Jinksy

I bid hyper-aggressively in competition, for what that's worth. I'm not wedded to Landy, but I haven't found anything simple enough to be playable in infrequent partnerships (which all of mine are) that I prefer.

I normally play new suits at the four level after a strong hand has shown a single-suiter as a cue agreeing their suit, which would make this an easy 4♣ bid.

It has perfectly cromulent precedent: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7809160.stm

Agree with Timo. As S I'd bid 3♦, but I shouldn't have had the chance. N's 2♦ is a crime, IMO (and I'm hopelessly timorous in constructive auctions).

I can't see myself finding slam here. With N's C length, it's clear South has shortage, which means his hand can be quite weak. Swap South's red suits and he still has his call, IMO, but now even the five level looks dangerous.

I don't see any reason to prefer 3N over X unless partner is a very sound preemptor, and it's hard to imagine pass being the best % action unless his preempts here will be total junk.

[hv=pc=n&w=s2haq85d64caq9874&e=sqj87hkt62dt9ck63&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=2c(10-13ish%20points%2C%205%2BCs%20%5Bwith%20shortage%20if%20only%205%5D)ppp]266|200[/hv] Teams. E's option, if he wanted to seek game, was a 2♦ feature ask, forcing to 3♣ (also allowing you to get out in 3M), in response to which opener would reveal if he had a 4cM, and whether he was max or min for his opening bid. So should W have upgraded to a 1♣ opener (nominally 14+ HCP when unbalanced), should E have sought game, or both, or neither? And how close is it for each player?

What do you do if partner cues the suit for you (or bypasses it, whichever he would do with KQxey holdings)? Even if you get to cue it again, how is partner supposed to react with such a holding, when he's relying on that suit as a potential source of tricks? And what if he's got a holding such as Axx, and a marginal hand for slam exploration? Once he finds out you've got a void (/if he's lucky enough to and doesn't cue the ace himself), his hand falls apart, but now he's shown encouragement and he might not have a good way to put the breaks on, especially if someone's already given some kind of keycard count (after the first OP sequence, we'd play a 4♦ cue as Turbo).

At vul partner's hand should be purer, not drowning in random honours. ♠x ♥Kxx ♦AQxxxxxx ♣x is a worse vul 4♦ bid than ♠x ♥xxx ♦AQxxxxxx ♣x - I would prefer to open the former 1♦ than at the four level.

Suppose you're playing a natural(ish) system, and have these three auctions: 1♦ 2♦* / 3♠ 1♦ 2♦* / 4♠ 1♦ 2♦* / 5♠ * inverted, unlimited On my current agreements with most partners, 3♠ would be a splinter, therefore 4♠ would be voidwood, and 5♠ is undefined. First off, is that about what most people here would have as their typical agreements? I've been wondering recently if using 4♠ as voidwood is really sensible. There are a number of hands with a spade void that aren't strong enough to slamforce opposite just the requisite number of aces, that have to kick off with a splinter. But splintering with a void is dubious at the best of times, esp for a minor, and even more so in some of my partnerships where we play Turbo, which leaves you without any ability to show a void when signalling keycards. Since in many voidwood auctions you're forcing to small slam anyway (you're obviously strong enough that you don't care much about P's input), would it make more sense to play 5♠ as voidwood here and 4♠ as just void showing, asking P to evaluate his hand much like a normal splinter? I think I've heard of people doing this, but don't know how common/effective it is. If you have extra strength you can cue on past P's signoff anyway, and he might get another chance to show you his KCs. I'm not looking for anything very complicated here, since these hands are too rare to give much chance of remembering anything counterintuitive, though interested in other possible ways of solving the same set of problems.

It looks like one to me. Swap the red suit honours and it looks like a decent game, which you're not reaching unless E forces you to it (switch them both for the KQ of Cs and it looks excellent). If the partnership standard is to open most 11 counts, and the W hand could be Qxxxx Qxx Axx Kx (or worse), I might reconsider.

Hand 1 I think the early auction is to blame. Rather than bid ♣ to show 3 card support, I'd prefer to bid 2♥ and show my five card suit. I'll regret it if 5♣ comes back to me and I haven't shown S support, but otherwise it seems more likely to land us at the right strain and level. Then with W, on the auction as given, I think he's worth a 4♠ bid. I'd like a better than 8-card trump suit, but it seems likely that all P's values will be working. Having made those calls with each hand, I'd probably replicate the rest of the auction. Both EW have values in the side suits, and neither of us have reason to think we have 5-level safety, so let's take the money. Hand 2, I think I would find game and wish I hadn't. E's hand looks like a respectable minimum splinter. But 4♠ is in serious trouble on a C lead - 'lucky make' seems like an understatement for 'requiring a 4-2 or 5-1 split and both aces in the short hand (and no disasters in trumps)'.

