honors). The other possible downside is that you push the opponents into a (good) 4H contract that they might not have otherwise reached - perhaps making because partner's honours are sandwiched as Phil suggested. 3S wins whenever it takes away the opponent's ability to show heart support (thus avoiding a making heart contract/profitable save) OR when 3H is the limit and they're forced the 4 level to show support OR when partner is able to find a profitable save over their making 4H. Gnasher's sample hand (where you bid 2S and the auction comes back to you at 4H) is definitely a situation where I would feel a bit sick having bid only 2S. How is partner going to know that holding [Txxxx Qx xx Axxx] or [Txxxx K Kxx Jxxx] he's supposed to be bidding? An indicator that I often use to judge a good competitive bid is one I'd prefer the opponents didn't make against me. 3S certainly falls into that category.

Sorry re: the Jd - I must be be wrong about one of the hands - i think maybe the penalty passer didn't have it. At the table, partner guessed to bid 2NT which got us to 3C -2. 2Sx was -1. One thing in favour of pass (which Jlall suggested) is that on a good day they WILL be in a 4-3 fit, and you're likely to get quite rich. On the actual hand the 2S bid was based on the T98x spades (in a maximum passed hand).

Interestingly that hand was almost exactly the hand i held at the table (plus the Jd) and I doubled. If you don't double on that hand and partner's spades turn out to be QJ98x you're going to wish you had...

Once your RHO has showed heart values, you should be superaccepting on hands with no wastage in hearts, rather than worrying so much about point count or shape. After 1NT (P) 2H (X) ??? I'd bid 3S on KQJx xxx Axx KQx but settle for 2S on Axxx QJx AJx KJx

Red vs White, IMPs P (P) 1♥ (P) 1♠ (2♣) X* (P) ??? *support double (non-compulsory) Its your call with: ♠9872 ♥4 ♦AQT2 ♣QT97

All Vul @ IMPs (2♥*) P (P) ??? *5+H, 8-11 HCP. Holding: ♠A7 ♥AQ732 ♦QT ♣K753 What's your call? If this hand isn't worth 2NT, how much more would you need? (assuming the same shape)

Favourable @ IMPs P (P) 1♥ (x) p (2♠) x (P) ??? Holding: ♠QJ765 ♥53 ♦J42 ♣J98 Pass or pull?

Gnasher: Given you've got 4c Diamond support, The hearts will usually be a source of tricks whether partner has support or not. In fact you'd rather be opposite xx than xxx. And after an auction like (2S) - 3D - 3H - 4H - 4S you could lose the diamond fit altogether. I agree with ONEferBRID's splinter auction. It puts partner is a great position to judge our slam potential.

Given you're suggesting the auction starts 1C -1D - 1S on this hand, I'm assuming you play 1S as forcing. I've only played that style myself a couple of times but isn't it normal to use 1C - 1D - 2H as a splinter? If so 2H seems like a good choice. If I wasn't sure about the answers to these questions, I'd strongly prefer to simplify the auction with a 3H splinter. There's no easy way to describe the extent of my diamond fit & a heart shortage after a different continuation.

East's negative double is fine but I think I slightly prefer 3C which gets the values of the hand across in one bid and guarantees the right lead if we end up defending. I'd bid: 1S (2H) 3C (P) 4H* (P) 5C (AP)

What about the OTHER Qh then? :)

For me: X = 10 1S = 9 P = 2

With no Aces and an ugly looking HK, 5C looks clear.

I agree with the C7 on the first hand - a simple solution to a likely layout, but on hand 2 I think I'll stick with the H4. I don't think I could play a different heart in tempo anyway. Couldn't returning the HJ go disastrously wrong if partner has led QT9x?

Passing on this hand shows a lack of understanding of IMP odds. Game will often go down (sometimes with no play at all) but nevertheless, passing is a big loser in the long run. Regarding 3S vs 4H: Its possible to use 3S to show a maximum passed hand with 5 strong spades, no stopper in diamonds and no tolerance for hearts. This is an extension of how 3S is played by an unpassed hand (without the chance for responder to have 6+S). Simple, useful, but infrequent. I'd rather stretch to open with a good suit on the first round and then to use new suits by a passed hand in competition to show values in a flexible hand. Introducing a 987xx suit isn't ideal but at these colours partner won't expect a suit playable opposite Hx. 3S keeps alive the chance to reach a good 4S or 3NT while still allowing us to play hearts when partner has a good 6c suit.

Can you list a couple of sample hands that are a clear 3S bid?

This hand seems perfect for 3S. I've already passed as dealer at Nil so partner won't play me for a weak 2 in spades (ie a strong 5c spade suit or better). Strongly disagree with 4D, which should show a strong heart raise. You need to be able to differentiate between hands that have a REAL heart fit and weak hands (or hands that are pressured into raising on a doubleton).