foo

4333, soft values, 9 losers, etc. Your hand is not very good for game. Even 3H might be too high (and X'd into oblivion on a bad day). OTOH, you do have 11 HCP that are all protected or almost protected. Put the X card on the table, letting GOP know you have a 2 way hand like this, and let Opener decide whether to Compete to 3H or Defend.

Without more specialized or advanced agreements, 1H-2H;2S means "I have a medium strength hand whose 2nd longest suit is ♠'s that might be able to make 4H if you have the right hand." 1H-2H;2S-3C means "I have a maximum 2H raise that is not excited by your 2nd suit. Are you excited by =my= 2nd suit?" These are called "natural game trys". They are often superceeded by Short Suit, Long Suit, and 2Way Game Trys in more advanced partnerships. In particular, I recommend the game tries Eric Kokish developed while playing with Peter Nagy called Nagy Game Trys.

W's hand is strong enough with 12 Dummy points (11 HCP + 1 for the doubleton) to take one more bid after E declines the invite with what might be a minimum overcall. W should first cue bid, then bid 2N to show pard that they have almost GF extras and ♥'s very well stopped. OF course, this is a descriptive Game Try. At that point, E should raise to 4S since W is promising to cover 2-3 of the losers in their H suit in addition to having the values for a almost GF raise... ...and all that is =without= W knowing that EW have a 9, not 8, card fit. E does know that EW have a 9+ card trump fit. As the saying goes, "the 9th trump is often the most important card in bridge." It certainly is here.

Now things get interesting.... I'm the partner. I had: ♠KQT6 ♥J76 ♦9654 ♣82 Spots may be wrong. Can you hit the brakes hard enough? Or is this a guaranteed nightmare? Our actual auction: 1♣ 1♠ 2♥ 3♥ 3♠ 3NT 4♣ P Partner correctly interpreted 3♥ followed by 3NT as denying a diamond stop (with 3 hearts and a diamond stop I bid NT directly over 2♥). I still don't know if 3♠ was forcing (I certainly took it that way). As others have said, a ♥ raise here by responder should show 4+H. In addition, a raise or a 4th suit here should promise GF values. Opener's minimum is a 5 loser, control rich 17 count (...this is the "strong reverse" style. Some folks, like many Acolytes, play a "medium+ strength reverse" style...). That means Responder needs 8+ HCP and a known fit or 9+ HCP without a fit to GF after a Reverse. KQTx_Jxx_9xxx_8x is not good enough to GF opposite any syle of reverse. The traditional "bid of misery" after a reverse is 2N. Or one can use the "catchall" rebid of your suit if you have 5+ cards in it (this last is not defined in strength. That's why it is a catchall and not a misery bid). If playing a method like Ingberman (spelling?), which I highly recommend once you are ready for it, the "misery bid" becomes the cheapest new =strain=, not neccesarily 2N. We'll ignore the use of advanced artificial methods for now. The use of the misery bid or the catchall bid is still forcing, but not GF. Opener must bid again, but Responder has now warned Opener that they may very well pass Opener's next bid. So... 1C-1S;2H-2N;?? Axx_AKQ8_K_KJ9xx OPENER DOES NOT HAVE A 20 PLAYING POINT HAND. (Sorry for the all caps, but no one has made this fundamentally important point yet in this thread.) Given the auction, the DK is very likely waste paper. Opener should re-evaluate their hand at ~17 playing points. IOW, a minimum reverse. ...and rebid their original 5+ card suit as =their= "misery bid". In some partnerships, Opener is actually allowed to pass 2N, but that is a minority style. Regardless, 2N or 3C should be the final contract unless Responder has something extra to add to the auction.

CC Wei does not belong on this list. He =hired= theorists, including some on that list, to invent Precision for him. CC Wei was a =client=. That does not take away from his major contribution in seeing to it that Precision exists and is the single most played system in the world (since Precision is Chinese Standard and Bridge is taught in the public grammer schools in China). Also, Hamman is a fine player, but he is very much !not! a bidding theorist. People not on this list who should be George Rapee- who is the NA inventor of Stayman (Marx gets the nod on the other side of The Puddle) Dave Carter- who invented the transfers Oswald Jacoby got named after him. Dave Cliff- who invented relays, Uncontested IJS by Responder, etc Bobby Goldman- whose work on Aces Scientific became the world's 2nd most played system: 2/1 GF. and numerous others who I can't think of ATM

I stand corrected and apologize for my mistake. (I only highlighted the lines below the warning as is tradtitional until you made your immediately previous post. Then I highlighted the entire post to find out what was going on.) OTOH, in the context of the actual question of the OP, we are not allowed to draw any inference from CHO's hesitation. We can from an opponent's. We =have= to play CHO as Having Their Bid. Then use our best Bridge Judgement to decide what to do. If CHO's potential UI is blatent, then we have the additional burden of having to not choose any Logical Alternative that might be suggested by the UI as long as there is any other LA to choose. In short, if CHO bids in tempo or close enough to it, you get to use your judgement. If not, then you have to decide what their hesitation might imply and then =choose something else if it at all makes sense to do so.= So if CHO's pause suggests not sacrificing in 7D, you now =must= sacrifice in 7D if there is any chance that a significant number of your peers as players would take the sac.

