CamHenry

You are confusing effect and purpose. Let's have another example: partner opens 1NT (15-17) and I hold a 3-3-3-4 10-count. I bid 3NT with the purpose of making somewhere between 0 and 2 overtricks. The effect is that oppo take the first five tricks in our unstopped suit. Let's have another example. RHO deals and opens 2♠ Lucas, showing ♠ and a minor; I hold xxx/AKxxx/AKx/Ax. Various calls look attractive, and I take a while to decide between 3♥ and double. My purpose was to make the best call on my hand; the effect was to give partner UI that I had a non-trivial decision. UI can be generated without any unethical intentions. UI can not ethically (or legally) be used to guide a decision.

4 6 1 2 A63 A83 KT73 J54 KJ2 KQ7 942 AT98 Declarer must have additional clubs (can't be 6=1=5=1) so there's no reason to grab the ace. Having got the duck right, I win the third club giving: 4 3 0 0 A63 3 A83 1 K 2 -- 1 KJ2 KQ7 -- 8 The fact that the club's gone makes my 8 a master; we need two more tricks. Declarer's ruffing the club and two small hearts, and if his spades are QT9 he can pick up the suit for one loser *provided he leads them from hand*. Can I stop that, or make it too risky? Declarer's best line is clearly to lead the Q, plaing me for the K and hoping I cover. If he gets this right, there's no defense. What if declarer's spade holding is QTx or Q9x? In the first case, I have to cover when he plays an honour; in the second case, I have to cover the Q but not the 9 (so I'm always getting it right). Partner can exit a spade safely, but do I need to keep an exit? There's the rub. I can't lead spades at any time. If declarer ducks something into my hand, I need an exit card in reserve. If I lead a small heart now, declarer can win, ruff a heart, ruff a club, and duck a heart - boom. The key, therefore, is to retain the small heart as an exit card, and play a high heart now. If declarer ruffs a heart, I need to drop the other honour.

Known: partner started with 1=4 majors. It's most likely he's 1=4=4=4. Could be 1=4=5=3, but his count signal in D makes that unlikely. If he's 1=4=4=4, declarer has 5=3=3=2 and scores 4♠, 1♥, 2 ruffs, and 2♣ for 9 tricks. (If he's 1=4=2=6, declarer's already screwed up by not pitching ♥ losers on the ♣ honours.) If partner's 1=4=5=3, declarer could have a slow club loser (assuming partner has the J, or he has the T and declarer misguesses the suit). In that case a diamond return is fatal, as it gives a ruff-and-discard. The "safe" option is a spade return now. That gives nothing away, but gives up on setting the contract unless partner's made a strange canape overcall. Also, let's consider declarer's honours: he's shown the ♥K, presumably not the ♥J as you'd have mentioned it. He's got the ♠AJ, making 8HCP; he's therefore guaranteed to have something in the minors. ♦QJ seems implausible as he didn't take the (marked) ruffing finesse, so I think he's got the ♣J. So, declarer's hand: AJxxx Kxx Hxx Jx or AJxxx Kxx 9x Jxx In the first case there is no way to defeat the contract; in the second case we need partner to have the CT (and not do anything stupid). The risk of a club switch is that declarer guesses the position correctly and plays small from table; the risk of a diamond return is a ruff-and-discard (more embarrassing and therefore to be avoided); a spade return seems best as it cannot (that I can see) cost a trick.

I was trying to construct a combination avoidance play/squeeze by going after spades directly (trying to lose to W directly, as RHO is then almost-squeezed on any return) but the communications didn't work. Hopefully I've learned something by seeing the actual way to go after it! (I think knowing the vulnerability and dealer would have helped me be more confident that LHO wasn't 5-5 in the round suits: though if he is, there's a different line marked to pick up RHO's holding).

Are oppo playing a 2+ club? In that case LHO is marked with club length, for the pass. I'm passing first time 'round, but I'm keen to show some sort of values. I like 2♦ next: 1N risks getting us to 3NT facing AKxxx/Kxx/KQxx/x, on which no game is laydown but 4♠ is much better than 3NT.

Seriously? You think "Oh, I wanted to change my call" is a deliberate attempt to cheat, rather than, for example, not being very good at poker? You astonish me sometimes. Sure, there are cheats out there, but this does not look like one of them.

Finally finished mine off - I need to pay more attention around here!

