Jinksy

Presumably the best people to partner with would be those who made approximately oppositely conservative calls to you?

Thanks to PK for a really fun quiz, and helene for a helpful breakdown. I will wear my award with far more pride than it merits. I have very restricted time for the forums atm, but would be really aggreived to miss a similar thread. If PK (or anyone) does another one and anyone thinks of it, please could they PM me to let me know?

Multiple companies.

What results were close? The only sample set I've seen above is BillPatch's results with Jack: It's a small sample, but still, 1.7 IMPs per hand is a huge gain in my book.

Gordon, could you number your responses? I'd like to compare, but it's giving me too much of a headache in their current format.

1. 4♠ 2. 4♠ 3. 4♠ 4. 4♠* 5. P 6. X 7. 5♦ 8. X 9. 4♠ 10. 4♠ 11. P* 12. 4♠ 13. P 14. 4♠ 15. 4♠ 16. 4N (though I wonder if there's a case for 4S on hands like this, planning to rebid 4N after an X? Is there a reasonable hope of P passing with 4-card support? I don't much mind playing in a 3-3 undoubled - I think they're odds on to be making their contract) 17. 4♠ 18. P 19. Going to venture 4♠, planning to rebid 5♣ if I'm Xed 20. 4♠ 21. 4♠ 22. 4♠ 23. X * (ETA - Having read the other responses, I now feel like I should have Xed on these two, but I'll let my original bids stand to keep things more interesting) (I'm tempted to ignore this thread for a week or two, then give myself the same quiz again and see how much my answers change. Doubt I'll be able to resist looking at the results long enough, though)

Do have know the other hands? There might have been more action after a double.

Is that an MP decision, or would you pass at IMPs too?

Double. If partner passes and they don't XX, we're probably setting it. At a very low level, I find it often spooks them into playing the hand worse, too.

Hm, I voted for a club, and was surprised by the popularity of spades more than the unpopularity of clubs. Is it just the J that's steering people from a ♣ lead, or is there something more to it? It seems to me like any lead has a decent chance of chucking a key trick at the opps, and a spade also has the chance of guiding them towards picking up this suit rather than playing on another one that's not breaking so well. Meanwhile, if my top club was the T, I'd consider this a WTP, and with 5 cards in the suit, it feels relatively unlikely to give them a fourth trick in it.

I agree with Mason re the spade lead. Obviously there are arrangements where it can go worse even with any given card, but in general leading from QJxx is safeish if P has the A, K or T, leading from KJxx is only safeish if P has the A or Q. KJxx was almost the worst holding in bridge to lead from in (both) Bird and Anthias' books.

North's 2♥ is showing the full value of his hand. 3♦ is ok on values as a protective bid, but the wrong shape - double would give a better sense of 'ok diamonds and tolerance for spades'. 4♥ after partner's preferential limp is a new partner asking bid.

Did I open this 2♦ and hear 4m from P, by any chance?

Yes.

It's also worth clarifying with each other what you think 1m P 2♥ would mean. For many people, it's weak, with a range including some or all of the weaker responding hands with 6+ hearts. If so, then partner can infer when you bid and rebid the suit that you have a hand too good to respond that way immediately.

We play it (over weak NT) as a sign-off, on the grounds that it lets you seek marginal major games more safely.

I'm bidding 3♠ on the grounds that I'm secretly bidding 2♠, and this is the sort of auction on which I reliably underbid.

Pass. We're unlikely to miss much if P can't bid again, esp in the protective seat.

Assuming this is for a ruling, what standard of peers are we supposed to be? :P

What standard? Every bridge player I can think of either hasn't discussed the sequence in recent memory or has invented their own homebrew continuations to 1N. Anyway, voting for 3N now.

A TOX just promises that you can handle a heart response from P. That can be based on shape, significant extra strength, or something in between. I'd prefer an honour in my tripleton, but this still looks like a clear X to me.

Well lots of stronger players than me are opening, but I would have said beforehand this was a clear pass. The opps rate to have the values (inc top intermediates, often important on 20-20ish hands, esp when they have 2.7 jacks between them), so owning the spade suit just makes me think we have a cheap sac over their part score.

I'm surprised no-one's asked what 3♣ meant. Is it a decent suit, or just 4-5? Or other?

Andrew Robson recently wrote a column about avoiding game try bids at MPs on the grounds that they give too much help to the defence in holding over/undertricks. This hand looks like a textbook example of his point to me, and if I were planning to invite with game tries (I wasn't), then I'd be less keen still to just raise hearts (assuming that shows an invitation at MPs - I'm not sure if I've got the wrong end of the stick on that). That said, I seem to be consistently too wimpy in constructive auctions, but even at IMPs I'd prefer to pass this (vul I'd probably take the plunge). The lack of aces makes me feel like the spade suit's strength will never get its full value, since the defence will be able to cash any side-suit winners they have before we can ditch them. Meanwhile the opps' silence makes me think P has some of his values in clubs, which means the hands are unlikely to be too good a fit.

The auction hasn't finished yet! Assuming P doesn't X: 1) If P can't X a 4♠ response or Lightner double 6♣, I doubt a spade will achieve much. Put me down for A♦. 2) Urgh. RHO hasn't sniffed at spades, so his shape should be drastic: something like 3406 at the very least, more likely 2407, 2506, or even 1n0n. Leading the AD could let him pitch an unavoidable spade loser, the heart suit is too crucial for me to want to carve, but the same applies in Ss as for 1, so I'll probably opt for the ♣7, and apologise if it carves P's honour(s). Leading the Q♦ is also tempting since I doubt they'll cover, but it looks likely enough that they'll be cross-ruffing that the club seems to have slightly more offensive potential (and less chance of having to explain to P how I found the only lead to give them the contract). (ETA: I've just seen that I doubled to tell the opps how to play the contract, so forget the ♦ lead) 3) I suppose A♦ again for want of anything more sensible. It might run away on the ♠s, and prob won't do any harm. (this all assumes I trust the opps and P to have been reasonably competent. If they're not, then I might just play them for a bidding misunderstanding rather than actually having such a rare hand on 2, for eg, and if P's not, then a spade lead starts to look better)