I would have raised to 3♠ in the previous round with the South hand... Vulnerable at imps, you want to bid those 35% games. How am I supposed to know this is only a 20% game during the bidding? Steven Bad bidding judgement to upgrade S's 7 count to an Invite. Make S =5341 or =5143 instead of =5242, and then you have a legitimate argument for a possible upgrade. The double fit is nice, but having 4 likely losers in your short suits is simply too many to upgrade a HCP poor hand to a Limit Raise.

Presumably you meant to append "... had they been cheating as alleged"? I said what I meant. I have some inside knowledge of the case. Let's put it this way. The majority opinion was that Reese and Shapiro cheated even before the supposedly true statements after Reese's death. Reese was legitimately a WC player in his day, and one of the 2 best authors of advanced bridge books to have ever lived. Shapiro =in his 90's= could execute Stepping Stone Squeezes ATT as fast as Rodwell or Helgamo can now. Either as a pair or as individuals, Reese and Shapiro were superior players to Katz and Cohen. Yet Katz and Cohen had a better success rate with unusual opening leads than Reese and Shapiro did. When that kind of disparity exists between skill level and the success of unusual opening leads, it is a serious red flag. "Hard" evidence like Video simply makes incontrovertable what was already extraordinarily likely.

X'ing or bidding 3N To Play is sick. The Logical Alternatives are pass or bidding 4N asking GOP to pick a 5m contract. (If GOP has length and stops in both Majors, they can pass 4N) The 3H preempt has a traditional range of 4-9 HCP. They are likely at the top half of this range given the circumstances (1st Chair all Vul at IMPs). That means 22, 23, or 24 HCP are likely accounted for; giving GOP 8-9 HCP, maybe 10 HCP, as their likely "fair share" HCP holding. GOP needs to have 3 good cards or 2 good cards + a useful stiff or void for you to make 5m. If you think pard is > 1/3 of having the right cards, bid 4N. Else pass.

What part of leads you to the conclusion that partner bid in tempo? The OP's hidden comment was "little pause before the 6♥ bid" No comment was made about the tempo of the 4♦ bid.

opps at other table bid and made 4♠...Yes, I'd wanted to be in 4♠ as well. B) That's Resulting. Just because someone got lucky does not mean they were playing good bridge!

If it had been standard procedure to video tape partnerships, Katz & Cohen (!not! the same Cohen that plays with Berkowitz) would have been easily found guilty of cheating. ...and I agree with mikeh that those caught cheating should be Shunned from Organized Bridge. Cheating, as opposed to simply being unethical, is the worst possible crime in Bridge. Which is why we as a community have to be =very= careful about accusations of cheating and only convict of cheating when we have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that a player or pair was cheating. The Katz-Cohen case, like the Reese-Shapiro case, was botched in both the evidence gathering and the prosecutorial phases.

I missed a small ♦. Please edit the otiginal Post accordingly?

OK, let's look at this logically. Here are all the 4SF auctions: 1C-1D;1H-1S 1C-1H;1S-2D 1D-1H;1S-2C 1D-1H;2C-2S* 1D-1S;2C-2H* 1H-1S;2C-2D 1H-1S;2D-3C* All the other auctions involve a Reverse by Opener or a 2/1 by Responder and therefore eat so much space they must be GF (I'll ignore the "cheapest new strain by Responder after Opener's Reverse" issue here.). Tradition says that 1C-1S-1H-1S is not considered a 4SF auction in either Standard or 2/1. 1D-1H;2C-2S has a Responder's Reverse. This has to be GF. 1H-1S;2D-3C goes past 2N and therefore eats so much space it also has to be GF. Clearly, we have a decent amount of room after Responder rebids 2m. Playing those auctions as either GF or Inv+ is probably OK since We have enough sequences available to deal with just about any problem board. 1D-1S;2C-2H is the potential problem for those who want to play 4SF as Inv or Inv+ since things are just a wee bit cramped. Therefore, it makes since to make this auction GF. Thus the logical "expert" rule is that if a 4SF auction occurs where Responder rebids 2m, then it is Inv+. OTOH, if Responder's 4th suit rebid is 2M, a Reverse, or past 2N, it is GF.

Am I to understand that the Auction in #1 was by Them and Uncontested thus: (2D)-(2S); (3C)-(4H); (4S)-AP?

The hesitation was before the =6H= bid, not by GOP. We are allowed to take inferences from the opponents. :( OTOH, in this case IMHO there is no need to. Trust GOP to have their bid and use logic accordingly.

Most players learn Jacoby 2N fairly early in their Bridge life. If a player is not playing J2N, then "the book" definition of 1M-2N depends on whether you are playing with someone from NA or if they are from mainland Europe. In NA, the "natural" meaning of 1M-2N is a balanced minimum opening bid, say 12-14 HCP or 13-15 playing points, usually w/o 4 card support unless in a 4333. Most Europeans would consider "natural" for 1M-2N to be an Invitational hand, say ~10-11 HCP or ~11-12 playing points. Again, usually w/o 4 card support unless in a 4333.