Unnamed Homebrew Diamond: 2♣-2♦ Weak ♦ OR weak majors OR GF majors OR 20-23 bal / Pass-or-correct 2N-3♣ Balanced option / 5-card Puppet Stayman 3♠-3N This one's a bread-and-butter auction, and a pretty sane contract.

Unnamed Homebrew Diamond: 1♦-(P)-1♥-(2♥) 16+, excluding GF / 0-7 (almost) any Difficult call for S here. 2NT is natural, so the spade singleton is unfortunate; double is takeout; pass is non-forcing. I think a likely continuation is: 3♣-(4♥)-P-(P) 5+ cards, "smallest lie" / nothing to say X-(P)-4♠-P Penalties / no defense 4N-(P)-5♦-AP Two places to play / This looks like the best fit Of course, this may well be -1 as it's difficult to avoid a club ruff. Other possible contracts include 4♥X, and 5♣ - the latter of which has trump control issues on a forcing defence, which is probably indicated on the auction. I'll have to talk about this one with Matt.

Unnamed Homebrew Diamond: 2♣-2♦ Weak ♦ OR weak majors OR GF majors OR 20-23 bal / pass-or-correct 2N-Pass Balanced option We lose out here: it would be nice to be able to stop in 1NT but there's always compromises.

OK, that makes more sense. Thanks! So it's the fact that N has shown 8+, 4-5 CPs, and second-round control in at least one red suit that means we can bid 6♣ with some degree of confidence.

Unnamed Homebrew Diamond: 1♦-1♥ 16+, excluding GF / 0-7 almost any 1N-2♦ 16-19 balanced / transfer 3♥ superaccept (4+ cards), minimum hand

I'm surprised that 5♣ does so badly in the simulations. The dangerous lead is a heart; if you let that run and a diamond comes back you have to guess trumps for the overtrick. On normal splits I can see several lines of play for 6♣ here: if the ♥K is onside it's easy; if not, you have to guess trumps but you can combine chances (e.g. win a ♦ lead in hand, run the ♥Q). Is my analysis flawed?

Unnamed Homebrew Diamond: 1♦-1♠ 16+, non-GF / 8+ almost any 1N-2♦ 17-19 bal / transfer 2♥-2♠ no 4-card support / second suit 2N-3♦ No major fit yet found / shortness, implying 4=5=1=3 shape 4♦-4♥ Implicit club fit, 5 or 7 CPs / 4-5 CPs 4♠-4N 7 CPs, second-round ♠ control / second-round control in a suit past 5♣ 6♣ Should be enough Various things could go better (or go wrong): S could bid 3NT instead of 4♦; S could decide not to look for slam despite the control-rich hand and useful values, so we play 5♣.

Unnamed Homebrew Diamond: 1♦-1♥ 16+, not GF / 0-7 almost any 3♣-end (semi)-solid suit, better than minimum playing strength. Though it's not always an advantage, we get off lightly on this one by having 1♥ as our negative response!

Unnamed Homebrew Diamond: 1♦-2♦ 16+, excluding GF / weak or slam try in ♥ 2♥-2♠ No real fit for ♥ / Slam try hand, spade fragment 2N-3♥ Game-forced already, showing stops in minors / Really single-suited 4♣-4♠ 4 or 6 CPs (A=2, K/♥Q/singleton) / 7+ CPs, second-round ♠ control 4N-5♣ RKCB / 0 or 3 7♥ 12 top tricks and a spade ruff, or we can ruff a minor good on a trump lead The RKCB bid is to guard against N having, for example, KQxx/AKQxxxx/x/x, which is 7 CPs as promised but makes the grand slam somewhat tenuous. When N shows 3 keycards, there are enough values knocking about to bid 7: N has promised a 6-card ♥ suit to the AKQ, ♠AK(x), and therefore has at least one minor with a doubleton.

Unnamed Homebrew Diamond: 1♦ - 1♥ 16+, excluding GF / 0-7, denies a 6-card suit to an honour 2♣ - 2♥ Suit, usually 5+, NF / Suit, some values 3N

Unnamed Homebrew Diamond: 1♦-1♥ 16+, excluding GF / 0-7 any 2♦-2N Natural, usually 5+ cards, NF / top of range, balanced/semi-balanced end 16 facing 6-7, and partner's got no real diamond fit? He suggests 2NT? Don't mind if I do. Of course, there's the possibility N decides to bid 2♥ instead, and I think S passes that as well.

