pooltuna

Your partner was asking with his 3♠ bid if you had a ♠ stopper. This is normally asked only to play 3NT. Since your partner took a chance with the 3♠ bid your choices are bid 3NT with a ♠ stopper or bid 4♣ without one.

It is pointless to try to interpret this bidding without knowing more about your overall system structure. For instance what would partners 2♣ or 2♦ overcall have been in this auction. Also what were your options after 1NT? Would 2♣ or 2♦ have been natural? Was 2♠ something other than to play?

Depends on what I think of partner. Is he a player who has his TOX of 2♠? Or is he a player who thinks a TOX of 2♠ is the same as a TOX of 1♠. If the former I X and raise his suit to slam.

So you cannot imagine a hand that would make a penalty X of 1NT yet just be invitational strength for 3♥. So what are you to do when you have that hand? Pass?

Ah Ha!!! So you assume, like most of the other posters, that 3♥ is forcing?

agreed! either the ♦A or a trump entry will serve as long as dummy has at least 2♦

I presume you are asking me if I would underlead the ♦A on this hand. The answer to that question is no. Even if I find the KJ in dummy and partner has the Q a good declarer will put up the K because it is normally a crazy lead. I would lead whatever agreed ♥ would be appropriate

No. Either play the 3 or the 8

That's a funny looking constructive raise. Agree! It certainly doesn't meet my definition but [hv=s=sqxxhxxdkxxxcxxxx]133|100|[/hv] does, albeit about if not the weakest one I would make. :angry:

If partner guesses randomly he has a 50% chance of success. So in a reasonable model you can use 30 to 40% in practice :lol: and where did the 50% chance of guessing right come from? It seems to me this is what we are trying to determine!

The X of 4♦ should suggest that partner has the ♦K so I lead the A. It cannot be suggesting a save as we have already made him captain!

In the 2nd one the K♥ lead is obv. That way you get your ruff and partner gets a trump trick because declarer will never play you for a stiff trump. :angry:

I appreciate your effort but think the variables are too hard for an effective simulation. After all how does one program partner's judgment :angry: plus the definition of a constructive raise is variable by partnership.

posting here is not a problem! just ignor the scumbags that tell you otherwise.

Kiwis are hard nuts to crack!...Oh, Wait it is a fruit :o .... :lol: :lol:

Appeal without merit

I have no quibble with either 3♠ or 4♠. Pass is unacceptable Think about the hands you could hold for your 3♠ call. IMO they could be as bad as a nonconstructive raise yet partner still felt comfortable bidding 4♠. Consequently I don't have a problem bidding 5♠ at this point. =

For starters, the 1-over-1 1♠ rebid is non-forcing. South is worth a 2S jump-shift. That strong bid might solicit a subsequent 4♥ cue over 4♦. Then South is ready to make sure they are not off 2 key cards: p - 1♦ 1♥-2♠-jump 3♠-4♦ 4♥-4NT 5♣( 0 or 3 ) - 5♠ duh a much better start! I really hated 1♠. It smacks of trying to mastermind the auction instead of telling partner what your hand is and getting his cooperation.

3N obv when you got the right tool it is time to trot it out.

I would rather show 23 than maybe 19

Based on the structure of your high cards and hand, you need to make some sort of try

I thought that is why we used TOX and then bid our suit

Strange attitude. If I had not published the full hand, or made up one that did fit the bidding, the problem would have belonged here? The problem is that skaeran sees, as do I, the failure to X 1♣ as a clear error and responding as if it was acceptable should not be in the A/E forum.

Am I unclear on the colors it would appear to me that we are Red while the opponents are White. For me at IMPS this hand would not qualify for a 4♠ call at these specific colors. Not that you need much, solidfy the spade suit by replacing a small ♠ with the J.

assuming we are red vs white partner should be promising 8 or 9 tricks in his hand so I would just bid 6♠