Ditto. I would play 4m here as natural, so I don't seem to have any sane options. Don't ask me what I'd lead.

I'll come out as S in this auction now. I don't claim that I bid this well, but I don't agree with some of what has been said. Firstly, I still hate a direct 1N overcall with Ax in their suit. 5cMs or no, the expected min length of whichever opps' club suit is the longest is surely close to 5 (if not greater) here. If so I do not want to be in game opposite P's random 9 count, since I strongly doubt we'll have 8 cashing tricks elsewhere. My feeling was 1♦ ~= X > 1N. Secondly, everyone seems convinced N's UCB shows a solid 10+ points. For a bid that only pushed us to the 2 level, that seems like very inefficient partitioning, given that even at these colours P will likely raise on something close to a suitable Yarborough. No less than Andrew Robson recently wrote a column claiming that at MPs, UCBs should be about 8+ as standard since (IIRC) once P's shown values it makes it easier to X them if they over-compete, and makes it commensurately less likely that they'll compete in the first place. (I've seen a number of people here complain about the overly strict requirements for Drury, and that's in a constructive auction where P's lower bound is already higher the Drury bid's lower bound is lower, and it otherwise seems analogous) Thirdly - in part because of the previous point, but however much strength we're supposed to have between us - 3♦ didn't look to me like a forcing bid. If P wanted to probe for 3N, I reasoned, he could have bid 3M. The odds of us wanting to pursue a diamond slam esp at this scoring seem remote (and there are plenty of other ways of doing it), so 3♦ looks like a 'I have nothing more to say' bid. Expecting no help in clubs and no substantial extras opposite, I didn't think 3N's prospects seemed any brighter than when I was considering my first call. I felt (and still feel) that with 2-4 points to spare (depending on whether you accept the previous point), N should have bid his major stops, over which I'd intended to rebid 3N, admitting to a weak C stop. I can be persuaded out of any of this but asserting that '3♣ sets up a gameforce' isn't enough.

How would you rate an initial X?

Then I hope you will accept a further 40% for failing to observe the word 'MPs'.

That was an error when I first posted, but I fixed it before anyone replied :\

It would only make sense if you think 1♥ is forcing, obv. I don't know what, if anything, is standard here.

[hv=pc=n&s=skt2ha72dat987ca4&n=saqjht654dkq65c75&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=1c1dp2cp3cp3dppp]266|200[/hv] MPs with two BBFers, but very few agreements. N thought that S was derelict in failing to show a C stop or a balanced hand. S thought that N had only shown about an 8 count, so didn't want to admit to what he thought a poor stop unless N showed some extras. What should have happened?

Tits. It was a D (edited in).

Hoodwinking those two is a hell of a boast! That said, if they credited him with competence, the auction seems deeply suspicious - like cueing a suit then blasting slam over P's sign-off to 'persuade your opponents not to lead that suit' - so letting him get away with it was a bit of an insult. I hope he suitably counter-gloated :P

I'm not sure it's that hard when you know it's the best play. On a few occasions I've deliberately reached for the centre of two cards and taken whichever one came loose from my fingers first. Sure it's not random, but the bias isn't likely to be anything your opps can take advantage of. IMO the OP would match Mollo's stories best if HH's alternate were Molly the Mule.

Follow-up question: [hv=pc=n&s=sj62h62dk876cakq6]133|100[/hv] This was the S hand (pips invented since I don't have the hand saved). Do you agree with S's actions as described in the OP? If not, what would you change?

[hv=pc=n&n=skq9763hdaq75cj96&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1sp2c(nat%20GF)2h2s5h]133|200[/hv] At this point, the two auctions diverge. In auction 1, you're playing Fantunes, so with your opening 1♠ you already showed a hand about a king stronger than a normal opening. Over 5♥, partner makes a forcing pass, and you X to show a min (agree?). He now rebids 5♠, showing some slam interest. What's your call? In auction 2, you're playing regular 2/1, so your opening 1♠ showed about a king less, and partner's GF 2♣ showed about a commensurate king more than in auction 1. Over 5♥, P now just bids 5♠. What's your call now?

[hv=pc=n&e=sj8hqt2dkq87cqj82&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1np2nppp]133|200[/hv] Your lead at either form of scoring? Just about anything seems as though it could be best at either.