Since you say you want to learn, 1= Your bidding methods are too aggressive. A jump raise by Opener should have more playing strength than a strong NT. 2= Then you lied to partner by jump raising to 3H with a hand that is not even good enough by your (overly optimistic) agreements. ...and overbidding looks like it is about to get the punishment it deserves. Given the D8 lead by LHO, you rate to take 4 ♠'s + ~2.25 ♥'s + 1 ♦ = ~7.25 tricks (IOW be ~ -2.75) if you just pull trump etc. Since you rate to lose 2 trumps and have already lost a ♣, look at your ♦ spots and give serious consideration to what happens if you play the DQ on T2.

1= 4♠ 2= 3♠ forcing 3= Pass. ♠QJT75 ♥QJT3 ♦AT ♣J6 has what 2 defensive tricks for a 1st or 2nd chair 1S? Give me one less loser or 1 more defensive trick and I will open it 1S in 1st or 2nd chair. 4= Pass. I have a =3343, 8 loser, 12 count. (Do a little chart on the expected outcomes if Opener has 12-14 and Responder has 6-9.)

It is always safer to compete when They are known to have a fit rather than when the hand is or might be a misfit. In addition, there is no need to be hyper-aggressive vs a Forcing 1N response. Since Opener will not pass 1N, you don't have to commit yourself quite as quickly with borderline hands. Finally, keep all of a= the vulnerability ratio b= the level you have to compete at c= where your values are placed compared to theirs d= the conditions of contest in mind when you decide what to do. ...and in general, the weaker Their bid, the sounder your bid should be.

Trust GOP. They are supposed to have at least something like AQJxxxx in ♦'s and a side stiff or void for their 4D Jump Overcall. This means either one or both of EW are void in ♦'s, and 6H rates to make. ♠xxx ♥Ax ♦KTxxx ♣xxx has 7 losers given that you are not losing any ♦'s If GOP can cover 2 of them, you are -5 in 7DX. Since we are White vs Red, 7DX -5 is -1100, vs 6H making for -1430 for Us. Even if GOP can only cover 1 of your losers, you are only -1400 in 7DX. Bid 7D in tempo. If CHO does not have their 4D bid, you discuss it civilly at the break. I also agree with the post that said bidding only 5D was too conservative. You should have had all of the above thoughts on the previous round and bid 6D or 7D at your 1st opportunity.

I'm with Inquiry on this. Unfortunately, you have to be in the right partnership to play anything more complicated than the "standard" 4th Suit GF.

1= It might not be the right lead, but the natural lead from ♠K3 ♥T9 ♦J987 ♣AQ943 is the D9 (or D8 depending on your agreements on leads from honor holdings.) 2= The auction starts (2♥) - 2♠ - (3♦) - ?? You hold ♠K52 ♥JT5 ♦7 ♣AQJ875 I agree with mikeh that 4D seems a bit much. OTOH, I am not sanguine about a simple 4S bid either. In the right partnerships, I can bid 4C in this auction as a Fit Showing Non Jump.

The best "natural" systems for finding the ♦ slam are those based on 1N= 12-14 like KS. For them, the following sequence shows a very strong minor suit oriented hand just shy of a 2C opener. For such systems, a 4 loser hand (or a very strong 5 loser hand) containing at least 6 controls is the norm for the following: 1D-1H;3D Once Responder knows that Opener has a hand that powerful, those ♣ controls become =much= more significant. Responder now knows that NS have a 9+♦ fit and most likely at most 3 losers and at least 9 Controls between the 2 hands. IMHO, this is a still a difficult slam to reach even after that, but you definitely have a better chance than if you were playing 2/1 GF. NS's best chance at this point is probably for S to simply trust that their 2 cover cards are enough if the trumps are good enough and bid Minorwood: ...4D!;4S (showing 3 Keycards) - 4N (Asking for the CQ); The key bid is when Opener shows the CQ because they have more trumps than expected and shows the SK as well with 5S. 6D can now be bid. Thus: 1D-1H;3D-4D;4S-4N;5S-6D

OK, in that case, and given the 1st two rounds of the defense, I am not playing for ♥'s to be 7:1. (Also, the bidding makes it unlikely that E is =1156, pruning one of the shapes where ♥'s could be 7:1). So I'm playing ♥'s to be AKxxx:J87 or AKJxxx:7x IMO the C9 is a stiff, so ♣'s are 9:QTxxxx. This makes W most likely to be something like =3541, =2551, =2641, =3631 And E =1336, =2326, =2236, =1246 Respectively. I'm also playing W to be far stronger than E and for the ♦ honors to be very likely split. So, win the CA and then ruff a ♥ =small=. If I'm wrong, I rate to be -2 (E overruffs and gives W a ♣ ruff; and I still have my original 3 losers.) If I'm wrong, I get picked on by teammates and around here as well *shrug*. If ruffing a ♥ small survives, I'll post more of what I'm planning. No point posting further on this if not.