BillPatch

Further remarks about my unpersonality. A lead from JTx is not safe, so unlikely to be right on this auction. If forced to do it I haven't analyzed the falsecarding position fully, but surely I would play the false Ten at least as often as the Jack.

As I previously stated, the reason I like Mungar's Kickback is that, for its capabilities, it is quite a bit simpler than Kantar's suggested asks in minor suit auctions. I am sure that your VKCB has many fine ideas, and I have enjoyed several of your well written books in the past, so it is on my "buy" list, but I don't know what use all these books on advanced asks will do me as all of my play is with fairly casual partnerships.

In general it does, although most good intermediate and higher players have developed additional advanced hand evaluation skills to aid in making most game decisions.

A lead from 10x in diamonds is likely on this auction if the opening leader has quacks in the other suits. Opening leader should do it slightly more frequently than that result, to avoid making the lead from 10x always give honest info about the other suits. Edit: Responding to Gnsher's "People don't lead from 10x...." I'm proud to be an unperson.

We are several tricks into the play and the final contract is 3♠. If one cannot figure out the trump suit from that info, may I suggest another game.

I also fail to see the merit of the free raise to 3♣. This hand has a very high ODR for a TO double. Very low chance odds of defeating 4♠ opposite almost all maximum 2 club bids which did not forget to bid 1NT. I prefer the immediate advance sac at 5♣, although I see a little merit in temporarily not announcing the club fit and waiting to get more info before taking the sac.

Two reasons I like the pass: we tend to preempt rather light at our club, even if at times the pass is not the optimal IMPs percentage bid for that particular deal, if the opponents find they must play their overcalls they will learn not to intervene so often at this vulnerability.

I received the book from Amazon about two weeks ago. Robert Munger. Kickback, Slam Bidding at Bridge. Toronto: Master Point Press. 2014. I loved the book, though from the blank expressions on some of my partner's faces when I "accidently" tried a queen ask in normal RKC, there are many other things I need to teach first. A pity. Munger has distilled the essence of this convention into a minimum set of concise, but understandable rules that retain 98% of the power of the system of key card asks developed in his 5th RKC book: Roman Key Card Blackwood, the Final Word, with only about 20% of the memory work. In Kantar's work 4NT is the only key card ask for the majors. For the minors the key card ask may be same suit KCB, or next suit KCB, depending on bidding sequence. Also, in the Kantar methods, 1430 responses are used when the asker is assumed to be the stronger hand, and 0314 the other way around. In Munger's methods, 98% of the time 0314 is used. The other 2% are logically explained, occur only when the suit immediately above the agreed suit has been previously bid by the partner ship so it must be skipped over as a potential trump suit. Like Kantar's RKC, the method can be learned and played in discrete steps. After the first 15 pages which are chapter 1 Starting Out, and Chapter 2 What's Trump? Offers a first stepping stone for students who have not mastered the intricacies of RKC. (From the construction of the book Munger suggests that the first six chapters be completed before the first comprehensive quiz: this teaching suggestion is my own.) Most of the other chapters correspond to the regular treatments of RKC starting at 4NT, by transferring the corresponding asks and responses down as many levels corresponding to the ask suit. For example, the K ask at Ask suit + 5 corresponds to the usual rules for showing individual kings after the 4NT+5= 5NT K ask. The trump queen ask is the next step above responder's first response that is not a potential trump suit as in RKC. The new material can be introduced at whatever rate the class can digest it.

Now I see. We assume the leader was cheating because he was convicted on the evidence of other deals, and this hand the crime didn't pay.

I am glad to have company in my uncertainty.

I don't see how it fails. Cashing winners to reach the end position seems automatic. Then on the squeeze trick, either the last heart falls, the Q♠ falls, or we test the diamonds.

I lke both free's and nige1's solutions, but find it difficult to make a decision between them. I think I was headed towards Nige1's squeeze position, and I am relieved that free's warning about entries in that line was wrong. Any other thoughts?

This BBO forum may not like the low spade lead. But a lead of an unbid suit against a NT contract is not "highly unusual." I repeat: this is not evidence of cheating. Certainly, this is not a "smoking gun".

Because of the ACBL regs, I have not had the opportunity of practicing Fantunes in live completion, so my feel for the system may be poor. Perhaps several of the other voters also lack experience, so if you do being outvoted in the poll shouldn't bother you. Otherwise, IMHO your assumptions are off. Sorry I failed to analyze the club part score. For argumentative purposes, I conceded to show that this was near worst case, and other cases would be enough better that the reopening double might be superior. The spade result should be about 8 1/2 tricks for declarer; you assumed 8, I 9. I also assumed that with the given hand my partner would bid game because of the potential vulnerable bonus after the encouraging reopening double.

dup.

Yes. So sorry.

Against that opener reopening will probably cost us as we would presumably be down one in both rooms after partner bids the spade game over our double. But partner frequently has other distributions, some of which would make our combined values enough for a biddable, percentage games in the red suits or NT. A conservative partner might even sometimes make a game in spades.

I reopen with a double. I hate the quacks, and doubling them into game, but we are close to game ourselves, and while partner will make a penalty pass too frequently, we will often set it one. On this distribution I would double with the most terrible spots, but not if a jack were removed.

dup

Normally with such a good offensive hand with a high chance of an overtrick I would control bid in search of slam. Here my void in diamonds probably duplicates the values in partner's main suit, so I would not. If the contract was doubled my main difficulty would be avoiding a premature sign of glee. But avoiding game. Ken has all my sympathies and none go to his partner.

Another option is to always use Kleinman's suggestion 4♣ after simple minor agreement below the 4 level to show the RKC ask. Definitely simpler than the other methods, so it satisfies the KISS principle.

If one is playing the 2♥ response as the bust hand the treatment suggested in Bridge World for the uninterrupted auction 2♣ 2♥ 2♠ (puppet to 2NT) 2NT 3 of opener's suit to show the NF suit 2 club openers offers clarity to many more hands than the OP treatment for the first three bids in this auction, so I think it superior. Game Forcing suit hands bid the suit directly over the 2 hearts "drop dead" bid.

If it might be worse, then -300 by definition is not the worst. I admit 4♥ is tempting, even if the best possible reward appears to be an NV game.

I for one will continue to spell the idiom "just desserts". I must admit I did not recognize the now rare alternate definition of desert. The Grammarist notes that most 21st century quotes no longer use the older spelling and while some may not like it, I now choose to be avant-garde. I wonder if the heading has anything to do with the bridge hand. Surely none of the choice here are outlandish enough to be evidence of cheating. This is not a "smoking gun".

Not that I am afraid to ask, for surely I am not expert-class, but I share the judgment of Josh Donn and Marty Bergen that finding the proper contract outweighs the awful information loss, so I won't ask.