Unnamed Homebrew Diamond: 1♦-1N 16+, excluding GF / weak or slam try with ♣ 2♠-2N At least tolerance, and a suit / No ♠ fit, but slam try in ♣ 3♣-4♣ Suit agreement, GF / 4 or 6 CPs (here it's A=2, CQ=1, Hx=1) 4♥-5♣ Second-round ♥ control (and 7+ CPs) / Also second-round ♥ control, and 4 CPs 7♣ S can bid 7♣ here because N has shown a 6+ card suit to an honour, 0-2 spades, and a singleton heart; he's also promised 4 CPs. Those 4 could be Kx/x/x/QJxxxxxxx, but N should ask for keycards with that hand instead of using Swiss. S can therefore deduce that N has the CA; he's therefore got diamonds that can be ruffed. The worst-case hand is something like xx/x/xxxx/AQJxxx, and that's not good enough for a single-suited slam try. The key to bidding this one is our weak-or-slam-try transfer responses. They've appeared about 3 times at the table, and on each one we've had a very good board out of them!

If N opens: 1♣-2♥ 10-15, no 5cM, not 4-4 majors OR 11-13 bal / weak takeout or slam try in ♠ 2♠-4♣ To play opposite weak hand / 4 or 6 CPs 4♠ No slam interest If S opens: P-1♦ 16+, excluding GF 1♠-2♥ 8+ (almost) any / Single-suited ♠ OR short ♥ OR both minors 2♠-2N Relay / single-suited option 3♦-3♠ Suit / no better bid 4♠ To play So, in either case, we reach 4♠ by N.

First off, in the original hand N has 3CPs as he doesn't have the ♦K. We count singletons as 1 CP. As for voids: we also count those as singletons if responding to the slam try. We try not to make a slam try of this type when holding a void: there are many different enquiries we can make (e.g. Exclusion, etc.; on some sequences we have cue-bidding available). Full system notes are available at http://www.matthew.ath.cx/misc/systemnotes.pdf - the section on this slam method is at p.34 (General Swiss). We picked it up from another player at the Cambridge Bridge Club (I think we tweaked it a bit, but I can't remember).

(i) we count the trump Q as a control (ii) after establishing that we may have enough CPs for slam (11 for small, 13 for grand), we bid 2nd-round controls up the line. If duplication is found, we sign off. Obviously with 6 facing 6, for example, we can ignore the first point of duplication (K facing singleton). (iii) I miscounted N's controls; on the actual hand he's only got 3 CPs (DA, C singleton) and would therefore sign off in 4♠ Let's modify the hands a little to T943 JT965 AK3 9 AKQ8 KQ Q974 A85 Here S still has 7 CPs (2 aces at 2 each, 2 kings at 1 each, trump Q at 1) and N now has 4 (A, K, singleton). The auction, from S making a slam try in S, would be: 4♦-4♥ 5 or 7 CPs, agreeing ♠/interest in slam opposite 7 5♥-6♠ Second-round ♥ control, no 2nd-round control in either minor, 7 CPs/7 facing 4, no duplication, => 11 working CPs, a fit, and hopefully enough for slam. I hope this illustration is a little clearer!

1♦-1♠ 16+, excluding GF/8+ (almost) any 1N-2♦ 16-19 bal/transfer ♥ 2♥-3♥ denies 4-card support/6+ ♥, mild slam try (some negative inferences available) 4♥ No particular slam interest if partner can't bid anything stronger than 3♥ If E doubles 1♠, the auction could continue the same way. The alternative is that S passes, showing a balanced 16-19 without a ♠ stop, but I think Q9xx is safe enough. In that latter case, N ends up playing 4♥ on a similar sequence.

Unnamed Homebrew Diamond: 2♠-2N Weak ♣ OR weak (♥ and minor) OR GF (♥ and minor)/enquiry (weaker bids available) 3N-6♥ 3-loser hand, red suits/cover 2 losers and prefer ♥

Unnamed Homebrew Diamond: 2♣-2♦ weak ♦ OR weak majors OR GF majors OR 20-23 bal / pass-or-correct 2N-2♦ 20-23 bal / transfer ♥ 3♥-3♠ denies 4-card support / also 4 ♠ 4♦-4♥ 5 or 7 CPs, agreeing ♠ / interest in slam opposite 7 5♣-5♠ second-round ♣ control / signoff as there is ♣ duplication